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
nzm0n5t3r
by: Aquinus
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.
I agree with you. I now own a X79 Platform after moving from a AMD FX 8150. A lot of cores and no horsepower. AMD advertise there CPU's to the gaming industry which is great because for the price point gamer's are going to enjoy. I think AMD has taken the wrong turn by not producing a "True 8 Core" CPU. But I think if AMD and shorting the pipelines, increase the cache speed in there CPU Architecture and keep to a "True Core" they will be a pretty good competitor to Intel again.
Posted on Reply
#2
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: nzm0n5t3r
A lot of cores and no horsepower.
I disagree. It has a lot of power when you can utilize all of the cores. Otherwise its per-thread performance trails Intel's, but with Vishera it is getting better. AMD certainly doesn't produce a bad chip, Intel just has the resources to remain one step ahead.
Posted on Reply
#3
Zack
by: Aquinus
I disagree. It has a lot of power when you can utilize all of the cores. Otherwise its per-thread performance trails Intel's, but with Vishera it is getting better. AMD certainly doesn't produce a bad chip, Intel just has the resources to remain one step ahead.
Well-said.
Posted on Reply
#4
sergionography
by: nzm0n5t3r
I agree with you. I now own a X79 Platform after moving from a AMD FX 8150. A lot of cores and no horsepower. AMD advertise there CPU's to the gaming industry which is great because for the price point gamer's are going to enjoy. I think AMD has taken the wrong turn by not producing a "True 8 Core" CPU. But I think if AMD and shorting the pipelines, increase the cache speed in there CPU Architecture and keep to a "True Core" they will be a pretty good competitor to Intel again.
there is no way they can clock their chips at 4ghz with 8 real cores, not to mention die size will sky rocket, so from a business stand point bigger chips are more expensive to produce and yield is lower. So I wouldn't critisize amd in their multicore approach, though I do wanna see improvements in single thread while maintaining their multicore design advantage, that is all they need, and if anything they can Simply add more modules to the equation which from a thermal/price perspective is much more affective than adding more cores
Posted on Reply
#5
drdeathx
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 done this before and so does AMD. It is no secret.

by: Aquinus
I disagree. It has a lot of power when you can utilize all of the cores. Otherwise its per-thread performance trails Intel's, but with Vishera it is getting better. AMD certainly doesn't produce a bad chip, Intel just has the resources to remain one step ahead.
How far do you think their architecture will go? The interesting thing we have to see is AMD has re-engineered there technology to an extent and how far can they push the new cores? AMD lacks the L3 cache and if they can get that figured out, I think AMD can hopefully challenge Intel.
Posted on Reply
#6
Am*
Meh...dead end platform is still a dead end platform. Here was me thinking they would up the core count to 8 so LGA 2011 users would be far more futureproof than 1155 users going right into next gen of consoles...not going to happen then. So when next gen consoles hit with 8 or more cores, console ports will run like dog shit on this platform, the same way it will on 1155...good thing I went with 1155, as it looks like 2011 was going to be overpriced crap from the beginning to the end.
Posted on Reply
#7
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
by: drdeathx
Intel has done this before and so does AMD. It is no secret.
Not even "done before", it's standard industry practice. It's how it works.

Also, you really don't know how to multi quote do you? Because you never do.
Posted on Reply
#8
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: drdeathx
How far do you think their architecture will go? The interesting thing we have to see is AMD has re-engineered there technology to an extent and how far can they push the new cores? AMD lacks the L3 cache and if they can get that figured out, I think AMD can hopefully challenge Intel.
Far. The amount of die space they saved by going to the module design was very significant. Once AMD starts improving the IPC of their CPUs Intel will be getting a run for their money. I suspect that once AMD start producing CPUs on a smaller process it will be easier for AMD to produce a CPU with more cores, that use less power, and have a better IPC. Assuming AMD doesn't go bankrupt, it is just a matter of time.
Posted on Reply
#9
Crowned Clown
IVB-E; a grand worth extreme processor with 6 cores only (which I thought around 8-12)?
We'll as long that it does have a stock clocks of 4Ghz or higher then I'm up for it... 6 cores it is. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
drdeathx
by: Am*
Meh...dead end platform is still a dead end platform. Here was me thinking they would up the core count to 8 so LGA 2011 users would be far more futureproof than 1155 users going right into next gen of consoles...not going to happen then. So when next gen consoles hit with 8 or more cores, console ports will run like dog shit on this platform, the same way it will on 1155...good thing I went with 1155, as it looks like 2011 was going to be overpriced crap from the beginning to the end.
Tic Toc strategy with E processors never did more cores. I expect Ivy E to be 5% on average better than Sandy E just like Sandy to Ivy reg. CPU's. Ivy E is certainly not a "dead end" platform.
Posted on Reply
#11
Vlada011
Extreme 6 cores CPU after IB-E could be something interesting and something very good.
Posted on Reply
#12
eidairaman1
by: drdeathx
Tic Toc strategy with E processors never did more cores. I expect Ivy E to be 5% on average better than Sandy E just like Sandy to Ivy reg. CPU's. Ivy E is certainly not a "dead end" platform.
considering i hear Haswell might be on skt 2011 even
Posted on Reply
#13
NdMk2o1o
by: btarunr
Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.
Some people obviously don't fucking read or listen.........

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:
:rolleyes: :nutkick:
Posted on Reply
#14
radrok
by: eidairaman1
considering i hear Haswell might be on skt 2011 even
Would love Haswell-E on socket 2011, it's such a pita to change mobo+waterblocks -.-

Anyway remember that Intel squeezed 10 cores on a 32nm CPU (LGA1567) so I think that it won't be hard to get 12+ cores on a mature 22nm node.

Hell I'm not asking for a 10/12 etc core CPU but you know at least an unlocked 8c should be in Ivy-E lineup :|
Posted on Reply
#15
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: radrok
I think that it won't be hard to get 12 cores on a mature 22nm node.
I'm sure it wouldn't. The problem is the amount of leakage a chip like that would have. The TDP would be off the charts.
Posted on Reply
#16
TheHunter
I call this news a flop..

Well if IB-E and Haswell-E are build on the same 22nm process then I see no problem IB-E being a true 8core., Since Haswell-E is suppose to be a 10-12core cpu (again build on same 22nm).


I was seriously thinking about IB-E 8core, but when I saw Haswell LGA1150 spec. over at anadtech I kinda changed my mind, there is just to much new stuff in Haswell.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6355/intels-haswell-architecture/5 (page* 5-11, esp. page 6-9*)

And Haswell-E is still to far away.. meh, Haswell-E 8core would be my perfect dream machine :D
Posted on Reply
#17
radrok
by: Aquinus
I'm sure it wouldn't. The problem is the amount of leakage a chip like that would have. The TDP would be off the charts.
http://ark.intel.com/products/53580/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8870-30M-Cache-2_40-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

130W 32nm 10 core, it is clocked at a decent frequency too (2,4GHz).

I don't think that adding 2 more cores would increase the TDP much above 130W, of course if you clock them @ 3,4GHz+ then yes I agree but they could well be selling them at 2GHz/2,5GHz stock.

Who wants to increase clocks then could very well use liquid cooling (like I do) my 3930K pulls probably three times more than its 130W TDP. (I have it @ 1.5v-1.6v)
Posted on Reply
#18
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: radrok
http://ark.intel.com/products/53580/Intel-Xeon-Processor-E7-8870-30M-Cache-2_40-GHz-6_40-GTs-Intel-QPI

130W 32nm 10 core, it is clocked at a decent frequency too (2,4GHz).

I don't think that adding 2 more cores would increase the TDP much above 130W, of course if you clock them @ 3,4GHz+ then yes I agree but they could well be selling them at 2GHz/2,5GHz stock.

Who wants to increase clocks then could very well use liquid cooling (like I do) my 3930K pulls probably three times more than its 130W TDP. (I have it @ 1.5v-1.6v)
Agreed. I don't understand why they didn't do this and make even more money selling them to enthusiasts.

One could argue that the selling volumes might be quite low, but then they could simply make less of them and price them at a suitable premium to compensate. I might have bought something like this myself.
Posted on Reply
#19
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: qubit
I might have bought something like this myself.
I couldn't justify spending 4,000 USD on a 10-core CPU from Intel. Hell, I couldn't even justify spending twice as much on the 3930k than the 3820. I just don't think the market is there, even with enthusiasts with the price premium. A lot of people are already skeptical about the 3960x and 3970x over the 3930k.
Posted on Reply
#20
drdeathx
Haswell is NOT on socket 2011. 1150 Fellas......
Posted on Reply
#21
qubit
Overclocked quantum bit
by: Aquinus
I couldn't justify spending 4,000 USD on a 10-core CPU from Intel. Hell, I couldn't even justify spending twice as much on the 3930k than the 3820. I just don't think the market is there, even with enthusiasts with the price premium. A lot of people are already skeptical about the 3960x and 3970x over the 3930k.
Ok, I wouldn't spend an exhorbitant premium on it, but I would have paid a fair bit extra for a true 8 core SB-E simply because I'd want one. :D
Posted on Reply
#22
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
by: qubit
Ok, I wouldn't spend an exhorbitant premium on it, but I would have paid a fair bit extra for a true 8 core SB-E simply because I'd want one. :D
It depends on how much clock speed and money I would have to sacrifice for those extra cores. If it's anything like the SB-E 8-core Xeons, I doubt it would be worth it.
Posted on Reply
#23
radrok
If it is unlocked you don't have to sacrifice clock speed, sure it would cost more. I bet my 3930K clocks as high as most 3820s.

Anyway the current 3960/3970X models are a joke, twice the premium over a 3930K which is basically the same CPU clocked slightly lower and with the unlocked multi doesn't even matter.

Don't even try to tell me that 3MB L3 cache makes a noticeable difference, cause it doesn't.

X edition should have been unlocked 8 cores from the beginning, then I would have bought an X instead of the K edition.
Posted on Reply
#24
drdeathx
by: radrok
If it is unlocked you don't have to sacrifice clock speed, sure it would cost more. I bet my 3930K clocks as high as most 3820s.

Anyway the current 3960/3970X models are a joke, twice the premium over a 3930K which is basically the same CPU clocked slightly lower and with the unlocked multi doesn't even matter.

Don't even try to tell me that 3MB L3 cache makes a noticeable difference, cause it doesn't.

X edition should have been unlocked 8 cores from the beginning, then I would have bought an X instead of the K edition.
It does. Where do you get your info?
Posted on Reply
#25
radrok
You should be more specific when you quote and question.

"It does" is referred about what? The cache?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment