Thursday, November 1st 2012

Top Intel Ivy Bridge-E Core Processors To Still Pack Six Cores

Intel's 2011-launched Core i7 "Sandy Bridge-E" HEDT platform is based on a 32 nm silicon that's common with Xeon E5 series processors. While the silicon physically packs eight CPU cores and 20 MB last-level cache (LLC, or L3 cache), client Core i7 processors are configured with only a maximum of six cores, and up to 15 MB L3 cache. According to a MyDrivers.com report, the maximum core count won't change with next-generation 22 nm Ivy Bridge-E Core i7 processors.

Ivy Bridge-E will be an upscale of Ivy Bridge. Similar to Sandy Bridge-E, the silicon will feature up to eight cores and 20 MB L3 cache. In its Core i7 avatar, however, the chip will be configured with no more than six cores, and no more than 15 MB L3 cache. The new chip will introduce IPC improvements, PCI-Express Gen 3.0 certified root complex (one which NVIDIA will approve of), higher CPU core clock speeds, and support for faster memory.

TDP could be the only reason Intel isn't willing to unlock cores 7 and 8 on client processors. Eight core, 20 MB LLC-laden Xeon E5 models based on today's 32 nm silicon, with 130W TDP, barely manage to scrape the 3.00 GHz mark. Given that, the prospects for Ivy Bridge-E client CPUs to run with all cores and LLC enabled, and yet deliver higher clock speeds than predecessors were always going to be low.

Intel Core i7 "Ivy Bridge-E" HEDT processors are compatible with existing socket LGA2011 motherboards (subject to BIOS update), and are slated for Q3-2013.Source: MyDrivers
Add your own comment

111 Comments on Top Intel Ivy Bridge-E Core Processors To Still Pack Six Cores

#1
dude12564
by: PopcornMachine
Not me. I blame NVIDIA for not making CPUs at all! :laugh:
Wait for ARM...
Posted on Reply
#2
theeldest
by: FordGT90Concept
Maybe Intel has realized that there is no demand for tons of cores on desktop computers. Fewer cores with higher clockspeeds yield better real world performance in most circumstances than more cores.
Or they want a clear incentive to move to a 'workstation' platform with Xeons instead of Core processors. Especially as they can charge quite a bit more than people will pay for 'consumer' quality.
Posted on Reply
#3
dude12564
by: theeldest
Or they want a clear incentive to move to a 'workstation' platform with Xeons instead of Core processors. Especially as they can charge quite a bit more than people will pay for 'consumer' quality.
This. Xeons have a large price premium.
Posted on Reply
#4
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: nickbaldwin86
Sounds good... 6 fast intel cores still smoke AMDs slow 8+ cores

More cores doesn't = faster ;)
Depends on the application.

wprime for instance 4x8 cores at 2.7ghz

http://hwbot.org/submission/2314808_dhenzjhen_wprime_1024m_4x_xeon_x7560_34sec_446ms

vs 2x6 cores at 5.3ghz

http://hwbot.org/submission/1088066_team.au_wprime_1024m_2x_xeon_x5680_39sec_839ms

More cores still wins. Same goes for the most part with rendering.
Posted on Reply
#5
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: PopcornMachine
Not me. I blame NVIDIA for not making CPUs at all! :laugh:
They do make CPUs, they're called Tegra. They make Atom Z-series look like the AMD Bulldozer of the mobile world.
Posted on Reply
#6
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: btarunr
They do make CPUs, they're called Tegra. They make Atom Z-series look like the AMD Bulldozer of the mobile world.
Better way to phrase that. They look like the Pentium 4 of the mobile world. At least in the occasional app Bulldozer worked. The Atom's just straight up suck.
Posted on Reply
#7
Wile E
Power User
Well, looks like I'm riding it out on the 980x until the next biggest thing. I'm not going to upgrade my entire platform for slightly better IPC. I want more cores to go with it.
Posted on Reply
#8
HammerON
The Watchful Moderator
by: Wile E
Well, looks like I'm riding it out on the 980x until the next biggest thing. I'm not going to upgrade my entire platform for slightly better IPC. I want more cores to go with it.
Although I do not have the EE version (only a 970) I feel the same way. I am getting tired of waiting though...
Bring on the 8 cores please:)
Posted on Reply
#9
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: HammerON
Although I do not have the EE version (only a 970) I feel the same way. I am getting tired of waiting though...
Bring on the 8 cores please
AMD has an 8-core processor. :D

In all seriousness, if you need an 8-core Intel processor why aren't you running a work station with a 2P board or do you have 6 cores just for shits and giggles and have no real application that benefits from it?

I got the 3820 because it was practical, performed just as well as the K edition chips on 1155, it has VT-d (something that k-edition 1155 chips do not have,) and because I wanted a platform that I could upgrade easily if I ever needed to. So far it has not disappointed me. I needed room for plenty of memory expansion because I run a number of virtual machines. I've occasionally found myself using 12/16Gb at least once a week with a typical usage around 4Gb at idle and 8Gb with my normal VMs open.
Posted on Reply
#10
eidairaman1
by: cdawall
Better way to phrase that. They look like the Pentium 4 of the mobile world. At least in the occasional app Bulldozer worked. The Atom's just straight up suck.
Intel Atom reminds me of what the original Pentium was
Posted on Reply
#11
NeoXF
My guess is once AMD releases a 5-6 module/10-12 core (or 3-4 core per module variant) Steamroller, Intel might rethink releasing a 8 core IVB-E...
Posted on Reply
#12
eidairaman1
by: NeoXF
My guess is once AMD releases a 5-6 module/10-12 core (or 3-4 core per module variant) Steamroller, Intel might rethink releasing a 8 core IVB-E...
considering on the dev side of AMD SR is the main focus since Vishera is an Interim product
Posted on Reply
#13
NeoXF
by: eidairaman1
considering on the dev side of AMD SR is the main focus since Vishera is an Interim product
I know, that's what I'm saying... not that Vishera turned out to be too shabby itself (sign of things to come?).

BTW, can anyone tell me, as I've asked before, but forgot to check for replies, what Vishera 2.0 and/or Trinity 2.0 (and some other name I totally forgot) are all about?
Posted on Reply
#14
eidairaman1
by: NeoXF
I know, that's what I'm saying... not that Vishera turned out to be too shabby itself (sign of things to come?).

BTW, can anyone tell me, as I've asked before, but forgot to check for replies, what Vishera 2.0 and/or Trinity 2.0 (and some other name I totally forgot) are all about?
those are probably stepping revisions of the initial product, sort of like how Phenom II 965 BE had 2 different models (140 W, 125W, and subsequent 955-980s were all C3 stepping).

but ya this is about Intel here so if you want to discuss about the AMD create a new topic dude
Posted on Reply
#15
NeoXF
Point is... Intel sucks.
...LOL, no exactly, they all suck, just some less.

There's a long way 'till IVB-E, as Intel stated some time ago. In the meantime, Haswell, and hopefully FX Steamroller will take away a lot if not all, of it's thunder, 8 cores or not (X89 boards might be interesting tho, if that's how they'll be called).
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
idk im honestly not worried about IVB-E having 6 cores, however i feel that skt 2011 should have atleast 1 more CPU gen after IVB-E, aka HSW-E.
Posted on Reply
#17
Prima.Vera
by: qubit
This sucks and is directly because of the lack of competition from AMD. No way am I buying a CPU with two cores disabled.
My words exactly!
Posted on Reply
#18
NeoXF
by: Prima.Vera
My words exactly!
Lack of competion from AMD... or the existance of idiots that are willing to pay a colossal premium for a tiny improvement (that most don't really need, or just isn't there anyway... ie gamers)... hence, Intel sees no reason to improve on that regard, beyond the measly IPC improvements IB brought that is... I'm a split between the 2... or maybe it's a mix of both.

IMHO, If AMD managed to convince board makers to do dual-socket AM3+s... they might have ~$400 SB-E/IB-E killers on their hands easy, for the time being. Like the "quick fix" (failed at that time) dual FX-7xs "quad" cores, back in 2006(?).
Posted on Reply
#19
eidairaman1
by: NeoXF
Lack of competion from AMD... or the existance of idiots that are willing to pay a colossal premium for a tiny improvement (that most don't really need, or just isn't there anyway... ie gamers)... hence, Intel sees no reason to improve on that regard, beyond the measly IPC improvements IB brought that is... I'm a split between the 2... or maybe it's a mix of both.

IMHO, If AMD managed to convince board makers to do dual-socket AM3+s... they might have ~$400 SB-E/IB-E killers on their hands easy, for the time being. Like the "quick fix" (failed at that time) dual FX-7xs "quad" cores, back in 2006(?).
Notice how long SkullTrail Lasted (Not long at all)
Posted on Reply
#20
NeoXF
by: eidairaman1
Notice how long SkullTrail Lasted (Not long at all)
Exactly. But for "instant" adopters (usually smart people who did their research... OK, on occasion, kiddies with a ton of their parent's money that thought that was to path to the fastest gaming machine) of these solutions, it did turn out to be worthwhile... especially now that we can finally say that software is multi-core(thread) aware...
Posted on Reply
#21
hardcore_gamer
by: FordGT90Concept
Maybe Intel has realized that there is no demand for tons of cores on desktop computers. Fewer cores with higher clockspeeds yield better real world performance in most circumstances than more cores.
yet they create 48 core processor for mobile phones.:roll:
Posted on Reply
#22
NeoXF
by: hardcore_gamer
yet they create 48 core processor for mobile phones.:roll:
WUT, link pls.
Posted on Reply
#24
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: hardcore_gamer
yet they create 48 core processor for mobile phones.:roll:
Read the entire article, or at least the title, man. :shadedshu:banghead:
Intel Envisions Do-it-all 48-Core Mobile Processors
Posted on Reply
#25
Octavean
by: NeoXF
Point is... Intel sucks.
...LOL, no exactly, they all suck, just some less.

There's a long way 'till IVB-E, as Intel stated some time ago. In the meantime, Haswell, and hopefully FX Steamroller will take away a lot if not all, of it's thunder, 8 cores or not (X89 boards might be interesting tho, if that's how they'll be called).
To a very real extent its about intended use case. If there are people buying the LGA2011 platform to play games then they likely didn’t understand that it’s a Xeon based platform best suited to such tasks. One could blame Intel for its marketing and positioning of a given product but it is still up to the consumer to research what they buy.

I don’t thin Intel will add more cores simply because AMD does. It would likely come down to overall performance.

Intel presumably will not upgrade the LGA2011 platform chipset for Ivy Bridge-E or so I have heard.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment