Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 3,859
- Location
- Nottingham
Will probably go to Haswell in Q2 next year if it brings significant improvements over SB.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Ivybridge-E set for Q3 2013
- Thread starter Orcvader
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
Sorry, but I read this and just lolled ... wth are you talking about? A socket is a socket (are rather it's now an Land Grid Array and not a socket at all) the features available come from the CPU AND the chipset, provided that the 'socket' can facilitate the required connectivity. There are new chipsets which are destined to support LGA 2011 along with IB-E, not to mention the obvious features that will come with the 22nm IB based CPU.
Seriously ... wth are you talking about? Firstly, which Sandybridge based package has room? Which socket? And you have to be a retard to pay £800 for a 3930K ... they're almost half that price, so really no need to exagerate.
Well that remains to be seen, and I suspect is likely to reflect reality. (omg you actually wrote something that made sense)
Just because nothing rocked YOUR boat doesn't mean that the rest of the planet wasn't impressed with the latest offerings in one way or another. Judging by your earlier comments I largely suspect you're travelling in a different boat to everyone else.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
Intel must LOVE you. SB will be fine for gaming for ages to come.
That maybe so, but some people do like to keep on top of things and stay current - for some of us our careers depend on it.
if IB-E brings unlocked 8 core chips and i can afford it at the time then i'll be getting one, the 3930k (which cost me £430, dunno where this £800+ keeps coming from) has been a revalation as far as i'm concerned, brilliant cpu that has allowed me to improve the quality of my cgi a lot, but then having come from an amd 6 core, its no wonder i'm impressed, anyway would gladly cough up for an extra 2 cores, but it will depend on the price.
I'm aware i could be running a 8 core xeon justnow but the price is too high, plus am i right in thinking they arent unlocked?, so probably similar in rendering performance to a oc'd 3930k. Will be dissapointed if they dont do an 8 core version, not holding my breath though.
I'm aware i could be running a 8 core xeon justnow but the price is too high, plus am i right in thinking they arent unlocked?, so probably similar in rendering performance to a oc'd 3930k. Will be dissapointed if they dont do an 8 core version, not holding my breath though.
If the SB - IB improvement is anything to go by we can assume the following:
1) IB-E won't be much better than SB-E
2) Haswell won't be much better than IB
Why? First ones fairly obvious. SB-IB all over again. I know the 2 are not comparable but it does seem to me that the odds are it'll be a moderate performance gain rather than anything remotely special.
Second one. Well if SB-E and IB-E stay the enthusiast standard, and in a lot of things (namely gaming which many of us here enjoy) the enthusiast chips aren't really any better than the higher end mainstream chips, then as IB-E is likely a small skip forward in tech, Haswell will be too.
As said. Main improvement will be power efficiency.
Sad really. I really hope AMD come out with an amazing CPU (piledriver) to bring some competition back to the table. This monopoly is doing nobody any good.
1) IB-E won't be much better than SB-E
2) Haswell won't be much better than IB
Why? First ones fairly obvious. SB-IB all over again. I know the 2 are not comparable but it does seem to me that the odds are it'll be a moderate performance gain rather than anything remotely special.
Second one. Well if SB-E and IB-E stay the enthusiast standard, and in a lot of things (namely gaming which many of us here enjoy) the enthusiast chips aren't really any better than the higher end mainstream chips, then as IB-E is likely a small skip forward in tech, Haswell will be too.
As said. Main improvement will be power efficiency.
Sad really. I really hope AMD come out with an amazing CPU (piledriver) to bring some competition back to the table. This monopoly is doing nobody any good.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Granted that any performance gain is not likely to be hugely significant, and the smart money would bet on that being the case, but if you consider the things that hold IB back then things could be very different.
Consider things like IB's very tight voltage range, high temps and the issues that are the likely suspects of the high temps (tighter integration, IGP, etc) and then consider the current differences between SB and SB-E and apply them to IB and IB-E then you start to get the impression that IB-E could potentially be a real IB 'unleashed' product, especially if they keep IB-E's TDP in the same area as SB-E's.
If they, once again, dropped the IGP (just like SB-E) then this would have the potential of freeing up a lot more room on the die and aleviating some of the heat issues caused by the extra millions of transistors - but then this could mean additional cores might appear in place of the IGP, and maybe the heat returns to some extent. Otherwise with four or six cores it could revitalise the overclocking potential.
Also, imagine being able to overclock IB-E with BCLK as well as muliplier - that too enhances things.
Now, if you make a very conservative estimation of the likely base performance increase of only a couple of percent, and then on top add in the factors I've described, you have the potential of having a REALLY interesting product - IB without IGP, larger die, more room, less heat, potentially more optional cores, 40-ish PCI-E 3.0 lanes, and an overclock potential that existing IB owners wish they had from their previous SB products.
If the above turns out to be true then I wouldn't give Haswell a second look and would continue to try and drive whatever I can out of my investment in LGA 2011.
AMD are just so far behind they are not even in the same game any more. It's not going to be changing any time soon, not unless someone like Samsung step up and buy them out and inject more R&D cash, as has been rumoured. AMD's priority is not the desktop or workstation market any more, and that is essentially their choice - they have freely admitted to shareholders that they are chasing the mobile space very aggresively and they will do very well there. They are just not prioritising R&D in the desktop space as they just don't have the money to do that as well as the other things they already do well.
