Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 14,081
- Location
- Between Realities
who on earth has been telling you to do that!? I thought general consensus was to get sandy.
-
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 perf increas
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
who on earth has been telling you to do that!? I thought general consensus was to get sandy.
37% more cpu power + even lower power consumption than sandy bridge,thats really nice.but i hope they make a 6 or 8 core ivy i want a valid reason to upgrade from sandy bridge.
I want a valid reason to update from a core2quad Q9650, I want 6 cores with HT or 8 with HT atleast for the next upgrade.. SB for me is a 25-30% per clock cycle increase to what I have and a total waste of money for me to upgrade I think. Ivy is where all my hopes are at the moment for a worthwhile upgrade.
I want to feel and see I made a change to my system, I got too caught up in upgrades in the past and reality struck when I started to compare the systems and realised the difference was not worth the cost or my time building the machine for a 10-30% increase and I'm not falling for that again. Also I have plans on maybe keeping what I have now and building a decent HTPC out of it when I do update to Ivy Bridge. Just want them to hurry up and start releasing these chips 
and same applies to AMD and the 7XXX series graphics cards.
Last edited:
Same here itching but want to see real gains to make it worth my time and money.. So far non of the i5 or i7 range be it sandy bridge or 1st gen do it for me and can't justify the time or expence for at most a 30% boost.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 6,242
- Location
- Portsmouth
Aye it would
However Intel engineers are aiming at 20% faster than SB, and it's not often Intel's CPU engineers fall down so I think it's fair to imagine it will be around that much quicker. That's a pretty similar increase to the last tock release which was for example the Q6600 -> Q9450 step.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,377
- Location
- Surrey
I reckon Ivy will be my next upgrade. I have a Q6600 at 3.6, so games are alright at the moment. I'm getting the itch to upgrade though, and I'm dreading trying to sell my MB, RAM and CPU when I get the Ivy bridge MB, RAM and CPU.
The Ivy Bridge Engineering sample that was benched had IDENTICAL performance to a Sandy Bridge chip at the same clock speed.
We have no idea of whether CPU performance will be better or totally identical.
As others have said. Performance per watt is likely to be the big change, not absolute performance.
Another thing for overclockers to be wary of is that no-one knows how this new process will behave (in practice as opposed to theory) when you whack up the core voltages and clock speeds.
We have no idea of whether CPU performance will be better or totally identical.
As others have said. Performance per watt is likely to be the big change, not absolute performance.
Another thing for overclockers to be wary of is that no-one knows how this new process will behave (in practice as opposed to theory) when you whack up the core voltages and clock speeds.
from the wiki page, citation: http://vr-zone.com/articles/ivy-bridge-to-have-20-percent-performance-advantage-over-sandy-bridge/11061.html
So somewhere between 20-37%
Any powersavings usually translate into better overclocks.I'm 'waiting' for Ivy Bridge, or rather waiting for my CPU to not be fast enough, maybe for RAGE or Skyrim.
My bet is that the architecure of the CPU (as opposed to integrated GPU) is effectively identical and has almost identical speed on a clock for clock basis. What you will see are a significant reduction in TDPs (if Intel comes through with its claims for the Tri-Gate technology) and slightly higher base clocks. Maybe the introduction of a 6 core SKU ... though I have my doubts, as that would render the 6 core Sandy Bridge-E chips largely useless for anyone not going for a dual socket 2011 board.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,377
- Location
- Surrey
Will the motherboards for these CPUs have that new BIOS which boots way faster than current (ancient) BIOSs? I read that next year they would start releasing motherboards that POST in a second (or thereabouts).
Edit: Found a vid for it: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/bios-efi-uefi-firmware,news-34508.html
Edit: Found a vid for it: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/bios-efi-uefi-firmware,news-34508.html
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 500
I was going to wait for Ivybridge but I think now my new system will be built around a Sandybridge E chip, should see a nice increase in performance over my Q9650.
UEFI features on most LGA1155 motherboards and has done since January 2011.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,377
- Location
- Surrey
Yeah just reading about it now, probably should have just googled it
. But hey, maybe someone reading has never heard of it.Yeah just reading about it now, probably should have just googled it
A lot of new AMD boards have it, too. The old BIOS will die out eventuallly.
Gotta say I've got UEFI on my mobo and I don't think it posts that much quicker than my old pc
Depends on the options really and things like Raid/stoage controllers. You can tweak it so it starts quicker by disabling certain things you don't need. I know what you mean though, there isn't a huge difference with these things enabled.