• 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.

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

B&W said:
If I buy the i5 3450 whats the cheapest motherboard that I can use with it.

Note: Do not intend to OC but if the cheaper motherboard means 15%+ performance loss then leave it.

What would the main differences be between this:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-364-GI&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1990

and this:

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MB-386-GI&groupid=701&catid=5&subcat=1965
Click to expand...

Z77 is an overclocking platform, unless you need the specific features on it then don't go for Z77, go H77 instead.

The CPU you've listed can't be overclocked by multiplier, so the motherboard you choose will have no effect on things.

If you can, go for a K CPU - a 2500K would be a far better choice than a 3450. Of course you'll need to go for a Z68, P67 or Z77 motherboard if you want to overclock a K CPU.
 
My 2 Pence Worth..

How Much Faster Is Core i7-3770K Than -2700K?

Average Percentage = 3.7%

EhKNh.png


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-24.html

Most reviewers compared a 2600k to the 3770k which was the wrong thing to do in my opinion as the 2600k has a 100MHz lower clock..

My 2700k does a 4.6GHz overclock by just changing the turbo clock to 46 with auto voltage.. somebody might wana try that on an Ivy and see how it goes.

Sticking with SB ;)
 
Last edited:
good prices, virtually the same as the sandy bridge processors :) Lets hope the i3 ivy bridge cpu's are the same price at launch as sandy bridge, wouldn't mind one of those.

also, what voltage is ivy bridge certified for? I know that using more than 1.5v for ddr3 on sandy bridge is a no-no, wondering whether ivy bridge can handle more than 1.5v or not (officially).
 
Last edited:
SO Ivyfail is average 3.7% faster, runs hot and clocks like balls,

all this in a year from Intel, I would call that poor and a failure imo.
 
Locky i see nothing good about IVY....
They are only good if someone got 30f air cooler and wants 4.5ghz maximum.
Better IGPU ??? Srsly who would use that on normal pc ??? 50f gpu is faster..
Saving few watts dont play games for 1 day and it would cover all power you save ower whole year lolz.
PCIe 3.0 its good if you got lets say 2x7970 :)
At least price is good :P
 
Locky said:
SO Ivyfail is average 3.7% faster, runs hot and clocks like balls,

all this in a year from Intel, I would call that poor and a failure imo.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Don't you read ever? 4.8Ghz SB OC = 4.5Ghz IB OC. So for a lower clock your getting 300Mhz more performance.. I don't get how thats worth calling it a fail. You either expected too much or read all the things people were hyping it up with.. Either way it's really not a fail at all..
 
Ollie1132 said:
Seriously? Don't you read ever? 4.8Ghz SB OC = 4.5Ghz IB OC. So for a lower clock your getting 300Mhz more performance.. I don't get how thats worth calling it a fail. You either expected too much or read all the things people were hyping it up with.. Either way it's really not a fail at all..
Click to expand...

Seriously? How does that logic work?

IVB is on average 3.7% faster than SB.

So a SB at 4.66ghz would be the same as an IVB at 4.5ghz, so a 4.8ghz SB is about 3% faster than a IVB @ 4.5 ;)

QQ
 
If Intel had ramped up prices, then fair enough, you might label that a fail from an overclockers point of view.

However, Intel manufactured the chip for the vast majority of PC users. These users will get hugely improved graphics, a slightly faster chip - much faster at times due to less throttling on turbo. All of this for around the same price as the old chips. Oh, and they use less energy as well.

People crying over temps or labelling it a fail are amazingly ignorant of who the chip is being designed for. Intel never set out to make it clock to 5ghz in a warm greenhouse, hence why they have no concerns of it doesn't.

Any user who gets a stable clock of 4.5 out of an Ivy chip should thank Intel for at least providing the option of free performance gains, not moan about not being able to go higher.
 
the_director said:
If Intel had ramped up prices, then fair enough, you might label that a fail from an overclockers point of view.

However, Intel manufactured the chip for the vast majority of PC users. These users will get hugely improved graphics, a slightly faster chip - much faster at times due to less throttling on turbo. All of this for around the same price as the old chips. Oh, and they use less energy as well.

People crying over temps or labelling it a fail are amazingly ignorant of who the chip is being designed for. Intel never set out to make it clock to 5ghz in a warm greenhouse, hence why they have no concerns of it doesn't.

Any user who gets a stable clock of 4.5 out of an Ivy chip should thank Intel for at least providing the option of free performance gains, not moan about not being able to go higher.
Click to expand...

you need to remove account, you are in the wrong forum to be preaching that tbh.

it's a smaller process on pretty much same architecture as SB, it should be better tbh.
 
Locky said:
you need to remove account, you are in the wrong forum to be preaching that tbh.

it's a smaller process on pretty much same architecture as SB, it should be better tbh.
Click to expand...

SB is a very well matured manufacturing process... IB is new obviously with packing a hell of a lot more transistors into the chip you have less space for air which means more heat production. As well as the fact IB chips currently have TMI -> IHS -> TMI doesn't really help. Also IB for mobile units is a huge step forward. Plus people that OC are about 3-4% of the market for intel.. so it doesn't really matter how well they OC for us theres another 96% of people that just use it at stock.... Plus haven't you seen any benches of IB at 4.5 vs SB at 4.8... get around the same results...
 
I see the only people with IVB in their sig arguing the case. You have to justify that purchase, i bet you upgraded from SB :D
 
I think people just need to stop arguing over SB & IB. The difference is minimal and you shouldn't have to justify any of your purchases as long as you can afford it :)
 
Lol, I moved from an Athlon 64 X2 6400+. Still a solid processor, heck it even plays bf3 on highish medium on 32 player maps.
 
Not trying to poop on IvyBridge or anything here just looking for some advise :D

I'm looking to upgrade to SB or IB i5 variants from a Q6600 this week. Now I'm not a massive Overclockers so I would only be looking for 4.2-4.5Ghz over the life of the chip which will be around 4-5 years. Any pointers on which is the best to get? It seems like SB is the best for raw performance with large overclockers yet the IB is better at stock and lower overclockers (which I'm aiming for) with newer tech, power draw and all that type of jazz.

It also doesn't seem like the price gap is that massive with the IB generally costing an extra £20-30 overall depending on what components you use with each chip. Tips and advise would be great :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom