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

[HumanSmoke]

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.

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.

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]

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

Wait for ARM...

 

[theeldest]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

yet they create 48 core processor for mobile phones.

WUT, link pls.

 

[hardcore_gamer]

WUT, link pls.

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

There you go sir.

 

[Aquinus]

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