Benchmark Results: World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm

Nice Review Chris...

Looking forward to the further information coming out this week on Ivy Bridge, as I was initially planning on buying Ivy Bridge, but now I might turn to Sandy Bridge-E

Great review as always Chris! looks like I'm staying with my 2500k for a while!

Great and long waited review - Thanks Chris!

Temps as expected are high on the IB, but better than early ES which is very good.

Those with their SB or SB-E (K/X) should be feeling good about now

saw this just pop up on google, posted 1 min ago, anyway im probably going to update i have a core i3 2100 so this is pretty good.

it's heeearrree!!!!! lol i though intel wan't launching it, been scouring the web for an hour for some mention.

Now, time to read the review.

It gets higher temps at lower frequencies? What the hell did Intel break?

I really wish they would introduce a gaming platform between their stupidly overpriced x79esque server platform and the integrated graphics chips they are pushing mainstream. 50% more transistors should be 30% or so more performance or a much smaller chip, but gamers get nothing out of Ivy Bridge.

It makes sense Intel is making this its quickest ramp ever, as they see ARM on the horizon in today's changing market.
They're using their process to get to places they'll need to get to in the future

OK after reading most of the review and definitely studying the charts;
I have a few things on my mind.

1.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
2.) imagine if Intel made an i7-2660K or something like the i5-2550K they have now.
3.) SB-E is not for gaming (too highly priced...) compared to i7 or i5 Sandy Bridge
4.) Ivy Bridge runs hot.......
5.) IB average 3.7% faster than i7 SB and only 16% over i5 SB = not worth it
6.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...

(moderator edit..)

Good review.

To me it shows 2 main things. 1) that Ivy didn't improve on Sandy Bridge as much as Intel was hoping it would, and 2) just how far behind AMD actually is...

It's a shame that this chip is marginally faster than 2700k. I guess it's all AMD fault. there is simply no pressure on Intel. Otherwise they would already moved to 8, 6, and 4 cores processors. Especially now when they have 4 cores under 77W.

Yea yea I know most apps won't use 8 cores, but that's only because there was no 8 cores processors in past, not the other way around

I don't know what to say... I'm not feeling jittery about upgrading and blowing $ on a new system... That is good I guess.
I would have liked to see a bigger jump in performance. I'm still very satisfied with the i5 2500K system I built last year... This may actually be bad for Intel as they simply didn't innovate as much as I thought they would...

Now I'm happy for buying 2500K instead of waiting for IB.

Good review. Overclockers = get SB, non-overclockers get IVB.

It has been rumored that Ivy Bridge will be more expensive than comparable Sandy Bridge because of limited launch supply for a while. Is that right that Intel really will set Ivy's price low?

I was more interested in the peak power consumption difference between Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge while running the processors at full load. That's where the real savings in power will be attained.

It's clear that while idling, there won't be much of a difference.

Too bad Tomshardware dropped the ball on that one.

Here is a more in-depth look at overclocking Ivy: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763 [...] vy-bridge.

Sry bad link, let's try again: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5763 [...] ivy-bridge