It's not a monopoly, the chip makers/designers are out there - AMD, Qualcom, Nvidia, Arm, TI, they all have the ability to do what Intel does, they just choose not to. That does not make a monopoly, that is the market doing what the market feels comfortable doing with each individual company playing to their own strengths and in their own specialist area. These guys will all take money off Intel in other markets or even shut them out completely - ie, mobile segments (phones, tablets, etc), so it's definately not a monopoly.
Simply put, if you are in the market to buy some kind of compute asset for a desktop or server, you would need to have your head examined to buy anything other than Intel. Likewise, if you are looking at a mobile phone, Intel are now pursuing that space, but you would need your head examined to consider anything other than an Arm Cortex licensed product - ie, Tegra, Snapdragon, etc.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,527
IF and ASSUME, after which you go on to make some absolutely massive extrapolations based on no information at all.
Ivy was a die shrink of Sandy - no one expected massive gains from it, just as die shrinks only haven't in the past... haswell is a new architecture entirely so to assume that it will only deliver gains in line with SB to IB is quite a big oversight
now it MIGHT be that most of the gains are put in to the on board GPU which will obviously not be of interest to most gamers... but I wouldn't automatically assume that at this point.
IB-E *could* also deliver a 33%+ gain over SB-E by unlocking the 2 cores that are fused off on SB-E, then add the 5% IPC benefit and that is one hefty increase
it is quite funny that non-2011 owners are writing off IB-E before there's any solid information where as most 2011 owners who have already bought in to the benefits of 2011 can see the potential and are waiting for information before making any concrete claims either way
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 112
If you bought a i7-3960X over a i7-3930K, then you clearly have more money than sense anyway.
Over a 30% market share I believe is the UK standard for what counts as a monopoly due to sheer market dominance. Intel own more than that in desktop processors and so in the desktop market they are effectively a monopoly. The threat of others joining in doesn't make it any less so. Currently Intel's only reason to improve anything by a real amount is to raise the barriers to entry from these potential competitors.
As for what you said. Yes it's all true. However if I owned intel i'd get my R&D years ahead of the rest, release products with minor improvements and then, if someone comes up with something to compete, unleash some of your R&D discoveries and regain dominance. By releasing your best early you simply make that technology known to the rest, and they can shortcut through your R&D costs.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
I'm afraid you believe wrong - 30% does not automatically count as a monopoly. There is a difference between a monopoly and market dominance, they are not the same thing and the terms are not interchangeable. A monopoly implies market dominance is abused in order to apply restrictive and anti-competitive practices, along with artificially inflated prices potentially being paid for inferior products. That is not the situation we are in at the moment, and not to mention the key aspect of "product substitution" also exists - you don't have to buy an intel product to do perform the exact same task.
Suggesting that Intel have a monopoly on desktop processors is a bit like saying Ferrari have a monopoly on red Italian sports cars. There are other choices and if they others aren't as good then should Ferarri stop making them? Make them deliberately slower so they only run as fast as the competition? Of course not. Intel stands hand and shoulders above the competition and equally it's not just that Intel's CPUs are so good, the fact that the competitions products are soooooo bad only serves to amplify the whole scenario. This is a consumer led market, not a supplier led market - they only make what we demand of them and no one is obligated to make anything that is detrimental to their own business.
Intel use their own intellectual property, they can use it however they see fit, since they paid for it. The alternative is that they are made to share their tech - now THATS anti-competitive in itself. If you started doing that then the incentive for any future R&D investment would disappear over night.
Well thats just a basic common sense business practice. If you make a huge investment you would be stupid to 'shoot you bolt' on day one. You can't blame Intel for that, but assuming they do have some crazy tech in reserve is a bit like a conspiracy theory - as much as we'd all love to think that they really do I largely suspect they are working on new products month-to-month.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
Just like the 2600k rolled over the 980X in most things i anticipate haswell rolling over IVB-E as well. Kinda glad i switched from 1366 to 1155, mainstream gets the new tech first
Well since IB-E is set to launch AFTER Haswell, I can't see that being the case. That would be just crazy.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 30,521
- Location
- Dormanstown.
In situations where the haswell is using the same amount of cores as the IB-E, why wouldn't the haswell beat it, Core for core performance would be in favour of Haswell.
Yeah but ivy bridge launched well before haswell. IB-E is just the ivy bridge we have now + 2 cores minus the graphics. Same as SB-E.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 313
Honestly, you really think Intel would launch in that order and have their premium sku upstaged? I'm mean, think about it, really?
You're still making one mutha of an assumption that Haswell is going to be any order of magnitude quicker than IB. So far there isn't the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that it will, and by far and away the only thing that seems likely is Haswell's improved IGP. Since IB-E isn't likely to have IGP (I dunno, it might) then it becomes a moot point. Even if they do up Haswell from x100 to x133 (as seems to be indicated) they will simply reduce the available multipliers - and we all know how SB-E already enjoys the advantages of a hefty BCLK tweek. Hmmmm yummy, IB overclockable with BCLK. I'll have some of that please.
Think it through.
Last edited: