More Voltage, More Heat

Nice review!

1. Are there plans to release any K CPU's without the HD4000? will they OC higher?

2. Any chance of intel releasing a second stepping of K-series IB chips?

i agree that SB chips spoiled the OC world by making OC so easy and fruitful. IB has nothing to compare it to except SB.

Good old Intel. No competition and look what happens, the new generation is barely an upgrade over the previous. Anyone remember Intel PII 450s and the PIII 450s?

I'm not sure why the reviewers spent so much time figuring out the shrink made the core more dense, and somehow thought this was significant. I mean, really, this happens virtually every shrink, and this time the power dropped more than normal. Common sense should be telling people this is not the cause, but somehow people aren't understanding this.

It's very interesting that replacing the paste makes so much difference. This is obviously something Intel is aware of, since they do plenty of testing, and obviously chose anyway. Would a few pennies be worth it for a processor that is clearly on the higher end of the scale? Probably not.

Most likely, they want to keep selling their real high end processors, and it just won't do to have the 3770K beating their 2011 processors, or being very competitive with the successors to that line when they come out. It makes perfect sense. The 3770K is still a great processor, but if you're really looking for the best, it simply will not do. You're forced to buy the more expensive 3960X, and later the even better IB successor to it, which you can bet will have far better paste, and so will overclock significantly better.

It's genius. A great product for the vast majority, while leaving more expensive products as the best option for that elite that will actually spend $600 to $1000 for a processor.

Well done, Intel. It's not like AMD has anything to say about it.

Without the baseline clock for clock comparison (4.5 sandy vs 4.5 ivy), i'm afraid these results are pretty much useless. It's like doing an uncontrolled experiment and passing it off as real science.

as the manufacturing process gets smaller = Smaller die size, supposed to be cooler temperature,

but, with small die size = small area for heat dissipation,

...an irony that needs to be solved.

Recommending a closed loop liquid cooler? really?

They perform worse than decent air coolers. The lower end ones (think corsair's h60) perform like mid-low range air coolers and cost more. The better ones (h100 or antec's 920) perform on par or worse and with more noise than a similarly priced noctua. If noctuas looks too ugly for you, phantek and several others offer similar performing models.

The only reason to get closed loop lc is for looks. I admit they do give your build a nice clean look. That doesn't warrant "So, we're recommending a closed-loop liquid cooling setup, at least" though. If you'd changed that to "We're recommending higher end aftermarket coolers for a decent oc", it would've made more sense.

Anyway, I'm just nit-picking a single line from the article. All in all, it was a good read. It just makes me upset to hear wrong advice.

there is no performance advantage over the i7 2600k except for power consumption. I better buy an i7-3930k.

Absolutely true, digiex.......not far off the animal world parallel - check out the different temperature regulation methods here between large and small animals, particularly how difficult it is to regulate as the size becomes smaller.

I would like claims that Ivy Bridge procesor is overheating considerably more then Sandy Bridge addressed. And I thin k Intel really should make a better overall product and not cheat us like this.

I should be good to go for a while with my 2500k chugging along at 5Ghz, although I'll be on the look out once info on Haswell becomes more concrete.

Just wish there was something more competitive coming from AMD. It still feels weird not having something from them running under the hood after so many years. Up until when I built my system back in February, It had been about 8 years since I had an Intel CPU. It was nice while it lasted, at any rate.

it was never intended to be a huge upgrade, they never claimed anything like that, its just a die shrink with a few tweaks and additional features. And FYI the PIII was a lot faster when things were being written to take advantage of the new SSE instructions it provided.

ivy the winner.

This basically underscores what was already known: if you already have a Sandy Bridge, there's no use upgrading to Ivy Bridge unless it's a mobile platform (and possibly HTPC) where the lower power usage makes a difference. A few percent improvement in IPC doesn't offset the higher cost and poorer overclocking ability in the desktop space.

And GG on the cheap thermal paste, Intel. Way to artificially handicap your processors in an attempt to push enthusiasts to the overpriced -E models, where you won't save a few pennies per processor using cheap thermal paste instead of solder. We consumers just love bullshit like that.

The only significant difference between Katmai and Deschutes was SSE, and that alone didn't justify the change between generations. Because that was the only improvement, AMD could catch up with their Athlon at that time. It was a very dissapointing move from Intel.

I haven't shot for anything greater than 4.4Ghz on my 2500K. I wonder if my sad little Corsair H100 would handle 5Ghz well.

Sandy Bridge | Ivy Bridge | Haswell...

I sort of agree...wrong to make an efficiency comparison without keeping something constant...

One possible counter to the rapid thermal ramp up is to remove the die cover and get rid of the thermal paste bottleneck.

The hard part is getting the heatsink to fit, and not crush the die chip into silicon sand...