Ivy Bridge Early Sneak Performance Peek: Any Faster Than Sandy Bridge?

[qubit]

Intel's Ivy Bridge line of processors are not due for release until spring 2012, but it looks like Chinese website Coolaler has scored a sneak peak at the performance level of Intel's 22 nm Ivy Bridge platform by testing an engineering sample of a quad core CPU. The screenshot shows CPU-Z & Task Manager (no HyperThreading) readouts, while the AIDA64 Cache & Memory benchmark has been run. The CPU used is a 2 GHz sample as shown by the photo, which CPU-Z reports as running at its 2.4 GHz turbo boost speed (20% overclock) on a Gigabyte GA-Z68X-UD7-B3 motherboard. Rough and ready verdict: about the same speed as the current Sandy Bridge, but with a significantly enhanced northbridge and graphics core. The AIDA64 scores are actually slightly lower than the current SB scores, but this is likely because the CPU is running unsupported and unoptimized due to a mobo BIOS that's not made for it and a benchmark that cannot measure its true performance. Note the memory speeds, which were run fast at 2134 MHz 6-9-6-24 CR2, further indicating lack of optimization, since these timings suggest somewhat better performance than what was measured.



So, for any PC enthusiasts looking to upgrade their systems to play the latest high performance 3D games, should they get a current Sandy Bridge CPU or wait for Ivy Bridge? Well, if the results of Coolaler's tests are anything to go by - no gaming tests have been done though - they needn't bother waiting. To reinforce this, there's also the fact that Intel's current 2500K/2600K/2700K processors can run any of the latest games out there very fluidly indeed and the 2500K in particular, is very affordable. However, there's still quite some time before launch and as this CPU uses Intel's new 22 nm tri-gate transistors, it would be unlikely that Intel wouldn't go for at least some performance jump over their current generation, given that this is a "tick" stage design in Intel's established tick-tock processor development strategy. Note that IB is engineered more for better energy efficiency than SB, rather than just raw processing performance. However, this should have the nice benefit of making it even more overclockable, so a significant performance increase over SB may possibly be obtained that way, at the expense of power consumption. If the upgrade is needed "right now", then a current SB should probably be purchased, as the new CPU uses the same socket and the old CPU can just be sold off. However, if there's no particular pressure, then perhaps one should wait a little longer to see what performance reports show up in the next month or two.

The English source was Nordic Hardware, who reported on the Chinese coolaler results.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[LagunaX]

Makes me feel great at status quo =)

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Still waiting. I think the OC headroom is going to be huge here and I expect it to last a couple years at least. I can't wait for gaming benchmarks because I am sure there will be some improvement. Even if it is minimal, some is better than none.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

Stronger IMC and power consumption seems to be the biggest difference. Maybe I'll grab that 6 core ivy after all if it means I can get my memory running at it's rated 2400. Not a chance on current 1155 chips.... though his cas 6 run could have been unstable.

 

[Steven B]

cold cold cold.

 

[Wile E]

I didn't really expect much performance gain. It's primarily a die shrink. The increase will come from the generation after IB.

 

[Salsoolo]

i'll keep rocking my rig untill haswell

 

[DOM]

Looks like the mem bandwidth sucks

 

[Reeves-81]

I see 8-10-7-25 for ram timings in the screenshot...

 

[DOM]

nvm its the cpu clock that makes it so low

 

[qubit]

I see 8-10-7-25 for ram timings in the screenshot...

Thanks, fixed.

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

 

[ensabrenoir]

....just have to wait for more info I guess. Want a better picture of Ivy. Its either sb-e or ivy for my next rig. Sandy bridge is looking more and more like an epic unbeatable landmark in cpu history. You just can't go wrong with the thing.

 

[qubit]

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/coolalercbb/ivybridge/2G/3.gif

Thanks. Fixed.

 

[General Lee]

So it looks like Intel it just interested in dropping power consumption and increasing GPU performance. I guess it makes sense, why compete against yourself when AMD is failing in CPU performance so badly.

 

[cheesy999]

So it looks like Intel it just interested in dropping power consumption and increasing GPU performance. I guess it makes sense, why compete against yourself when AMD is failing in CPU performance so badly.

why increase the power of your proccesor if most people won't use your proccesors power?

let's face it, unless your doing really heavy video work most Desktop CPU's on the market at the moment are fast enough to cope with anything

 

[qubit]

why increase the power of your proccesor if most people won't use your proccesors power?

let's face it, unless your doing really heavy video work most Desktop CPU's on the market at the moment are fast enough to cope with anything

Yes, I think this is part of the crux of the problem. Previously, more performance was always needed for one reason or another, whether it was running the latest OS, playing games or some other task. Now, processors are so fast and efficent, that any low end dual core model is more than adequate for the task. Even the benefit to gamers has diminished, because so many games are console ports, that they don't use many resources. Only certain niche apps, such as video processing, simulations, CAD etc need as much horsepower as you can throw at them.

The other part of the problem of course, is the lack of any credible competition from AMD. The big R&D money goes into making your processor's single threading performance better. However, as AMD is far behind, this is now a one horse race again, so Intel can afford to just make smallish improvements to its products and call it a new "generation". Shame.

 

[cheesy999]

Yes, I think this is part of the crux of the problem. Previously, more performance was always needed for one reason or another, whether it was running the latest OS, playing games or some other task. Now, processors are so fast and efficent, that any low end dual core model is more than adequate for the task. Even the benefit to gamers has diminished, because so many games are console ports, that they don't use many resources. Only certain niche apps, such as video processing, simulations, CAD etc need as much horsepower as you can throw at them.

Spot on, playing music using a media player on my computer will give a grand total of 0% CPU usage, Pictures can both be viewed an edited pretty much instantly unless you have a ridiculously high amount of megapixels in them, Both normal and HD video's can be viewed on cheap mobile phones now, and video editing can be done in real time on higher end desktops.

I've actually under-clocked and under-volted my processor now, simply because i wasn't CPU limited in any single program i run, and games don't mind either as i'm only using a GTS250

 

[MilkyWay]

I expect a premium price at launch so i bought a 2500k just to tide me over until a year or so after Ivy Bridge release.

 

[Ferrum Master]

What the heck? Zero latency? It is a huuuuuuge fake... even L1 cahce has it!!

 

[Steven B]

ok lets put it this way, coolaler doesn't fake. he doesn't need to, he has CPUs even before some big manufacterers.

it shows 0 because it wont read latency correctly, that's not his fault.

Wait until results about cold and IB show up.

 

[cadaveca]

Yeah, coolaler is a good source of info, and is usualyl 100% legit. He's been pushed off of some other forums for breaking stories that the forum itself had NDA for, even.

He tends to show alot of high-speed ram clocking too, with some godly ram to boot.

Now, those numbers...yikes...not exactly what I expected.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Yeah, coolaler is a good source of info, and is usualyl 100% legit. He's been pushed off of some other forums for breaking stories that the forum itself had NDA for, even.

He tends to show alot of high-speed ram clocking too, with some godly ram to boot.

Now, those numbers...yikes...not exactly what I expected.

What were you expecting? I was, and still am, expecting a slightly faster SB with more OC headroom. That is all it will take to make me happy.

 

[cadaveca]

I was, and still am, expecting a slightly faster SB with more OC headroom. That is all it will take to make me happy.

Ohl, yes, exactly, but that's not what has been shown, so it's not that I am disappointed in IB, it's just that this info disappoints me because of a lack of info on the things I expected.

 

[Damn_Smooth]

Ohl, yes, exactly, but that's not what has been shown, so it's not that I am disappointed in IB, it's just that this info disappoints me because of a lack of info on the things I expected.

If Intel pulls an AMD and lets me down with this, I am going to nerdrage like no other. It's not like I'm shooting for the moon. I think my expectations are reasonable. I thought my expectations for BD were reasonable too though, so we'll see.