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
Wile E
Power User
by: Aquinus
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.
I do lots of encoding, but also like to game and overclock. The 2P systems don't allow nearly enough overclocking for me, otherwise I'd love to have one.
Posted on Reply
#2
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Wile E
I do lots of encoding, but also like to game and overclock. The 2P systems don't allow nearly enough overclocking for me, otherwise I'd love to have one.
BuckNasty has a couple 4P servers with 4 12-core Opterons and he can get a bit of an overclock out of those with the motherboard that he has, but you have to keep in mind that if you're building a server you're not going to typically overclock because servers have extra resources for error correction and making sure that it runs well and stable. With 24+ threads, you don't need to overclock to encode quickly. Keep in mind with multi-proc systems that it is much more likely that you will saturate your drive I/O, not your CPU resources when it comes to encoding.
Posted on Reply
#3
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Wile E
I do lots of encoding, but also like to game and overclock. The 2P systems don't allow nearly enough overclocking for me, otherwise I'd love to have one.
So buy an AMD chip and use proper encoding software. It wins hands down when AVX is utilized.
Posted on Reply
#4
Wile E
Power User
by: cdawall
So buy an AMD chip and use proper encoding software. It wins hands down when AVX is utilized.
Not from the tests I've seen. Intel still walks all over it. Even the 3770k beats the AMD chips in most AVX tests.

In fact, in all the avx tests I've seen, even my chip beats the AMDs without the need for AVX. But I haven't seen my chip in those AMD test with encoding. Those were pure AVX synthetics.

I can't find the tests you are referring to.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=11


Posted on Reply
#5
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: Wile E
Not from the tests I've seen. Intel still walks all over it. Even the 3770k beats the AMD chips in most AVX tests.

In fact, in all the avx tests I've seen, even my chip beats the AMDs without the need for AVX. But I haven't seen my chip in those AMD test with encoding. Those were pure AVX synthetics.

I can't find the tests you are referring to.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=11

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_snbe/x264-1.jpg
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_snbe/x264-2.jpg
If you do that math there, the FX-8150 is slightly faster per thread than the 3960x (very slightly,) using the data you provided, so if the FX chip had 12 threads as well the scores would be almost identical and I'm willing to bet you that the 8350 will offer better per-thread performance.

Keep in mind that Intel's chips with HyperThreading only use unused CPU resources where AMD has dedicated extra hardware to run these threads. In turn AMD CPUs will have a more consistent amount of performance per thread, where with Intel, as soon as you start hitting those HT threads, you're performance goes down very quickly (even more so if you're doing a lot of calculations that are the same, so shared resources are now in high demand.) So you will see near linear scaling with AMD's CPUs but with Intel, you only have linear scaling on the real cores, once you hit HT threads, your performance per core starts taking a dive.

AMD has a better multi-core setup where Intel has better single threaded performance with just enough multi-threading bells and whistles to keep up with AMD's multi-core strategy. Consider for a moment how many more cores (or modules if you will,) that AMD could fit on to a CPU once they move away from the 32nm process and start producing smaller CPU circuitry. The size of a "Module" is only something like 26% bigger to add a second thread in comparison to the Phenom II's CPU core. Before you know it, CPUs won't get smaller and optimization of CPU resources will become a lot more important than it is right now and I think AMD realizes that.
Posted on Reply
#6
Makaveli
by: Wile E
Not from the tests I've seen. Intel still walks all over it. Even the 3770k beats the AMD chips in most AVX tests.

In fact, in all the avx tests I've seen, even my chip beats the AMDs without the need for AVX. But I haven't seen my chip in those AMD test with encoding. Those were pure AVX synthetics.

I can't find the tests you are referring to.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=11

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_snbe/x264-1.jpg
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_snbe/x264-2.jpg
Not only this.

AMD has nothing out now that can even beat Gulftown when it comes to encoding.

