# Ivy Bridge Official Benchmarks - Markedly Better Performance Than Sandy Bridge



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

Previous preliminary reports have suggested that the forthcoming Ivy Bridge CPUs will have single threaded performance on par with the existing Sandy Bridge CPUs and will mainly deliver improvements to power consumption and integrated graphics - nothing for PC enthusiasts to get excited about. However, in leaked documents sent to partners, Intel have now revealed official performance figures for IB and they look rather good. They've produced a raft of benchmarks, which reveal improvements such as 56% in ArcSoft Media Expresso, 25% in Excel 2010 and a 199% gain in the 3D Mark Vantage GPU benchmark. Unfortunately, they haven't released any benchmarks based on high performance 3D games, but it's probably safe to say that they will be similarly improved. Now, on to the benchmarks, which compare their new 3.4 GHz i7-3770 (4 cores + HT) with the current 3.4 GHz i7-2600, also with 4 cores + HT:



 





+7% higher overall SYSmark 2012 score
+14% higher overall HDXPRT 2011 score
+15% higher Cinebench 11.5 score
+13% better ProShow Gold 4.5 result
+25% faster performance in Excel 2010
+56% faster performance in ArcSoft Media Expresso
+192% higher overall 3DMark Vantage score
+17% faster performance in 3DMark Vantage CPU benchmark
+199% faster performance in 3DMark Vantage GPU benchmark

The key architectural enhancements delivering these improvements are:

Intel's new 22nm 3D Tri-Gate technology. More on this here
Enhanced AVX acceleration
IGP performance improved by 30% compared to its predecessor
IGP supports DX11 and OpenCL 1.1
PCI Express 3.0 x16 interface, including a PCI Express 2.0 x4 controller

The new processor range is slated for release in March or April 2012, so if one can wait a few months to upgrade their existing system, then it looks like those few months will be well worth it - especially as they're likely to make for excellent overclockers. It's interesting to note that while Windows 8, due to be released just a few months later, will support the DX11*.1* point revision, these new CPUs will not. How much this will matter in real-life applications remains to be seen, however.

Finally, TechPowerUp will keep a lookout for those all-important gaming benchmarks.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 1, 2011)

If this is true, it is more than I expected so I'm happy.


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

Thanks to Damn_Smooth for this awesome tip.


----------



## bretts31344 (Dec 1, 2011)

Waiting out on Sandy Bridge has been hard, but it looks like Ivy Bridge will be worth the wait at this point. The i5-2500k for $180 (has been as low as $150) and $60 off a Socket 1155 Motherboard deal at Microcenter has been killing me for months. Hopefully pricing will be similar to the current Sandy Bridge line, but that might be wishful thinking after the AMD FX line.


----------



## Over_Lord (Dec 1, 2011)

> +199% faster performance in 3DMark Vantage GPU benchmark



Aah, joy!!!

I think by Haswell, INTEL will finally have IGPs that can game very well.


----------



## DanishDevil (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> It's interesting to note that while Windows 8, due to be released just a few months later, will support the DX11*.1* point revision, these new CPUs will not.



Does this mean that the imbedded GPU is not 11.1 compatible, or that a system based on Ivy Bridge will not work with 11.1?


----------



## LDNL (Dec 1, 2011)

thunderising said:


> Aah, joy!!!
> 
> I think by Haswell, INTEL will finally have IGPs that can game very well.



Not really. It will about the same performance as a 420 GT that gets about 8 fps 19x10 resolution in BFBC2


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 1, 2011)

DanishDevil said:


> Does this mean that the imbedded GPU is not 11.1 compatible, or that a system based on Ivy Bridge will not work with 11.1?



I'm pretty sure that is only for the IGP. SB's IGP doesn't support DX11 but doesn't have any problems with a graphics card that does.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Dec 1, 2011)

Geez! That's even faster than I expected! I might replace my 2600K once IB is released, Z68 will support it with a simple BIOS upgrade, do you guys have any idea if intel plans to release a new 1155 chipset to go along with IB?


----------



## HumanSmoke (Dec 1, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> Geez! That's even faster than I expected! I might replace my 2600K once IB is released, Z68 will support it with a simple BIOS upgrade, do you guys have any idea if intel plans to release a new 1155 chipset to go along with IB?



Yeah. Z77 chipset. Doesn't seem much different from Z68 at first glance. 
You can find the specs in the roadmap which is >>here<< (It's where the slides in the story originate).
Happy reading.


