Tuesday, July 5th 2011
Intel Ivy Bridge Dual-Core Put Through Clock-to-Clock Benches Against Sandy Bridge
Taiwanese PC enthusiast Coolaler has a new Ivy Bridge LGA1155 dual-core engineering sample to play with, and wasted no time in putting it through some tests. The sample has two cores, four threads with HyperThreading enabled, clock speed of 1.80 GHz, 256 KB L2 cache per core, and 4 MB shared L3 cache. It is running on an Intel P67 chipset-based motherboard with 8 GB of dual-channel DDR3-1600 MHz memory. At 1.80 GHz, it may not be game for absolute performance figures since it's unlikely that Intel will release a chip with that clock speed unless it has unreal performance:clockspeed gains over Sandy Bridge; but it's good enough for clock-to-clock performance comparisons between Ivy Bridge and Sandy Bridge. A Core i5-2400 was clocked at 1.80 GHz with 18x BClk multiplier, and put through a single-threaded benchmark, and a multithreaded one.
The cache and memory benchmark that measures bandwidth and latency of caches and memory was unable to measure bandwidth, but measured some latencies. The L1 cache at 2.2 nanoseconds (ns), and L2 at 2.9 ns. Next, the Ivy Bridge DC, and the Core i5-2400 (@ 1.80 GHz) testbeds were put through CPUMark 99, where Ivy Bridge DC scored 278 points, and Core i5-2400 clocked at 1.80 GHz scored closely followed at 276 points. Moving on to multithreaded performance, the two were put through Cinebench 11.5 64-bit. The Ivy Bridge DC chip scored 1.81 points; while the Core i5-2400 clocked at 1.80 GHz, scored 2.61 points. Coolaler promises more benches.
Source:
Coolaler
The cache and memory benchmark that measures bandwidth and latency of caches and memory was unable to measure bandwidth, but measured some latencies. The L1 cache at 2.2 nanoseconds (ns), and L2 at 2.9 ns. Next, the Ivy Bridge DC, and the Core i5-2400 (@ 1.80 GHz) testbeds were put through CPUMark 99, where Ivy Bridge DC scored 278 points, and Core i5-2400 clocked at 1.80 GHz scored closely followed at 276 points. Moving on to multithreaded performance, the two were put through Cinebench 11.5 64-bit. The Ivy Bridge DC chip scored 1.81 points; while the Core i5-2400 clocked at 1.80 GHz, scored 2.61 points. Coolaler promises more benches.
70 Comments on Intel Ivy Bridge Dual-Core Put Through Clock-to-Clock Benches Against Sandy Bridge
Although i admit i have no clue of the relativity of scores within a benchmark i don't use.It will still be area and the die shots will look pretty similar, i think the term 3d is not the best way to describe the new transistor as transistors are currently 3d just pretty flat/thin and the new transistors are just taller with more gate material/higher surface area.
I think calling them 3d often gives the idea that the circuit would be 3d as in could be made in a cube or something yet they are still pretty much flat slices of silicone with circuit printed on to it like they are now, it's kind of like they are just using more ink.
Even though i dislike the transistor naming i can't wait to see how they perform on retail chips, i hope the sample used here is early enough that there is more improvements to come before release and hopefully much higher clocked, preferably well over double this chips speed.
i'm all for more thermally efficient hardware, even if performance doesnt make big leaps and bounds.
but i dont want it to beat bulldozer. AMD deserves more limelight than intel.
I can not nor will not believe these results . IVY Bridge is too far off and an Engineering sample given to some Japanese guy ( Much like BD ) is just not going to cut it with me . No real BM at all . I just do not get it some how some Japanese guy always gets the first one and we all run going look here it is ! It is like saying look there is Jesus Christ RIGHT OVER THERE ! I do not believe it at all . :shadedshu :slap:
Also it's a dual core vs a quad core.
1.8ghz sounds like a mobile proccesor to me, you probably looking at something like a core i3 3xxxM
EDIT: Didn't notice there was a second page...
They compared 4 core/4 thread vs. 2 core/4 thread.
Would have made much more sense to use a 2500k and disable two core.
Inconclusive.
:rolleyes:
It has a Reason, that AMD built its Fabs here (for example).
You will NEVER beat German Engineering!:p
(man, i just love to poke american patriots... so much fun :D)
I'm not saying i dislike anything about the new transistor or anything like that i just dislike how it was named and the idea it gives so many people an that idea is the kind of 3d chip that can be made in a cube or other 3d shape not just a pcb printed on a flat sheet of silicone.