And that is without avx.
Posted on Reply
#7
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Wile E
Not from the tests I've seen. Intel still walks all over it. Even the 3770k beats the AMD chips in most AVX tests.

In fact, in all the avx tests I've seen, even my chip beats the AMDs without the need for AVX. But I haven't seen my chip in those AMD test with encoding. Those were pure AVX synthetics.

I can't find the tests you are referring to.

http://www.lostcircuits.com/mambo//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=11

http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_snbe/x264-1.jpg
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/intel_snbe/x264-2.jpg
Find one encoded for AMD instead of Intel. There are plenty available.
Posted on Reply
#8
MxPhenom 216
Corsair Fanboy
Well that kind of sucks. Intel needs to pack 8 cores into though things!

Wow, Are people really comparing a $500(3930k) CPU to a $200(FX8150). They aren't even CPUs built to compete with each other. the FX8150 was built to compete with the 2600k lol!
Posted on Reply
#9
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: Makaveli
Not only this.

AMD has nothing out now that can even beat Gulftown when it comes to encoding.

And that is without avx.
Wrong























Call it cherry picking call it whatever you want. Point is at the price point an 8350 is a very good chip. Be able to compete with a $500-1000 chip in any application should scream foul to you Intel owners. If I am going to be paying double to quadruple the price for a processor it had better perform the best in all applications hands down. Back when Wile E got his 980X it was that way there was not a single benchmark or actual usage of the chip that it was beaten in. That is not the case right now the simple fact is AMD competes on occasion with Intel's LGA2011 offerings that is great for the consumer and should breed competition from Intel.
Posted on Reply
#10
HumanSmoke
by: cdawall
Call it cherry picking call it whatever you want.
I'll call it "Half-a-page posts of off topic AMD fapping that makes the poster sound like a zealot and reinforces the stereotype that posting by fanatics induces TL: DC-itis and leave the reader thankful to whomever invented hyper-scrolling"


:shadedshu

Seriously;
1. resize
2. save some graphs for another post, because it sounds like you'll need them if Steamroller doesn't eventuate in 2013. (See!, links! much easier to scroll past)
Posted on Reply
#11
Lazzer408
by: katanai
tdp my ass! Those cores don't work, that's why they are disabled. At least one of them doesn't function properly. This is intel trying to push the scraps of their production down consumers throat. I'll bet they will ask a high premium for it too!
+1
Posted on Reply
#12
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: HumanSmoke
I'll call it "Half-a-page posts of off topic AMD fapping that makes the poster sound like a zealot and reinforces the stereotype that posting by fanatics induces TL: DC-itis and leave the reader thankful to whomever invented hyper-scrolling"
I posted pics in a response to another post and the quite admirably answered said post they are perfectly sized and easy to view at a glance. I find that in AMD threads this is ok? Is it not ok to do this in Intel ones I am genuinely concerned I haven't upset and irate IFB have I?

by: HumanSmoke

:shadedshu

Seriously;
1. resize
2. save some graphs for another post, because it sounds like you'll need them if Steamroller doesn't eventuate in 2013. (See!, links! much easier to scroll past)


by: Katanai
TDP my ass! Those cores don't work, that's why they are disabled. At least one of them doesn't function properly. This is Intel trying to push the scraps of their production down consumers throat. I'll bet they will ask a high premium for it too!
Intel has been doing that since the dawn of time 386SX was the exact same silicone as the 386DX except it was flawed and sold as a lower bin. Heck the 486SX chips were so heavily flawed and disabled that they featured ancient 387 FPU sockets on the board to gain back the x87 needs. Nothing has changed since then. Both AMD and Intel do the exact same thing it is called binning. Intel is just apparently binning a little different than we are used to.
Posted on Reply
#13
xorbe
by: repman244
The 6 core desktop versions is made of the same die as an 8 core Xeon version, they lock 2 cores (probably defective) and sell it.
It is very very unlikely they use a completely different die since it would drive the costs up through the roof.
This. A custom die would drop those 2 cores. In fact having that extra dark silicon around probably helps with heat transfer (see SB-IB shrink).
Posted on Reply
#14
Wile E
Power User
by: cdawall
Wrong

http://img.techpowerup.org/121023/Capture040602.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121023/Capture041.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121023/Capture042.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121023/Capture043.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121026/Capture054.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121026/Capture055.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121026/Capture056.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121026/Capture057.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121026/Capture058.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121026/Capture059.jpg

http://img.techpowerup.org/121026/piledriver%200.png

Call it cherry picking call it whatever you want. Point is at the price point an 8350 is a very good chip. Be able to compete with a $500-1000 chip in any application should scream foul to you Intel owners. If I am going to be paying double to quadruple the price for a processor it had better perform the best in all applications hands down. Back when Wile E got his 980X it was that way there was not a single benchmark or actual usage of the chip that it was beaten in. That is not the case right now the simple fact is AMD competes on occasion with Intel's LGA2011 offerings that is great for the consumer and should breed competition from Intel.
Half those tests don't even have the 3960 in them. And AMD seems to really only be faster in cpu hashing.

Besides, Gulftown is still faster for the encoding I do. AMD would be a downgrade.

Which is why I'm unhappy that Intel is not releasing an unlocked 8 core. The 3960 is the fastest at the tasks I perform, but not enough of a speed boost to justify the purchase. The IB-E is likely to be no different. At $1000+ for my CPU upgrades, I expect a significant increase before I make said upgrades.

All this tells me is that my 980X will still be relevant for some time to come. I can worry about storage and video cards instead. lol
Posted on Reply
#15
sergionography
by: Wile E
Half those tests don't even have the 3960 in them. And AMD seems to really only be faster in cpu hashing.

Besides, Gulftown is still faster for the encoding I do. AMD would be a downgrade.

Which is why I'm unhappy that Intel is not releasing an unlocked 8 core. The 3960 is the fastest at the tasks I perform, but not enough of a speed boost to justify the purchase. The IB-E is likely to be no different. At $1000+ for my CPU upgrades, I expect a significant increase before I make said upgrades.

All this tells me is that my 980X will still be relevant for some time to come. I can worry about storage and video cards instead. lol
actualy reading this article only shows how much of a winner amds chips are
we can say with full confident that amd has the upper hands in multithread, im not necessarily saying they perform better as far as the chip goes today, but from a design perspective they definitely knocked intels HT down, and with steamroller having dedicated decode units scaling will only get better and any slight single thread improvements in that power envelope will only make the multithread performance skyrocket. and one thing also i believe amd has a upper hand in is power gating, the power states on amd processors aswell as clock speed is much more dynamic than intel ivy or sandy, thats why ive had a few friends buy intel laptops and realizing how slow of an experience they had due to the mediocre power states. maximum peak performance isnt everything
so while you may be disapointed, piledriver already delivered a leap forward in multithread, now if steamroller addresses the single thread and get a good 20-30% ipc improvement + the 10-20% better scaling then you are talking a good 50%+ better multithread performance. intel on the other hand with their architecture can only go on to improve their single thread which is pretty complex considering where they are now, and with haswell mostly being an amd like move of powergating everything to get the most out of the chip

and before I wrap this up i will end with this
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=10
to truly see what the architecture is capable of try looking at it in an environment which optimizes it properly, here under linux is much closer to the 3770k in performance and leaves the i5s in shame
Posted on Reply
#16
Wile E
Power User
It competes with the quad core Intels, not the hexacore Intels. Winner in terms of midrange price per performance? Sure. Not a winner at the top end, which is what the topic was about. AMD simply can't compete up there. Hope that changes some day though.
Posted on Reply
#17
eidairaman1
by: Wile E
It competes with the quad core Intels, not the hexacore Intels. Winner in terms of midrange price per performance? Sure. Not a winner at the top end, which is what the topic was about. AMD simply can't compete up there. Hope that changes some day though.
with AMD not releasing a new design in 2013, that Leaves SR to be heavily developed. Im sure after the BD debacle they are refocusing on the designs.
Posted on Reply
#18
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: btarunr
Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.
Aaaaaaandd....
by: trickson
No it is AMD that has been going backwards, Intel has been moving forward. You can blame AMD for this. There is a major lack of competition and Intel is giving some one a chance to play catch up is all. :twitch:
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.
Heh, I knew it would be those two. :p

