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

[Morgoth]

Notice how long SkullTrail Lasted (Not long at all)

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

 

[nzm0n5t3r]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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*]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[eidairaman1]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)

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]

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]

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

 

[qubit]

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]

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]

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]

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.

It does. Where do you get your info?