----------



## INSTG8R (Dec 1, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> Geez! That's even faster than I expected! I might replace my 2600K once IB is released, Z68 will support it with a simple BIOS upgrade, do you guys have any idea if intel plans to release a new 1155 chipset to go along with IB?



Yeah they are putting out a new chipset the 7 series.


----------



## Over_Lord (Dec 1, 2011)

LDNL said:


> Not really. It will about the same performance as a 420 GT that gets about 8 fps 19x10 resolution in BFBC2




you sir want to play a demanding game as BF BC2 at FHD on an INTEL GPU 

you really need to lower your expectations.

we are talking 1366x768 performance here, at low.


----------



## theJesus (Dec 1, 2011)

Sooo, who wants to buy a 2500K and Z68 board in late May?


----------



## faramir (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> Thanks to Damn_Smooth for this awesome tip.



This has been posted on x-bit labs two days ago. Set up RSS feed from their website and you won't need any tips.


----------



## Wyverex (Dec 1, 2011)

My personal opinion is that these performance boosts primarily come from better IGP and memory controller, not from an increase in IPC.

Still, even a small boost in performance, coupled with better power efficiency, and probably a better overclockability... sounds like those chips could be quite a win, if priced correctly


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Dec 1, 2011)

I think I'll wait another year for Haswell and LGA 1150. I was expecting ivy to offer no IPC benefit and for Haswell to offer only 20%. Now I expect more of 1150 so I'm even more inclined to wait. Bizarrely Skyrim is the only thing able to challenge my 2600k.... ehh on second thought what's after Haswell? Skylake? If it finally gives us a mainstream 8 core then I'll go for that... more than double my performance must surely be worth it right? idk man none of this stuff seems appealing after SB. I'm not sure poorly coded games is going to be enough to make me splurge anymore, and I'm real sure I've finally gotten tired of reinstalling every 6 months.


----------



## krisna159 (Dec 1, 2011)

i think the price of Ivy brige will going up high... because intel has no rival in high end desktop,after AMD fail with buldoser...


----------



## Crap Daddy (Dec 1, 2011)

I don't think there will be real performance improvements over SB. IGP will be much better that's sure, lower consumption and higher clockability. For notebooks and such Ivy will be a killer though. For desktop I don't see the point of upgrading from Sandy to Ivy. Let's not forget the prices, AMD seems to be out of the race in this segment so Intel can do whatever they want.


----------



## rick21_wlr (Dec 1, 2011)

ouch, monopoly era begins


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 1, 2011)

I really don't see price being an issue. AMD didn't have anything competitive when SB launched and the prices weren't bad then. I expect Ivy to launch at the same launch prices as SB. We'll see I guess.


----------



## dieterd (Dec 1, 2011)

self made benches is always nice. I remember AMD benched Buldozzer and it smoked 2600k for like 100% in every position 
No question than Intel has no competition (and will not have next few years) so onlything Intel is competing is it self - I means he has to get money from SandyB users and sell them just a die shrink, usless IGP upgraide IvyB. and SandyB is so good chip for money - it will be hard work for Intel to beat him self this time....


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

DanishDevil said:


> Does this mean that the imbedded GPU is not 11.1 compatible, or that a system based on Ivy Bridge will not work with 11.1?



Yes, it's just the IGP that's affected. I was saying "CPU" in the context of the whole chip. These things are really hybrid CPU/GPU nowadays, which can make things confusing. Hence, what DS said explains nicely:



Damn_Smooth said:


> I'm pretty sure that is only for the IGP. SB's IGP doesn't support DX11 but doesn't have any problems with a graphics card that does.



To everyone: personally, while this chip looks usefully better than SB, I've actually just bought my 2700K and won't be giving it back (not used yet). This is because the data processing speed isn't _massively_ better than SB and I expect the prices to be jacked up due to zero competition from AMD. Also, I'm on an E8500 and I want that performance improvement now, not in five or six months. Heck, I can always sell the 2700K if IB is really good... 

Ultimately though, we need to wait for some independent benchmarks on release day to see just how much better IB is over SB.


----------



## Recus (Dec 1, 2011)

Can I expect x264 encoding boost?


----------



## kyussgr (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> Previous preliminary reports have suggested that the forthcoming Ivy Bridge CPUs will have single threaded performance on par with the existing Sandy Bridge CPUs and will mainly deliver improvements to power consumption and integrated graphics - nothing for PC enthusiasts to get excited about. However, in leaked documents sent to partners, Intel have now revealed official performance figures for IB and they look rather good. They've produced a raft of benchmarks, which reveal improvements such as 56% in ArcSoft Media Expresso, 25% in Excel 2010 and a 199% gain in the 3D Mark Vantage GPU benchmark. Unfortunately, they haven't released any benchmarks based on high performance 3D games, but it's probably safe to say that they will be similarly improved. Now, on to the benchmarks, which compare their new 3.4 GHz i7-3770 (4 cores + HT) with the current 3.4 GHz i7-2600, also with 4 cores + HT:
> 
> [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-11-30/graph1-01122011_thm.jpg[/URL] [url]http://www.techpowerup.com/img/11-11-30/graph2-01122011_thm.jpg[/URL]
> 
> ...



So.... Now I guess you will wait for ivy bridge.....


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

kyussgr said:


> So.... Now I guess you will wait for ivy bridge.....



No, as I've said only a couple of posts ago:



qubit said:


> To everyone: personally, while this chip looks usefully better than SB, I've actually just bought my 2700K and won't be giving it back (not used yet). This is because the data processing speed isn't massively better than SB and I expect the prices to be jacked up due to zero competition from AMD. Also, I'm on an E8500 and I want that performance improvement now, not in five or six months. Heck, I can always sell the 2700K if IB is really good...
> 
> Ultimately though, we need to wait for some independent benchmarks on release day to see just how much better IB is over SB.


----------



## kyussgr (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> No, as I've said only a couple of posts ago:



Sorry I missed that somehow... maybe too eager to tease 

I am in the same situation as you are but I decided to wait...  but its too hard.....  Let us know what you decided as you final PC setup.....


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

kyussgr said:


> Sorry I missed that somehow... maybe too eager to tease
> 
> I am in the same situation as you are but I decided to wait...  but its too hard.....  Let us know what you decided as you final PC setup.....



No sweat, it sounds like you a have a sense of humour.  As you know, I'm perfect and never miss _anything_.  

I've actually got a thread about my new build here. I've got two candidate mobos in mind and I'll be posting about them once I have researched their respective websites and reviews a bit more.


----------



## kyussgr (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> No sweat, it sounds like you a have a sense of humour.  As you know, I'm perfect and never miss _anything_.
> 
> I've actually got a thread about my new build here. I've got two candidate mobos in mind and I'll be posting about them once I have researched their respective websites and reviews a bit more.



Yes I know I made a 'lengthy' recommendation in that thread based on my own research (based on the Greek market prices) and got into an argument with John Doe who was.... a bit stubborn....


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

kyussgr said:


> Yes I know I made a 'lengthy' recommendation in that thread based on my own research (based on the Greek market prices) and got into an argument with John Doe who was.... a bit stubborn....



And now it's my bad for missing it.  lol

Thanks and I'll read it later, when I post about my two candidate mobos.


----------



## Sasqui (Dec 1, 2011)

This confirms my plan of keeping my E8600 for another year, then going nuts with an IB system sometime in 2012 when motherboards have matured.


----------



## PaulieG (Dec 1, 2011)

Yup, I'll be buying week 1, as long as prices are reasonable like SB.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Dec 1, 2011)

Are these the Ivy Bridge chips the 1155 socket variety?


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 1, 2011)

Will ivy have a six core?   Debating hard between SB-e and Ivy....coming from 1156. And while 2011 is a beast don't feel its refined enough yet


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Are these the Ivy Bridge chips the 1155 socket variety?



Yes, afaik they only fit into 1155 boards, but don't quote me.



ensabrenoir said:


> Will ivy have a six core?   Debating hard between SB-e and Ivy....coming from 1156. And while 2011 is a beast don't feel its refined enough yet



I doubt it. That's the point of SB-E and LGA2011, to feed six or eight bandwidth-hungry cores. I'll bet money that in time, we will see an "Ivy Bridge Extreme" or IB-E that fits into LGA2011.


----------



## wurschti (Dec 1, 2011)

*Future Compatibility?*

Well if this is real and it can seat itself in the 1155 socket than all I can say is that Intel is making progress for the common mortal enthusiasts! Well, we are not all Richie Rich! 600$ for a CPU and 300$ for MB is not acceptable to me!