Anyway, seeing how the practice of disabling cores is nothing new and the energy saving thing going on in the world this isn't very surprising, or even shocking, to me.

Related question (that might have been asked already): Can you run those eight core Xeons on desktop boards?
Posted on Reply
#19
eidairaman1
by: Frick
Aaaaaaandd....




Heh, I knew it would be those two. :p

Anyway, seeing how the practice of disabling cores is nothing new and the energy saving thing going on in the world this isn't very surprising, or even shocking, to me.

Related question (that might have been asked already): Can you run those eight core Xeons on desktop boards?
skt 2011 should be possible if they are 1 way and not multi way. probably after bios updates but then you lose your overclocking capability because of a locked multiplier
Posted on Reply
#20
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: eidairaman1
skt 2011 should be possible if they are 1 way and not multi way. probably after bios updates but then you lose your overclocking capability because of a locked multiplier
+1: Make sure to check the supported CPUs list because not all skt2011 boards will take E5 Xeons.

by: Wile E
Which is why I'm unhappy that Intel is not releasing an unlocked 8 core. The 3960 is the fastest at the tasks I perform, but not enough of a speed boost to justify the purchase.
For encoding? AMD's 16-core Opterons are cheaper if you start considering server CPUs, because that is something that encoding will benefit from but for mass parallelism like that, you have to make a choice: Desktop or Workstation? Because any server CPU(s) that you will get will do games more poorly than regular desktop CPUs. So if you want more, you have to specialize exactly what your rig is going to be doing, because I bet that a 2P board with dual 16c Opterons will do vastly better than anything Intel can give you for the same price.
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
by: Aquinus
+1: Make sure to check the supported CPUs list because not all skt2011 boards will take E5 Xeons.



For encoding? AMD's 16-core Opterons are cheaper if you start considering server CPUs, because that is something that encoding will benefit from but for mass parallelism like that, you have to make a choice: Desktop or Workstation? Because any server CPU(s) that you will get will do games more poorly than regular desktop CPUs. So if you want more, you have to specialize exactly what your rig is going to be doing, because I bet that a 2P board with dual 16c Opterons will do vastly better than anything Intel can give you for the same price.
Overclocking and gaming are also important to me. I need a high performance, all-around machine. The 980X fit that niche perfectly at the time of purchase.

Current offerings just don't up the performance enough for me to consider.
Posted on Reply
#22
eidairaman1
by: Wile E
Overclocking and gaming are also important to me. I need a high performance, all-around machine. The 980X fit that niche perfectly at the time of purchase.

Current offerings just don't up the performance enough for me to consider.
well youre one of the few who actually has a lil sense compared to those going from 1366 to 1155. Some users noticed some performance drops going from 1366/1156 to 1155.
Posted on Reply
#23
nzm0n5t3r
by: btarunr
Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.
What do you mean lack of progress?
Posted on Reply
#24
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: nzm0n5t3r
What do you mean lack of progress?
You revived a thread that was dead for a month and a half just to say this? :confused:

He means that AMD hasn't been able to produce a serious compedetor to Intel CPUs, so Intel doesn't have much reason to add more cores or really have a push to make their CPUs faster because their only competitor that means anything is AMD. I think we will see this change over the course of the next couple years.
Posted on Reply
#25
Morgoth
by: eidairaman1
Notice how long SkullTrail Lasted (Not long at all)
My Evga sr-2 xeon system is still kicking ass 3 years old
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment