If I can get a 3770K to 4.6GHz with 20 less watts, that would be awesome. My Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO gets really saturated with heat if I go over ~120w, and I'd be doing 85c in IntelBurnTest at 4.6, 1.3v which isn't good.

Either that or I should just buy a much better cooler. :o

Interesting to see a power drop to 77W rather than a speed boost. I'm more than happy with the power drop, really. 18W is a near 20% drop in consumed power, while still matching the 2700K in raw MHz, that's fantastic.

repman244AFAIK they are only the same on paper, for example if you have a set TDP of let's say 65W and 95W and you produce a chip that is 66W it then uses the 95W tag. But if you don't look at those numbers the chip with lower cache size, lower clock and less cores (but it still has the same TDP as a chip that has more of all the things I said) will run cooler and consume less.

At least that is how I see it, I could be wrong though.

Yea, I re-tought that post and agree with that assessment. The silicon is essentially the same so the TDP is the same. Add mine to todays stupid posts. :)

Question is... with the new fab and tri-gate, how much of an envelope will there be. Till engineering samples are out in the wild, we probably won't know. The compatibility with SB-E slots certainly won't hurt the number of upgrades if it turns out to be an OC monster!

SasquiTill engineering samples are out in the wild

They are out there for quite some time already...





forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=278192

It's a bit surprising that IB is working on a Gigabyte board, seeing how they still use BIOS. I thought Intel restricted Ivy Bridge to boards with UEFI firmware, unless Gigabyte added more h4x to their BIOSes.

looks like a disappointment?

MikeMurphyThis table is screwy and must be fake.

1) Only a single dual-core option? Dual core CPUs is where Intel makes most of their profits. Its not like most consumers really need 4 cores.

2) Similarly, why so many more quad core options than with SB?

3) Fill out the rest of the table with what it *should* have suddenly you're talking about way too many chips

Yes, I think the table is a little screwy and there are one or two types. But to your second point, I mentioned in the "politicians fail" thread that Intel can have only one strategy on x86... more cores at lower TDP. x86 cannot get "faster", it is already as fast as it can get per clock... so you can now only get improvement by multi-core and lower TDP. That's All Folks!

"I'll have a 3770K with a 5770 on an X77 with a side of 7UP."

MikeMurphyThis table is screwy and must be fake.

1) Only a single dual-core option? Dual core CPUs is where Intel makes most of their profits. Its not like most consumers really need 4 cores.

2) Similarly, why so many more quad core options than with SB?

3) Fill out the rest of the table with what it *should* have suddenly you're talking about way too many chips

At 22 nm those quads are probably just as big as dual core SB dies, so they will make just as much money off them, and will sell like cookies. Yields will probably be very good too since they didn't increase clocks, so Intel does not need to go with dual cores with IB. They will just sell them for say $10 more and people will go crazy for being able to get a quad for so cheap. Win-win, tho in reality only Intel really wins, while consumers would just be getting what is "fair" at this point*.

* Think about GPUs. No one is surprised to be able to buy a card with twice as many cores for the same price one year later. We have been "conditioned" to think differently with CPUs, but in reality the exact same principles apply. Intel just needed to move to Quad cores on the "low-end" models eventually. It happened with IB.

MikeMurphyThis table is screwy and must be fake.

1) Only a single dual-core option? Dual core CPUs is where Intel makes most of their profits. Its not like most consumers really need 4 cores.

2) Similarly, why so many more quad core options than with SB?

3) Fill out the rest of the table with what it *should* have suddenly you're talking about way too many chips

Maybe aside from that one dual core listed, they're putting the rest in the Core i3 lineup, which isn't listed in that table.

cadavecaInteresting to see a power drop to 77W rather than a speed boost. I'm more than happy with the power drop, really. 18W is a near 20% drop in consumed power, while still matching the 2700K in raw MHz, that's fantastic.

If you take total power consumption of you rig with, say, 6950 which consumes 200w the savings look a bit paltry. Its still a good sign though.

de.das.dudelooks like a disappointment?

Don't forget that Ivy is only a die shrink of SB with some new features in design. The aim was to lower power consumption and a small IPC improvement (3-4%).
You will need to wait for Haswell for a higher improvement.

I bet lot's of people will be saying it's a fail compared to SB but they forget it's only a die shrink.

I find the i5-3470 very interesting (for me). :)

maybe it drops the price of existing cpuz

You all do realize that you can throw it's power consumption out the window once you over clock it. Unless you prefer it's stock clocks.

EastCoasthandleYou all do realize that you can throw it's power consumption out the window once you over clock it. Unless you prefer it's stock clocks.

I cannot say that I see real benefits from overlcocking my 2600K. Performance is mroe than adequate at stock, so yeah, power consumption matters for me, and overclock-ability matters very little. 3.9 GHz turbo is more than enough for most workloads.

Eagerly await it's pricing.

repman244They are out there for quite some time already...

www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalercbb/ivybridge/2G/5.gif
www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalercbb/ivybridge/2G/8.gif
www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalercbb/ivybridge/2G/12.gif

forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=278192

Where's the beef??? Errr, I mean the overclock?

3770 + 7K amd card, yes please

btarunrApril 2012.

Perfect release date, I can build one for myself as a birthday present.

devguyMaybe aside from that one dual core listed, they're putting the rest in the Core i3 lineup, which isn't listed in that table.

Good point. Thx.

Must be a huge lineup when considering the additions of i3 and i5 lines...

BenetanegiaAt 22 nm those quads are probably just as big as dual core SB dies, so they will make just as much money off them, and will sell like cookies. Yields will probably be very good too since they didn't increase clocks, so Intel does not need to go with dual cores with IB. They will just sell them for say $10 more and people will go crazy for being able to get a quad for so cheap. Win-win, tho in reality only Intel really wins, while consumers would just be getting what is "fair" at this point*.

* Think about GPUs. No one is surprised to be able to buy a card with twice as many cores for the same price one year later. We have been "conditioned" to think differently with CPUs, but in reality the exact same principles apply. Intel just needed to move to Quad cores on the "low-end" models eventually. It happened with IB.

So what you're saying is that Intel isn't interested in making the most amount of money?

And this locked multiplier thing didn't actually happen?
And the wildly profitable overpriced dual core CPUs didn't actually happen?
And the choice of putting the HD2000 gpus into desktop parts didn't actually happen?

Intel doesn't need to move to quadcores. WHY would you think so??? Is there some new entrant to the market offering a competing product??

qubitThese look good. As they're an incremental improvement over SB, I hope they will be priced about the same.

I'll have the 8 thread i7-3770K to go, along with a side order of fries and ketchup. ;)



Yes, that's true. When you consider the lack of competition from AMD and the fact that even a low end CPU can run most things including 3D games very well, it's not surprising.

I was thinking more of the 3770T 3.7Ghz @ 45w is pretty dam sweet.

Would love to drop a 3770k and a high end amd 7xxx series card in my rig next summer. That would make for a sweet rig.

MikeMurphySo what you're saying is that Intel isn't interested in making the most amount of money?

And this locked multiplier thing didn't actually happen?
And the wildly profitable overpriced dual core CPUs didn't actually happen?
And the choice of putting the HD2000 gpus into desktop parts didn't actually happen?

Intel doesn't need to move to quadcores. WHY would you think so??? Is there some new entrant to the market offering a competing product??

Actually AMD doesn't have a dual core in their FX line. Just because we know that BD isn't all that competitive doesn't mean that your average consumer knows that. When an average person goes in to the store, what do you think that they will pick? 2 cores for the same price as 4? I don't think so

Getting rid of dual cores would be a wise choice by Intel.