----------



## radrok (Dec 1, 2011)

In my opinion this is one of the most interesting architectural changes on Ivy Bridge


> Some structures within the chip are now better optimized for single threaded execution. Hyper Threading requires a bunch of partitioning of internal structures (e.g. buffers/queues) to allow instructions from multiple threads to use those structures simultaneously. In Sandy Bridge, many of those structures are statically partitioned. If you have a buffer that can hold 20 entries, each thread gets up to 10 entries in the buffer. In the event of a single threaded workload, half of the buffer goes unused. Ivy Bridge reworks a number of these data structures to dynamically allocate resources to threads. Now if there's only a single thread active, these structures will dedicate all resources to servicing that thread.


Source : http://www.anandtech.com/show/4830/intels-ivy-bridge-architecture-exposed/2

So probably the single threaded performance boost is given by this change and I completely agree with this



			
				Wyverex said:
			
		

> My personal opinion is that these performance boosts primarily come from better IGP and memory controller, not from an increase in IPC.


----------



## newtekie1 (Dec 1, 2011)

Meh... The entire second graph was entirely due to the better GPU, which most of us will never use.

And the first graph was only better because of higher turboboost frequencies.

I'll wait for some real reviews, but I'm guessing performance per clock won't be all that much higher than SB, if higher at all.  But the chips will likely clock higher on air, which will be nice...


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Meh... The entire second graph was entirely due to the better GPU, which most of us will never use.
> 
> And the first graph was only better because of higher turboboost frequencies.
> 
> *I'll wait for some real reviews, but I'm guessing performance per clock won't be all that much higher than SB, if higher at all.*  But the chips will likely clock higher on air, which will be nice...



I agree about waiting for independent reviews before judging it and deciding on your purchase. However, if you look at that Anand articke that radrok pointed to, you can see that Intel have indeed worked the core to make it more efficient, so I'd expect at least some improvement in IPC performance. I'll bet it overclocks like a banshee.


----------



## radrok (Dec 1, 2011)

Still I can't see a reason to wait if you need/want to upgrade unless you need a stronger IGP


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

radrok said:


> Still I can't see a reason to wait if you need/want to upgrade unless you need a stronger IGP



It depends on someone's personal requirements, really. If their system is mostly up to scratch and is only showing its age in a couple of areas, it may make sense to wait for the better processor. However, in my case, I'm running an E8500 (see specs) and got the 2700K (still need a mobo and RAM, lol) for top gaming performance, but I'm fine with the 2700K for now. Heck, there's nothing to stop me selling it and getting IB if I really want it. 

Oh, my processor came in a dinky little blue box. Almost don't wanna open it.


----------



## ayban (Dec 1, 2011)

They should probably compare HD3000 with that HD4000, or maybe there's no actual difference.

you almost fooled me Intel


----------



## jagjitnatt (Dec 1, 2011)

15th Warlock said:


> Geez! That's even faster than I expected! I might replace my 2600K once IB is released, Z68 will support it with a simple BIOS upgrade, do you guys have any idea if intel plans to release a new 1155 chipset to go along with IB?



The upgrade just won't be worth it. The only domain where IB would be faster would be graphics intensive apps, for which all of us would be using a dedicated card.

In General CPU applications, the performance difference would be close to 10%, which can easily be reached with a mild overclock. I'd rather spend that 200 grand on a newer Graphcs card, or an SSD, now that would be something.


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

ayban said:


> They should probably compare HD3000 with that HD4000, or maybe there's no actual difference.
> 
> you almost fooled me Intel



No, it really is considerably better than HD3000 graphics, if you're interested in an IGP. It also supports DX11, which HD3000 does not.

You might find the following TPU news article interesting: Super-High 4096 x 4096 Display From An IGP? The Upcoming Ivy Bridge Can Do It

Welcome to TPU.


----------



## Rowsol (Dec 1, 2011)

So it's 15% faster.  The improved graphics is pointless to most that are shelling out the dough for these.


----------



## radrok (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> It depends on someone's personal requirements, really. If their system is mostly up to scratch and is only showing its age in a couple of areas, it may make sense to wait for the better processor. However, in my case, I'm running an E8500 (see specs) and got the 2700K (still need a mobo and RAM, lol) for top gaming performance, but I'm fine with the 2700K for now. Heck, there's nothing to stop me selling it and getting IB if I really want it.
> 
> Oh, my processor came in a dinky little blue box. Almost don't wanna open it.



We are in a diametrical situation , I have my LGA2011 mobo and RAM but here in Italy i7 39xx processors are still on *not in stock* 

I still think that if someone skips Sandy Bridge because they have a good but a tad old CPU should be better off skipping Ivy Bridge too as it isn't much more faster than SB, I know that the upgrade itch could be a major reason behind purchasing Ivy since skipping more than 1 tick tock cadence is hard to


----------



## qubit (Dec 1, 2011)

radrok said:


> We are in a diametrical situation , I have my LGA2011 mobo and RAM but here in Italy i7 39xx processors are still on *not in stock*
> 
> I still think that if someone skips Sandy Bridge because they have a good but a tad old CPU should be better off skipping Ivy Bridge too as it isn't much more faster than SB, I know that the upgrade itch could be a major reason behind purchasing Ivy since skipping more than 1 tick tock cadence is hard to



Mobo but no CPU? I'll bet that's a headbanger! :shadedshu Any idea when you'll be able to get your paws on them?

And yeah, I've got upgrade itch all right. I can't wait to build my 2700K system and really start pushing those frames with the GTX 580.


----------



## BrooksyX (Dec 1, 2011)

If the prices arnt to high and my motherboard supports it I am deffinitely going to be picking up an ivybridge k chip and a 7xxx in the spring/summer.


----------



## EarthDog (Dec 1, 2011)

This is from Intel...let me grab my salt block...


----------



## radrok (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> Mobo but no CPU? I'll bet that's a headbanger! :shadedshu Any idea when you'll be able to get your paws on them?
> 
> And yeah, I've got upgrade itch all right. I can't wait to build my 2700K system and really start pushing those frames with the GTX 580.



As you already know games completely love Sandy Bridge IPC, can't wait for you to begin using the 2700K, really 

On my side the shop still hasn't an ETA for the CPU arrival so I still have to blindly wait for it, can't really wait to see with my eyes the time improvements when rendering on Maya.


----------



## Spaceman Spiff (Dec 1, 2011)

radrok said:


> We are in a diametrical situation , I have my LGA2011 mobo and RAM but here in Italy i7 39xx processors are still on *not in stock*
> 
> I still think that if someone skips Sandy Bridge because they have a good but a tad old CPU should be better off skipping Ivy Bridge too as it isn't much more faster than SB, I know that the upgrade itch could be a major reason behind purchasing Ivy since skipping more than 1 tick tock cadence is hard to



Man you're telling me. I love my 9550 but if microcenter still has some bangin deals come xmas I may jump on a z68 and 2600k. I want m0ar giggahurtzz!


----------



## mik (Dec 1, 2011)

This is a bit like saying Intel changed the on-chip GPU for something an upgrade twice the performance than before. Look, Intel HD graphics 2000 vs (upcoming) Intel HD graphics 4000. 
The Intel HD 4000 takes casual gaming up one tier. The other productivity gains seems small, seeing as overclocking CPU would have more gains. 
I just bit the bullet when Microcenter had their Black Friday deal on the 2500k+mobo combo, so I know it's cliche, but this news makes upgrading seem... "can never catch up".. but I'm still happy with my choice.
As for gaming, it's all about the dedicated GPU upgrade.


----------



## ayban (Dec 1, 2011)

qubit said:


> No, it really is considerably better than HD3000 graphics, if you're interested in an IGP. It also supports DX11, which HD3000 does not.
> 
> You might find the following TPU news article interesting: Super-High 4096 x 4096 Display From An IGP? The Upcoming Ivy Bridge Can Do It
> 
> Welcome to TPU.



if this is the actual list of processors i'd say the tables shown was bad.
http://www.techpowerup.com/155826/Intel-Ivy-Bridge-Desktop-Processor-Models-Tabled.html
That's 3.5ghz vs 3.4ghz. 

as for the the HD graphics. i only wish they did compared it to HD3000, i was hoping HD4000 probably would perform better than hd5450 and or close to a 9500gt.

 Intel is confusing us.


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 1, 2011)

ayban said:


> if this is the actual list of processors i'd say the tables shown was bad.
> http://www.techpowerup.com/155826/In...ls-Tabled.html
> That's 3.5ghz vs 3.4ghz.



Nothing is wrong. The 2600k is also 3.5 GHz (3.5-3.8 GHz when turbo is enabled), but is a default 3.4 GHz part. Likewise, the 3770K will be 3.4 GHz, with 3.5-3.9GHz Turbo modes, giving the 3770K a 100 MHz boost, but only in single-threaded workloads.


----------



## ayban (Dec 1, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Nothing is wrong. The 2600k is also 3.5 GHz (3.5-3.8 GHz when turbo is enabled), but is a default 3.4 GHz part. Likewise, the 3770K will be 3.4 GHz, with 3.5-3.9GHz Turbo modes, giving the 3770K a 100 MHz boost, but only in single-threaded workloads.



nothing is wrong YET, unless it replaces the price point.


