More Details on Ivy Bridge Models "S" and "T" Emerge
With the The First Intel Ivy Bridge CPU Clock Speeds and More story from earlier this week, we caught some of the early details of the first Ivy Bridge chips, which is set to release in April 2012. Now, with some more leaked information from Chinese site Corecn, via German site ComputerBase, we find out more information on S and T model numbers.
The table provides a full listing of remaining eight upcoming models, including model number, base frequency, cache size, cores/threads, memory speed, turbo boost speeds, Intel HD graphics, frequency / dynamic frequency and TDP ratings. It appears that Ivy Bridge will have similar clock speeds to current generation Sandy Bridge CPUs, just with a lower TDP based on Intel's transition to 22 nm from 32 nm transistor design.
| Processor | Base Frequency (GHz) | Total Cache (MB) | Cores / Threads | Memory Speed Support (DDR3) | Turbo Boost max single core (GHz) | Intel HD Graphics | Frequency / Dynamic Frequency (MHz) | TDP (W) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core i7-3770S | 3.10 | 8 | 4 / 8 | 1600, 1333 | 3.90 | 4000 | 650/1150 | 65 |
| Core i7-3770T | 2.50 | 8 | 4 / 8 | 1600, 1333 | 3.70 | 4000 | 650/1150 | 45 |
| Core i5-3570S | 3.10 | 6 | 4 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.80 | 2500 | 650/1150 | 65 |
| Core i5-3570T | 2.30 | 6 | 4 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.30 | 2500 | 650/1150 | 45 |
| Core i5-3550S | 3.00 | 6 | 4 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.70 | 2500 | 650/1150 | 65 |
| Core i5-3475S | 2.90 | 6 | 4 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.60 | 4000 | 650/1100 | 65 |
| Core i5-3470S | 2.90 | 6 | 4 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.60 | 2500 | 650/1100 | 65 |
| Core i5-3470T | 2.90 | 3 | 2 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.60 | 2500 | 650/1100 | 35 |
| Core i5-3450S | 2.80 | 6 | 4 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.50 | 2500 | 650/1100 | 65 |
| Core i5-3330S | 2.70 | 6 | 4 / 4 | 1600, 1333 | 3.20 | 2500 | 650/1050 | 65 |
S - Performance-optimized (low power with 65W TDP), T – Power-optimized (ultra low power with 35-45W TDP)
Features shared by all the above mentioned Ivy Bridge CPUs are a 2-channel integrated memory controller; and all but the Core i5-3450S and i5-3330S have Intel's SIPP 2012, vPro 2012, VT-d, TXT, and AES-NI support.
The GHz race was the rage when performance scaled with frequency so the point was going up-up and of course going up meant power hungry and hot processors. But at a distinct point in time, a light bulb lit in one engineers head and he thought "what if performance can scale upwards with improvements in architecture rather than just plain speed". So back to the drawing board and there u have it, speed obtained through "cleverness" rather then "brute force".
The GHz race died some 6-7 years ago when AMD figured out that they could kick intel's ass in optimizing design rather than raw speed. Then intel took that cue and came out with the Core solo/duo and Core 2 duo/quad and AMD has been playing catchup ever sense. Also they found that there are issues with power constraints and stability going past 5GHz, as the power requirement started turning exponential, and then running that much power causes damage to the processor so things start dying quickly.
But ya, there was a time when the P4s were coming out that they thought they could push the micro-burst architecture to some 15GHz before they would have to change their processor design... obviously this did not work out.
The GHz race was the rage when performance scaled with frequency so the point was going up-up and of course going up meant power hungry and hot processors. But at a distinct point in time, a light bulb lit in one engineers head and he thought "what if performance can scale upwards with improvements in architecture rather than just plain speed". So back to the drawing board and there u have it, speed obtained through "cleverness" rather then "brute force".
AMD lost it, so Intel stopped competing. the 3770K would probably have been introduced at 3.9GHz base and 4.5GHz turbo, and probably would have hit the market already, if Zambezi would have been at least competitive. Intel now has no reason to push their chips to go faster. Nobody else is going to come along and sell something cheaper and faster, so why bother? they'll sap us for as much money as they possibly can until someone comes out with something that would compete again.
The GHz race died some 6-7 years ago when AMD figured out that they could kick intel's ass in optimizing design rather than raw speed. Then intel took that cue and came out with the Core solo/duo and Core 2 duo/quad and AMD has been playing catchup ever sense. Also they found that there are issues with power constraints and stability going past 5GHz, as the power requirement started turning exponential, and then running that much power causes damage to the processor so things start dying quickly.
But ya, there was a time when the P4s were coming out that they thought they could push the micro-burst architecture to some 15GHz before they would have to change their processor design... obviously this did not work out.
er no, it's an exponential thing, given the current material technology, as you approach 5GHz the internal friction starts to take over and the thing starts to exponentially heat up, to go beyond 5GHz without the aid of exotic cooling requires the utilization of different semi-conductor material
Seeing as these are aimed at the mainstream desktop market, that's not surprising. More disappointing is that they weren't able to (or simply chose not to) push the clock speeds higher. Not much to interest anyone over Sandy Bridge unless you want/need the lower TDPs.
The notebook/ultrabook variants will be interesting, though.
Kinda meet half wayish. I little bit of a downclock but a solid reduction in TDP. The 2500k TDP is 95W while the equivalent 3570S is 65W and only 100Mhz slower. I don't think I'll upgrade though since I'm not running at the full 95W 24/7 and the money lost in selling the 2500k probably wouldn't exceed the money gained in energy consumption.
Maybe Intel is getting lazy.
Those benchmarks were HD3000 vs HD4000, not HD2000.
Wow Intel, just... wow.