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



## btarunr (Nov 1, 2012)

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.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## ironwolf (Nov 1, 2012)

*hands out tissue* This news will probably make some people cry. (or scream and shake their fist)


----------



## btarunr (Nov 1, 2012)

Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 1, 2012)

And I shall mock thee purchasers from atop my Haswell tower.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 1, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> And I shall mock thee purchasers from atop my Haswell tower.



Aye, build her to full-ATX specifications.


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 1, 2012)

Thats a bummer i guess they have no need to increase the number of cores yet.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't see myself upgrading my 3820 any time soon, even if Intel was going to release an 8-core IVB-E CPU. A lower cost 6-core chip could be nice though.


----------



## Katanai (Nov 1, 2012)

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!


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 1, 2012)

Katanai said:


> 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!



Have any proof of that? I think I smell a troll.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Nov 1, 2012)

Sounds good... 6 fast intel cores still smoke AMDs slow 8+ cores

More cores doesn't = faster


----------



## radrok (Nov 1, 2012)

If they are so concerned about TDP they should just release an unlocked 8 core CPU that meets the 130W target by having lower clocks.

I am so disappointed Intel, really, it seems we are going backwards instead of progressing.


----------



## trickson (Nov 1, 2012)

radrok said:


> I am so disappointed Intel, really, it seems we are going backwards instead of progressing.



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.


----------



## Disparia (Nov 1, 2012)

radrok said:


> If they are so concerned about TDP they should just release an unlocked 8 core CPU that meets the 130W target by having lower clocks.
> 
> I am so disappointed Intel, really, it seems we are going backwards instead of progressing.



Yes!

And while they're at it, they should use one of those spare QPI links to put another 8-core die on die for single-socket 16C/32T!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Nov 1, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.


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.


----------



## mtosev (Nov 1, 2012)

and what is intel planning next? 8 core cpus or are they thinking about making a 12 core cpu?


----------



## Binge (Nov 1, 2012)

Not that I wouldn't like more cores, but until cores > 4 with as much performance per core as intel provides are available on my hobbyist budget I'll be out of luck


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 1, 2012)

Anybody not see this coming?  

If we remove the thermal paste issue from IB, you're still stuck with what amounts to an incremental improvement of SB.  With an incremental improvement you've got enough room for either higher frequencies, or more cores.  If you try to do both you break the TDP limits you set for yourself.

As an owner of a 2011 rig, I'm sad but not surprised.  "Everyone" is predicting the death of the desktop PC.  The payback Intel get for putting their best foot forward (read: enthusiast aimed silicon) is, on paper, getting smaller and smaller.  They have little to gain by investing in more substantial platforms.

SB-e was supposed to be a revelation.  If you cut the two unused cores off the die, and actually had the connectivity they've just started to deliver on at launch, it might have been.  As it stands, SB-e was just a slightly bigger 1155 offering.  IB-e is likely to be the same, but so late that IB in the 1155 socket will have been replaced by 1150 offerings.  Too little, far too late.


Back to the topic at hand.  Intel having two "defective" cores is unlikely.  They have 8 core offerings on the server side already.  The 130 watt TDP is the wall they work against.  Their initial planning was for 8 cores.  To cut those 2 cores out, after the initial designs hinged upon them, is an unreasonable expectation.  It's easier to have the two cores removed after production, than to completely restructure the design.  IB is inheriting this issue, because they chose to ramp up frequency rather than having more cores.  Given that very little on the market now prefers cores over frequency, the choice is understandable.  I can't support it myself, but it is understandable...


Edit:
Screwed up.  Socket 1150 is Haswell, not socket 1156.  Fixed.


----------



## repman244 (Nov 1, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Have any proof of that? I think I smell a troll.



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.



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Anybody not see this coming?
> 
> If we remove the thermal paste issue from IB, you're still stuck with what amounts to an incremental improvement of SB.  With an incremental improvement you've got enough room for either higher frequencies, or more cores.  If you try to do both you break the TDP limits you set for yourself.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on the first part, but think about this: where will haswell fit in here?
Because it could end up being almost as fast as the 6 core SB-e (or even Ivy-e), so what's the point of socket 2011 on consumer side?

And I don't see why TDP is a problem, these chips are for people who want the best and will use the best cooling, they already announced a 150W TDP 6 core SB-E.


The 6 cores version probably are defective chips (2 locked cores), it's cheaper to produce only one die and then lock the cores (the same way AMD did it).
Same thing happened on socket 1366 with Xeons, they had 6 core and 4 core versions built on 32nm and both were from the same die.


----------



## dwade (Nov 1, 2012)

mtosev said:


> and what is intel planning next? 8 core cpus or are they thinking about making a 12 core cpu?


Getting the big boys to replace crappy Atom. Intel i7 @ 10w, and even lower in the future.  AMD and ARM might as well team up against the fastest progressive processor giant that is Intel.


----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 1, 2012)

dwade said:


> Getting the big boys to replace crappy Atom. Intel i7 @ 10w, and even lower in the future.  AMD and ARM might as well team up against the fastest progressive processor giant that is Intel.



Don't forget VIA.

Something happened around the Core technology period that shot them forward, and AMD has never since been able to catch up.  Its like they found something that helped them drastically, and AMD can't reproduce those results.


----------



## Octavean (Nov 1, 2012)

The reality of it is that most enthusiasts were and still are unwilling to pay the going rate for the LGA2011 platform with respect to CPU and motherboard.  Even if the entry level Core i7 3820 can be had at Microcenter for ~$229.99 the motherboards are still typically more expensive then the very capable LGA1155 platform and likely the upcoming LGA1150 Haswell platform as well.

Ivy Bridge-E is unlikely to change any of this. 

Therefore the LGA2011 platform is basically beyond consideration for many regardless of the number of cores / threads.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 1, 2012)

repman244 said:


> I agree with you on the first part, but think about this: where will haswell fit in here?
> Because it could end up being almost as fast as the 6 core SB-e (or even Ivy-e), so what's the point of socket 2011 on consumer side?
> 
> And I don't see why TDP is a problem, these chips are for people who want the best and will use the best cooling, they already announced a 150W TDP 6 core SB-E.
> ...



I think we're on the same page.  I was saying the IB-e is "...too little, far too late."  This is in reference to the fact that IB-e will release very near to the time that Haswell, or socket 1150, offerings hit the market.  Competition like that is generally reserved for lower cost older tech versus more expensive newer tech.  IB-e versus Haswell may be more costly and perform worse.  In my opinion, this is Intel offering its high end customers the one finger salute.

Of course, this is assuming Haswell is worth it.  A preliminary assumption, that Haswell will be a substantial advance, may be incorrect.  Intel will hopefully make a Haswell that can compete against ARM, while scaling for Desktop applications.  The problem is that I can't make that assumption.  Intel sees mobile computing as the future, and is already showing a willingness to throw traditional platforms under the bus.  Hopefully this is paranoia, but the prophesy of a disappearing PC may become self fulfilling if Intel and AMD don't maintain the PC market.


----------



## repman244 (Nov 1, 2012)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> I think we're on the same page.  I was saying the IB-e is "...too little, far too late."  This is in reference to the fact that IB-e will release very near to the time that Haswell, or socket 1150, offerings hit the market.  Competition like that is generally reserved for lower cost older tech versus more expensive newer tech.  IB-e versus Haswell may be more costly and perform worse.  In my opinion, this is Intel offering its high end customers the one finger salute.
> 
> Of course, this is assuming Haswell is worth it.  A preliminary assumption, that Haswell will be a substantial advance, may be incorrect.  Intel will hopefully make a Haswell that can compete against ARM, while scaling for Desktop applications.  The problem is that I can't make that assumption.  Intel sees mobile computing as the future, and is already showing a willingness to throw traditional platforms under the bus.  Hopefully this is paranoia, but the prophesy of a disappearing PC may become self fulfilling if Intel and AMD don't maintain the PC market.



But it's actually not paranoia. It's clear when you see that the Atom will get a new update (and a very serious one), and they only keep lowering the power consumption on their entire lineup (by clocking them low). They already have a "smartphone" CPU.

The "danger" here is that they don't make unlocked chips, why? Well I guess it's the famous "Because they can" (if AMD doesn't wake up).

It's clear from SB/IB on 1155, they could ramp up the clock and rate them as 125W TDP chips, but they have no need for that.
I'm just waiting to see what kind of stupid limitations Haswell will have


----------



## PopcornMachine (Nov 1, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.



Not me.  I blame NVIDIA for not making CPUs at all!


----------



## qubit (Nov 1, 2012)

This sucks and is directly because of the lack of competition from AMD. No way am I buying a CPU with two cores disabled.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 1, 2012)

repman244 said:


> I agree with you on the first part, but think about this: where will haswell fit in here?


Shouldn't be any different to Ivy Bridge vs Sandy Bridge-E (or Sandy Bridge vs Bloomfield before it). Faster single/lightly threaded performance for mainstream desktop where the workload is generally compatible, and more cores/larger cache for heavily threaded workloads for HEDT/WS.


repman244 said:


> Because it could end up being almost as fast as the 6 core SB-e (or even Ivy-e), so what's the point of socket 2011 on consumer side?


Niche marketing/free PR, and all purpose machines whose workload spans mainstream apps (gaming, encode, surfing for porn/torrents etc) and workstation. C600/602 (LGA2011 2P) are the current pinnacle of that niche market, but I've still built a few for people that like to combine all their hobbies- gaming and benchmarking for example, with a "working" system (my last two builds were for people involved in stock trading as work/hobby who also worked in 3D design fields...and of course, being "work related" builds managed to claim the build, maintenance cost and depreciation against tax).
Other than the workload, everything else comes down to supply and demand. 


repman244 said:


> The 6 cores version probably are defective chips (2 locked cores), it's cheaper to produce only one die and then lock the cores (the same way AMD did it).Same thing happened on socket 1366 with Xeons, they had 6 core and 4 core versions built on 32nm and both were from the same die.


Pretty much. ROI is obviously going to depend on harvesting salvage parts. That has always been the case with processors, although defective cores argument might also include cores that are out of voltage spec in regard to those adjacent but fully functional. 
FWIW: 32nm Gulftown/Westmere also had a 2-core variant ( 4 inactive cores), the X5698, that was built primarily for high clockspeed and lightly threaded application. From what I understand, the inactive cores weren't defective- just fused off to allow higher frequency of the two active cores. It also retained all other aspects of the 6-core variants (full cache, max QPI etc.)


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 1, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Not me.  I blame NVIDIA for not making CPUs at all!




Wait for ARM...


----------



## theeldest (Nov 1, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 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.


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 1, 2012)

theeldest said:


> 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.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 2, 2012)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> 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.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 2, 2012)

PopcornMachine said:


> Not me.  I blame NVIDIA for not making CPUs at all!



They do make CPUs, they're called Tegra. They make Atom Z-series look like the AMD Bulldozer of the mobile world.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 2, 2012)

btarunr said:


> 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.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 2, 2012)

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.


----------



## HammerON (Nov 2, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 2, 2012)

HammerON said:


> 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. 

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.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 2, 2012)

cdawall said:


> 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


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 2, 2012)

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...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 2, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> 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


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 2, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> 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?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 2, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> 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


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 2, 2012)

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).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 2, 2012)

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.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 2, 2012)

qubit said:


> 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!


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 2, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> 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(?).


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 2, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> 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)


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 2, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> 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...


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Nov 2, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> 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.


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 2, 2012)

hardcore_gamer said:


> yet they create 48 core processor for mobile phones.



WUT, link pls.


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Nov 2, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> WUT, link pls.



http://www.techpowerup.com/174742/Intel-Envisions-Do-it-all-48-Core-Mobile-Processors.html

There you go sir.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 2, 2012)

hardcore_gamer said:


> yet they create 48 core processor for mobile phones.



Read the entire article, or at least the title, man. banghead:



> Intel *Envisions* Do-it-all 48-Core Mobile Processors


----------



## Octavean (Nov 2, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> 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.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 3, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> AMD has an 8-core processor.
> 
> 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.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 3, 2012)

cdawall said:


> 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//...sk=view&id=103&Itemid=1&limit=1&limitstart=11


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Not only this.

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

And that is without avx.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Find one encoded for AMD instead of Intel. There are plenty available.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 3, 2012)

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!


----------



## cdawall (Nov 3, 2012)

Makaveli said:


> 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.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 4, 2012)

cdawall said:


> 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)


----------



## Lazzer408 (Nov 4, 2012)

katanai said:


> 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


----------



## cdawall (Nov 4, 2012)

HumanSmoke said:


> 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?



HumanSmoke said:


> :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)










Katanai said:


> 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.


----------



## xorbe (Nov 4, 2012)

repman244 said:


> 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).


----------



## Wile E (Nov 4, 2012)

cdawall said:


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


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


----------



## sergionography (Nov 5, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Wile E (Nov 5, 2012)

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.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 5, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.


----------



## Frick (Nov 5, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.


Aaaaaaandd....


trickson said:


> 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.





qubit said:


> 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. 

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?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 5, 2012)

Frick said:


> Aaaaaaandd....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 5, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> 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.



Wile E said:


> 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.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 5, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> +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.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 5, 2012)

Wile E said:


> 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.


----------



## nzm0n5t3r (Dec 16, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.



What do you mean lack of progress?


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 16, 2012)

nzm0n5t3r said:


> What do you mean lack of progress?



You revived a thread that was dead for a month and a half just to say this? 

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.


----------



## Morgoth (Dec 16, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> Notice how long SkullTrail Lasted (Not long at all)




My Evga sr-2 xeon system is still kicking ass 3 years old


----------



## nzm0n5t3r (Dec 16, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> You revived a thread that was dead for a month and a half just to say this?
> 
> 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.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 17, 2012)

nzm0n5t3r said:


> 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.


----------



## Zack (Dec 20, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> 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.


----------



## sergionography (Dec 25, 2012)

nzm0n5t3r said:


> 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


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 25, 2012)

Katanai said:


> 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.



Aquinus said:


> 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.


----------



## Am* (Dec 26, 2012)

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.


----------



## Frick (Dec 26, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> 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.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 26, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> 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.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Dec 29, 2012)

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.


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 29, 2012)

Am* said:


> 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.


----------



## Vlada011 (Dec 29, 2012)

Extreme 6 cores CPU after IB-E could be something interesting and something very good.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Dec 30, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> 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


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Dec 30, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Inb4 Intel fans blame AMD's lack of competition for Intel's lack of progress.



Some people obviously don't fucking read or listen......... 



trickson said:


> 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.


----------



## radrok (Dec 30, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> 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 :|


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 30, 2012)

radrok said:


> 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.


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 30, 2012)

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


----------



## radrok (Dec 30, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> 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...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)


----------



## qubit (Dec 30, 2012)

radrok said:


> http://ark.intel.com/products/53580...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).
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 30, 2012)

qubit said:


> 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.


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 30, 2012)

Haswell is NOT on socket 2011. 1150 Fellas......


----------



## qubit (Dec 30, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> 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.


----------



## Aquinus (Dec 30, 2012)

qubit said:


> 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.



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.


----------



## radrok (Dec 30, 2012)

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.


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 30, 2012)

radrok said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



It does. Where do you get your info?


----------



## radrok (Dec 30, 2012)

You should be more specific when you quote and question.

"It does" is referred about what? The cache?


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 30, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> Haswell is NOT on socket 2011. 1150 Fellas......



No one said its gonna be , btw LGA1150 is mainstream Haswell 4core (8threads). 


Haswell-E will be something LGA20xx for sure. 





> While it is expected to debut late next year the future platform for servers and supercomputers Grantley Intel, which will be available in 3 editions:
> 
> Grantley-EP server 4P (quad socket).
> Grantley-EN 2P server (dual socket).
> ...



http://technewspedia.com/futurology-haswell-ep-will-have-14-cores-and-35mb-l3/


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 31, 2012)

TheHunter said:


> No one said its gonna be , btw LGA1150 is mainstream Haswell 4core (8threads).
> 
> 
> Haswell-E will be something LGA20xx for sure.
> ...



If you also read thread he said Haswell NOT Haswell E, thus my reply.

Ya sure about that LGA20XX, try socket R3. Rumor has it LGA2011 will be replaced so your for sure thing is not for sure as stated in your quote.


----------



## qubit (Dec 31, 2012)

Haswell E: LGA 2013, 16 cores, 32 threads, 4GHz clock speed, awesome performance, reasonable price! 

Ok, I'll stop dreaming now.


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 31, 2012)

qubit said:


> Haswell E: LGA 2013, 16 cores, 32 threads, 4GHz clock speed, awesome performance, reasonable price!
> 
> Ok, I'll stop dreaming now.



I haven't seen anything official but LGA2013 would make sense.


----------



## radrok (Dec 31, 2012)

qubit said:


> Haswell E: LGA 2013, 16 cores, 32 threads, 4GHz clock speed, awesome performance, reasonable price!
> 
> Ok, I'll stop dreaming now.



I'd be happy enough just with a double QPI X edition :O


----------



## qubit (Dec 31, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> I haven't seen anything official but LGA2013 would make sense.



I was making up all those specs as just a bit of wishful thinking, especially that reasonable price.  I have no idea what socket it will be on.


----------



## Inceptor (Dec 31, 2012)

radrok said:


> If they are so concerned about TDP they should just release an unlocked 8 core CPU that meets the 130W target by having lower clocks.
> 
> I am so disappointed Intel, really, it seems we are going backwards instead of progressing.



Why would they release an 8 core i7 for, let's say, $1500, if they can market an 8 core Xeon for much more than that?  Why waste the best cpu dies on an enthusiast/barely entry level workstation market when they can soak up a lot more profit from corporate/government/institutional customers?


----------



## radrok (Dec 31, 2012)

Inceptor said:


> Why would they release an 8 core i7 for, let's say, $1500, if they can market an 8 core Xeon for much more than that?  Why waste the best cpu dies on an enthusiast/barely entry level workstation market when they can soak up a lot more profit from corporate/government/institutional customers?



Agreed, then give me unlocked high end Xeons, fair enough?

I'd probably buy a 2687w if it was unlocked.


----------



## TheHunter (Dec 31, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> If you also read thread he said Haswell NOT Haswell E, thus my reply.
> 
> Ya sure about that LGA20XX, try socket R3. Rumor has it LGA2011 will be replaced so your for sure thing is not for sure as stated in your quote.



Who he? Anyhow it doesnt matter.. 



LGA 2011, also called Socket R, is a CPU socket by Intel. 

From wiki, thus this new Haswell-E is still LGA20xx


----------



## drdeathx (Dec 31, 2012)

TheHunter said:


> Who he? Anyhow it doesnt matter..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I love people who love to argue. Nothing is official from intel.... Not sayin that it wont be called 2013......


----------



## geraintwd (Jan 7, 2013)

I'm currently considering purchasing (in the next 3 months) a Sandy Bridge E 3820 quad core CPU along with an ASRock X79 Extreme 11 board (the ability to quad-SLI at x16/x16/x16/x16 was a big factor in this choice  ) to replace my current AMD platform (Phenom II X4 965 BE).

My intention is to eventually replace the SB-E chip with an IB-E later on, so that I don't need to replace the mobo. Given that the primary use for my PC is gaming, 4 cores are quite sufficient for my needs, so the fact that the IB-E chips will ship with 6 isn't a problem for me. Until games start taking advantage of more than 6 cores, there's no point me worrying about Intel disabling the extra 2. 

I'm also not too bothered about the longevity of the Socket 2011, if I can swap out the 3820 and drop an IB-E in there later on, I'll be happy. I've never upgraded just the CPU in any machine I've built - I've always replaced the mobo as well, so actually getting 2 CPU upgrades without having to swap out the rest of the system will be good for me.

My question to you clever chaps is this: am I barking up the wrong tree with my plans above? I want a mobo that will give me the best possible performance from my graphics hardware (currently a pair of GTX680s) and I want a CPU that favours raw clock speed over lots of cores, since that's what's going to give me the smoothest framerates. Are there better ways to do this (or cheaper ways?), would I benefit from looking at a different platform? 

Interested to know your thoughts. Thanks.


----------