----------



## EpicShweetness (Dec 1, 2011)

I've been thinking of the IB processors as an upgrade from my I7 920. I understand it uses 53 less watts (more since mines is juiced to 3.0Ghz) and its AVX instruction set makes it faster then Nehalem clock for clock. My real question is would the improvement be drastic enough to warrant an upgrade? For me the fire breathing dragon of a CPU I have, lowering the power consumption by almost half is the most appealing thing.


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 1, 2011)

ayban said:


> nothing is wrong YET, unless it replaces the price point.


Yeah, I see what you're saying. You'd think Intel would want to phase out current 1155 CPU when the new Ivy Bridge ones come out, but of course, there's still some stores selling 775 parts for their original cost, so you may be very right in being a bit concerned.

MInd you, if these figures are real, releasing a muc hfaster CPU for the same price is seomthing I have no problems with Intel doing  More for your dollar is always good!



EpicShweetness said:


> I've been thinking of the IB processors as an upgrade from my I7 920. I understand it uses 53 less watts (more since mines is juiced to 3.0Ghz) and its AVX instruction set makes it faster then Nehalem clock for clock. My real question is would the improvement be drastic enough to warrant an upgrade? For me the fire breathing dragon of a CPU I have, lowering the power consumption by almost half is the most appealing thing.



Considering 1155 CPUs clock better than previous parts on average, and cram 1366 tri-channel bandwidth into just two channels, SKT1155 has alot to offer other than just the power consumption side of things. Ivy Bridge is only going ot make that deal even sweeter.


----------



## makwy2 (Dec 1, 2011)

Yawn... I'll wait until I see some independent tests.


----------



## Breit (Dec 1, 2011)

any word on ivy bridge-e? looks like a viable base to build a decent enthusiast platform around...


----------



## radrok (Dec 1, 2011)

Breit said:


> any word on ivy bridge-e? looks like a viable base to build a decent enthusiast platform around...



Intel clarified that there will be Ivy-E just after launching SB-E, I am talking without any kind of information backup but LGA2011 could well see a full silicon of SB-E thanks to the 22nm lithography and so we could see an 8c/16t Core i7 LGA2011 the main reason is that they could fit the 130w thermal envelope they couldn't on 32nm


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Dec 1, 2011)

I don't think it is worth an upgrade if you already have SB, but I think it is worth a 4 month wait if you haven't bought SB. I guess that's why I'm waiting.


----------



## wurschti (Dec 1, 2011)

newtekie1 said:


> Meh... The entire second graph was entirely due to the better GPU, which most of us will never use.
> 
> And the first graph was only better because of higher turboboost frequencies.
> 
> I'll wait for some real reviews, but I'm guessing performance per clock won't be all that much higher than SB, if higher at all.  But the chips will likely clock higher on air, which will be nice...



That's what I think too, IB is just the new shiny version of SB! I don't need to waste mos money in shiny stuff.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Dec 2, 2011)

......wow ivy is a die shrink & tune up of sb....not a new arc.  Even here people don't get this.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 2, 2011)

Meh, I'll wait for proper reviews. I really don't expect much improvement per clock in cpu tasks.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Dec 2, 2011)

Even if these benchmarks are accurate, the real important part that most are ignoring is what will they cost?

Will they be good deals like SB, or overpriced like SB-E?


----------



## cadaveca (Dec 2, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Meh, I'll wait for proper reviews. I really don't expect much improvement per clock in cpu tasks.



Neither am I. It's the power consumption drop and faster IGP that really interests me. I don't even expect more overclocks, but the SB IGP is a bit too weak for my liking right now. I'd love to use SB for HTPC without having to use an add-in card.


----------



## Wile E (Dec 2, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Neither am I. It's the power consumption drop and faster IGP that really interests me. I don't even expect more overclocks, but the SB IGP is a bit too weak for my liking right now. I'd love to use SB for HTPC without having to use an add-in card.



SB is still plenty for HTPC. You don't need acceleration for video. All you need is the ability to display in your chosen resolution. In fact, cpu decoding is normally more accurate, and with he new 10bit encoding gaining popularity, acceleration doesn't work anyway. Acceleration is highly overrated with cpus this powerful.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Dec 2, 2011)

P67 supports IB too, not just Z68, my board supported it with bios 902.


----------

