**IVY BRIDGE IN STOCK & AVAILABLE NOW!!**

Gibbo said:
Yes Samsung GREEN we've found the best with Ivybridge, better than anything else, absolutely unbeatable value for money, especially at the crazy weekend ONLY pricing. :D
Click to expand...

Does running 4 sticks have much of an impact on how much it clocks, or does it struggle?
 
I hear those run pretty hot when OC'd so people with average cooling may be better off with the Sandy's if they were to seek high overclocks. I'd be nice if one of the OCUK guys run some tests and show us what temps they are getting on air, closed loops and custom water.
I'm tempted to go try myself, but i'm sure the guys at OCUK will do far better job than I would. ;)
 
I went for the Sabertooth, although there are some other really nice ones. I'd say go for the one that personally appeals to you as long as it is z77.
 
MikeHunt79 said:
Are these mobile processors similar to the old Athlon XP-M?
Click to expand...

According to wikipedia, there's S, T and K for the desktop. K as we know is unlocked. S is low power (65w TDP) and T is ultra low power (35-45w).

For mobile there's M, Q, U and X.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#List_of_Ivy_Bridge_processors

I imagine the S versions will go in the default Ivy Bridge Mac builds (as they have done since the mid 2011 models). I'm sure Asus and Sony use the S SandyBridge chips in some of their all-in-ones as well (I haven't checked their specs in a while).

The T chips will probably find their way into mini-itx and other HTPC setups.

Edit 2: SandyBridge had similar suffixes. I suppose as the Ivy Bridge catalogue expands so to will the suffix list.
 
Last edited:
Nevakonaza said:
About time we see prices!

Although i must admit,I was expecting the whole Ivy bridge line to be cheaper. :/
Click to expand...

Really? I was hoping they might be cheaper, but realistically why would Intel discount these when :
They're faster than Sandybridge (not by much except the iGPU)
They're lower power too
There's absolutely no competition from AMD

It's not a large enough leap to make me consider upgrading my 2500K, but for new builds it's a no-brainer IMHO. Maybe Sandybridge prices will drop somewhat now, but until AMD get their act together, Intel can do whatever they want with their pricing.
 
OhEsEcks said:
Snip
Click to expand...
Thanks, those T chips do look like the ones for me, even if the clock speed is a little lower, I'm planning to go for a passively cooled system or maybe have very low RPM fans, so 45W from a quad core chip is pretty impressive, and certainly a far cry from those 100W+ TDP Q6600's. :eek: :)
 
Mike, if it helps... the technology in the t chips is the same as the normal chips, they just have limits put on them to keep them within the thermal and power package. When I was planning my HTPC I did look at them but the advice I got was that they're suitable if you're a system builder and want to pick a TDP/power consumption, but for an end user they're not so great.

I'd go for a system with a PWM CPU fan set carefully so that it is silent except if there's a need for it, and I'd go for a normal CPU. That way the only time you'll hear it is when the CPU is under such sustained load that it gets to build up heat, and at that time I think I'd suffer a little noise for the extra computing power. The alternative is that your system runs hot under load but silent, and less powerful.

Ivy Bridge is Ivy Bridge, there's nothing different about them other than the limits imposed to keep them within the tighter spec.
 
Hopefully they will sort out the heat issues and spend the extra 2-3c/unit on the cement for the IHS rather than some cheap zinc paste - nobody needs things to be 20c hotter at the same speed as SB.

Either way I'm out until at least IB-E and probably H-E.
 
2700k it is for me after the above reply. I don't need pcie 3 anyway as I have two 5850's which will and do sit quite happily in pciex 2 and 8x8.

I don't really want one that can't clock anywhere near a sb cpu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom