|
I love the way they're handling PCIe 3.0 support. "Buy it now, find out if PCIe 3.0 works when you buy a PCIe 3.0 device!"
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Not all that impressed, really. A binned 8 core Xeon with two cores disabled? The thing is ridiculously huge. No USB3 support, no smart response caching, no quicksync (although honestly, unless x264 had QuickSync support, who cares about this?). Seems extremely unpolished. Yes, it's the absolute fastest. But really, you'd have to be a fool to do anything but get a 2500k and overclock it right now. Ivy Bridge will be worth the money, Sandy Bridge E, not so much. I'd liked it if they had the 12MiB and 15MiB versions of the chip in the review, so you could see where your HUGE LUMP of extra cash went, because lets be honest, it didn't go into 100MHz on the base and turbo clocks. Although, no more push pins. Yay! HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Nov 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 12:31
|
|
|
Agreed posted:No interest in this part, will check back when they get those two disabled cores hummin' but only to see "wow that's fast at stuff that can use 16 threads efficiently" and then go back to not being willing to spend $1000+ on a CPU.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 12:57
|
|
|
Can't wait for people to start wanting to build these systems in the System Building thread. "It costs so much more, it must be better and kill games like no other!  "If I had a ton of money, I'd probably build one of these, but I don't, so I'll stay happy with my 2600K box. I don't get the complaint of Quick Sync going away though, is software support even that good for it? (i.e. does any affordable encoder that supports Quick Sync come close to x264 in output quality)? You have six loving threads at 4GHz, put them to work encoding poo poo! Also yeah, PCIe 3.0 support being not publicly listed is pretty amusing. Hopefully someone with a lot of money will try throwing a Xilinx Virtex-7 reference kit into a PCIe slot and seeing if they link up at PCIe 3.0 speeds. movax fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Nov 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 16:33
|
|
|
Crushing everything in certain tests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
It's a hex-core Sandy Bridge with higher clocks, what's it supposed to do? Anomalous nosedive in performance? I mean, yeah, it's powerful, but what did we expect? (Well, I guess we kind of did expect 8 cores until they made that announcement but still you get what I'm saying.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 17:05
|
|
|
Eh, an enthusiast mobo with SAS would be nice. At least for a boot drive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 17:17
|
|
|
Bob Morales posted:Crushing everything in certain tests. Just you wait, you're gonna feel reeaaaaaaaaaaaaaal dumb when Piledriver crushes you all! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
I'd be a lot more tempted to shell out the extra $300-$400 for a -E system if Intel's entusiast/mainstream tick-tock didn't mean in 6-9 months I'd probably regret it after seeing the first Ivy Bridge benchmarks. I wish they'd update the platforms at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
Are there any plans for Intel to release a high end consumer (read not xeon) 8C/16T proc?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:23
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Are there any plans for Intel to release a high end consumer (read not xeon) 8C/16T proc? E: Moron patrol got ahold of my keyboard, hold please. DE: Doesn't look like it. Factory Factory fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Nov 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:25
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:Are there any plans for Intel to release a high end consumer (read not xeon) 8C/16T proc?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
Ivy Bridge SKUs leaked: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2208665 tldr: not worth holding off SB for IB.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
This is pretty much exactly what we've been expecting all along, it's weird to see people in that thread getting all bummed out about "I was hoping for 10%-15% clock for clock" - like, really? Okay, I remember when Intel was throwing out funny numbers half a year ago too, but that was pretty clearly marketing and they've since clarified for the record that the clock-for-clock improvement is modest, it's intended to be a power efficiency and integral process change. As the second gent points out, the power requirements for the same clock rate are crazy good. Unless there's something unforeseen about the tri-gate transistor lithography that makes it prone to electromigration or other degrading nano-scale electrical phenomena, it looks like in addition to higher stock clocks, dramatically better power efficiency, they should also be really good overclockers, with a higher trivial and higher "sweet spot" overclock, not to mention much lower power draw as they approach very high clocks (2600K/2700K can get up to around 300W at 5GHz). The low TDP of the efficiency-first SKUs in particular means they'll be able to bring a serious, genuinely 4-core CPU to laptops where battery life is still a necessity, and the lower thermal waste means they'll be easier to cool in that application as well. All in all, it looks like just what we expected, doesn't it? Very impressive release, especially in the climate where their competitor is tripping over their own feet  ... ...  AMD, why  Anyone complaining about Ivy Bridge is misguided or had unrealistic expectations, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 18:20
|
|
|
This makes me glad I have no capacity to wait and ended up getting a 2500K What a great cpu, love the setup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
freeforumuser posted:Ivy Bridge SKUs leaked: This post summed it up nicely: "Looks like the raw performance will probably not be much greater than SB. But the thermals will be pretty significant. And thanks to AMDs incompetence. Intel has no incentive to bring out high clocked IB." I'm pretty sure Intel could have clocked some higher, but they were shooting for lower TDPs. The interesting wildcard here is overclocking. I'd imagine they'll overclock better. Reviews are going to be interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2011 22:21
|
|
|
Graphics performance should also be significantly improved, which is one area where improvements will really matter. I just desperately wish that Intel had driver competence to back up the quality of their CPUs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Looking forward to running IVB. Of course, I'm still rolling with a Yorkfield at home...
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 19:12
|
|
|
I know it's partly a marketing thing, but I can't help but think that Intel is just plowing through the model names recklessly. In a mere three years, we've gone from i5-750 to i5-2500K to i5-3570K. Next year we'll be hearing about the i5-4580K, and it won't be long before the numbers have inflated so much that all that's left is i5-6599K, and if Intel wants to release an SKU with higher clocks, they'll have to go into hexadecimal digits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
Factory Factory posted:I know it's partly a marketing thing, but I can't help but think that Intel is just plowing through the model names recklessly. In a mere three years, we've gone from i5-750 to i5-2500K to i5-3570K. Next year we'll be hearing about the i5-4580K, and it won't be long before the numbers have inflated so much that all that's left is i5-6599K, and if Intel wants to release an SKU with higher clocks, they'll have to go into hexadecimal digits. Look at this guy, thinking past 2012. What a chump.  I rather like this system, the first digit is a clear generation identifier, second is a pretty good series indicator. Still, much easier to understand that Xeon numbering, in my opinion (though then again, I don't normally keep up to tabs on the exact models/types of Xeons) ) or why would we stop at i5-6599K?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
FF posted:I know it's partly a marketing thing, but I can't help but think that Intel is just plowing through the model names recklessly. In a mere three years, we've gone from i5-750 to i5-2500K to i5-3570K. Next year we'll be hearing about the i5-4580K, and it won't be long before the numbers have inflated so much that all that's left is i5-6599K, and if Intel wants to release an SKU with higher clocks, they'll have to go into hexadecimal digits. If they do go to hex, though, they might end up naming one after you  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
ATI's number scheme has already come full circle. poo poo, in two more product cycles we'll all be able to buy a Radeon 9800...AGAIN!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:11
|
|
|
Nostrum posted:ATI's number scheme has already come full circle. poo poo, in two more product cycles we'll all be able to buy a Radeon 9800...AGAIN!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
Nostrum posted:ATI's number scheme has already come full circle. poo poo, in two more product cycles we'll all be able to buy a Radeon 9800...AGAIN! The fun part is nvidia going from 4-> FX 5xxx -> 6000/7000/8000/etc while ATI goes 9700/9800/HD 4xxx/5000/6000 etc. Converging!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:11
|
|
|
So have all previous Intel 6 core procs actually been 8 core procs with 2 turned off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
They can bundle it with a HL2:Anniversary coupon, like the 9600xt
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:23
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So have all previous Intel 6 core procs actually been 8 core procs with 2 turned off? No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:So have all previous Intel 6 core procs actually been 8 core procs with 2 turned off? No, this is their first such consumer processor. A few of the recent 6-core Xeons have been die-harvested 8 or 10 core processors, although there have been true 6 core Xeons as well. Shipping a part with components disabled without shipping the full version is a fairly unusual; that extra wasted silicon costs a lot of money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
It just seems wrong to ruin something like that for no real reason, other than to profit
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 01:16
|
|
|
Un-l337-Pork posted:It just seems wrong to ruin something like that for no real reason, other than to profit Not just profit, though. Thermal/power concerns, production consistency... Could need a stepping in order to get well-functioning and reliable 8-core produced with their current lithography. Don't go right for the "gently caress the consumer!" angle, it's possible that they just couldn't put out 8-core parts reliably or within the thermal envelope or power budget right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 01:34
|
|
|
If they knew they could put out reliable 8 core parts right now, they'd definitely do it because they could charge more money versus the 6 core ones.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 02:09
|
|
|
How can you tell which procs (SB and IB) are die harvested and which aren't? Are all IB dual core procs moving forward doing to be die harvested quads?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 19:38
|
|
|
Shaocaholica posted:How can you tell which procs (SB and IB) are die harvested and which aren't? Are all IB dual core procs moving forward doing to be die harvested quads? The only CPUs guaranteed to not be rebinned higher level procs with some manner of defect, are the most expensive CPUs in any given family. Core Solo and Core 2 Solo processors for example, were almost entirely Core Duo/Core 2 Duos with a minor to major defect in one of the cores.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 19:45
|
|
|
I don't think Intel does any die harvesting on Sandy Bridge, they even have separate dies for dual-core SB CPUs with HD Graphics 2000 (most i3s) and 3000 (other i3s).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Alereon posted:I don't think Intel does any die harvesting on Sandy Bridge, they even have separate dies for dual-core SB CPUs with HD Graphics 2000 (most i3s) and 3000 (other i3s). They've gotta be at least binning for the 2700/2600. Like, I basically feel like what happened there is the chip lottery for higher clocking 2600Ks got more difficult when they introduced the 2700K and now there's a price premium for chips that might clock higher a little easier. :/
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Agreed posted:They've gotta be at least binning for the 2700/2600. Like, I basically feel like what happened there is the chip lottery for higher clocking 2600Ks got more difficult when they introduced the 2700K and now there's a price premium for chips that might clock higher a little easier. :/ For all you know, they could be binned identically. I mean really, has anyone ever had a problem overclocking their 2600K by 100MHz? I can't even imagine it could ever happen, since the chip is obviously designed to scale up to its turbo frequency.. and that's only 100MHz more on the 2700K too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 21:19
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:For all you know, they could be binned identically. I mean really, has anyone ever had a problem overclocking their 2600K by 100MHz? I'm very happy with my 4.8 GHz on my 2500k, on air. If they are binning, it's not too much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:For all you know, they could be binned identically. I mean really, has anyone ever had a problem overclocking their 2600K by 100MHz? I KNOW, that's the trouble, we have no idea if it's a real thing or if they're just "let's add an sku gently caress it make money money." And I'm the rear end in a top hat that'd pay for the 2700K because I'd be thinking, poo poo, the 2600K is kind of second tier, what if they're bad 2700s? But I got the 2600K before the 2700K existed, so this crisis of confidence doesn't affect me, you know, apart from a clear lingering neurosis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 21:32
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:For all you know, they could be binned identically. I mean really, has anyone ever had a problem overclocking their 2600K by 100MHz? ), but looking around at what we were all using in 2006 vs. what's available now at consumer pricing is just mind-boggling.So for me, even if they were binning for the 2700K's, I really can't complain about the performance of a 4c/8t CPU quietly plugging along at nearly 5ghz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:19 |
|
|
Agreed posted:I KNOW, that's the trouble, we have no idea if it's a real thing or if they're just "let's add an sku gently caress it make money money." And I'm the rear end in a top hat that'd pay for the 2700K because I'd be thinking, poo poo, the 2600K is kind of second tier, what if they're bad 2700s? But I got the 2600K before the 2700K existed, so this crisis of confidence doesn't affect me, you know, apart from a clear lingering neurosis. What strikes me as really odd is why didn't they push them up more, bin them faster and sell them at a bigger price difference? The K chips are such incredible value it almost seems out of character, I guess they just want to sell them as a reliable product and leave a lasting sentiment of good will on the market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2011 23:51
|
|
