Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine
vargis14 wrote:You deserve this: Duh!I for one will not be upgrading to ivy bridge the performance gains are minimal compared to my 2600k
vargis14 wrote:Seems like the switch to 22nm does slightly lower wattage but tdp must include heat output as well.Looks like the 22nm process will just make intel more chips per wafer,improving profit margins,along with the native usb3 ,PCIe 3.0 and improved on die graphics of course.
vargis14 wrote:Seems like the switch to 22nm does slightly lower wattage but tdp must include heat output as well.
vargis14 wrote:I cannot remember where but just this morning i read that they just might change the tdp from 77 watts to 95 like the current sandy k series.
TurtlePerson2 wrote:No. Wattage is power. TDP is the exact same power. All good temperature measurements are taken after the chip has been running at 100% utilization for a long time. The maximum temperature is a function of two things: the chip's power and the cooling system.
Please stop making stuff up.
While the overall TDP of Ivy Bridge could still be lower, localized heating could cause certain devices to cease functioning at higher frequencies.
you wouldn't need a heatsink as 100% of the electricity going in would be converted into work.
Ifalna wrote:Nope. Not unless you find a friction free conductive material, which does not exist (at normal temperatures). I'm not really sure how one can speak about efficiency in that context the first place, because when you put a current though a thin wire you WILL get heat. There's no architecture that can avoid that.
I know that, thats why I said its NOT physically possible.
chuckula wrote:OK, from the reports I've seen online here's an initial take:
1. Ivy Bridge does consume less power than Sandy Bridge at stock speeds.
2. BUT: The chips themselves tend to heat up more. Since IB is much smaller than SB, the die can heat up to a higher temperature while still consuming power at a lower rate.
3. The 95 watt TDP labeling is a little confusing but may be due more to the *cooling* requirements than the actual power consumption. Basically, you need a beefier cooler to keep the chip within the specified temperature range even though the actual power being consumed by the chip is in fact lower.
4. Overclocking is not that great on IB due to the temperature issue but not really due to power consumption. Interestingly enough, an IB overclock to 4.8 Ghz uses a a little less power than a stock-clocked Bulldozer 8150 (according to the Tweaktown article that has been posted). The IB temperature, however, shoots up to unacceptable levels as you go above 4.5Ghz and approach 5Ghz. Basically, you can overclock IB to about 4.5Ghz without too much difficulty, but it will not do as well as the more mature Sandy Bridge samples out there that can hit 5 Ghz without too much trouble.
5. Keep your Sandy Bridge chip if it overclocks well. If you are interested in a lower-power mobile device, then Ivy Bridge should be good since it *does* consume less power than SB.
6. Intel will likely be able to improve these numbers over time as the 22nm process matures. Remember that when they first launched the 32nm process, the only chips that came out were the huge Gulftowns and later on the lower-end 2-core Clarkdales. The launch at 22nm, while not without issues, is actually much more ambitious in attacking a lot of different market segments quickly.
Ifalna wrote:I know that, thats why I said its NOT physically possible.
Not quite correct on that one. It's impossible at normal temperatures, once you approach a low enough temperature it's another matter (sadly only for exotic materials).
Not exactly "on topic" but it might be an interesting read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity
flip-mode wrote:chuckula wrote:OK, from the reports I've seen online here's an initial take:
1. Ivy Bridge does consume less power than Sandy Bridge at stock speeds.
2. BUT: The chips themselves tend to heat up more. Since IB is much smaller than SB, the die can heat up to a higher temperature while still consuming power at a lower rate.
3. The 95 watt TDP labeling is a little confusing but may be due more to the *cooling* requirements than the actual power consumption. Basically, you need a beefier cooler to keep the chip within the specified temperature range even though the actual power being consumed by the chip is in fact lower.
4. Overclocking is not that great on IB due to the temperature issue but not really due to power consumption. Interestingly enough, an IB overclock to 4.8 Ghz uses a a little less power than a stock-clocked Bulldozer 8150 (according to the Tweaktown article that has been posted). The IB temperature, however, shoots up to unacceptable levels as you go above 4.5Ghz and approach 5Ghz. Basically, you can overclock IB to about 4.5Ghz without too much difficulty, but it will not do as well as the more mature Sandy Bridge samples out there that can hit 5 Ghz without too much trouble.
5. Keep your Sandy Bridge chip if it overclocks well. If you are interested in a lower-power mobile device, then Ivy Bridge should be good since it *does* consume less power than SB.
6. Intel will likely be able to improve these numbers over time as the 22nm process matures. Remember that when they first launched the 32nm process, the only chips that came out were the huge Gulftowns and later on the lower-end 2-core Clarkdales. The launch at 22nm, while not without issues, is actually much more ambitious in attacking a lot of different market segments quickly.
That is all very interesting. Based upon that I might even prefer Sandy over Ivy in many cases. Very interesting. Ivy is certainly no Penryn.
I'm starting to get the itch and the Haswell scratch seems a long way off. Haswell could bring a much improved 22nm process along with a much improved architecture all at once. Could be big.
Flying Fox wrote:Simply put, with Intel's tick-tock strategy there is usually little to gain if you upgrade from the tock (new architecture) to the tick (the shrink). In fact, of most hardware, going from 1 gen to the next is going to have small incrementatl differences. The value buyer usually skips 1 or 2 generations for his/her upgrade. It is nothing new. Heck, my 875K is still ticking strong and not much incentive for me to upgrade. Now if I want to hand it down to my brother and then upgrade myself to scratch that itch, that's a different story of course.
My problem with this thread is, the OP seemed to be trying to publicly say how hot and stuff to justify his not wanting to go from upgrading his SB. There really is no need to do that. Certainly it is not for our amusement.
The value buyer usually skips 1 or 2 generations for his/her upgrade.
Quit trying so hard to miss the point he's making.
vargis14 wrote:http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4663/asrock_z77_extreme6_intel_z77_with_ivy_bridge_motherboard_review/index11.html
This is a day old tweaktown review showing the 3770k hitting 98c at 4700 or so MHZ and 1.35 or so volts......its starting to look like intels 22nm process has some leakage.Even stock temps are higher then a comparable sandy bridge cpu.[...]
Arclight wrote:That can't be an indicative of the final product. He most probably has an engineering sample.
Also, with all due respect towards TT, but look at FX 8150 sporting 8 degrees in idle......Is he testing in a freezer? And even if those values were the delta from the ambient temperature, it's still impossible cause that would make the Ivy's temp go way past 100 degrees Celsius which would most proabably never happen since the chip would throttle down.
Ifalna wrote:Quit trying so hard to miss the point he's making.
There is no point.
Since normal users (and i'm sure most tech labs) don't have a means to measure the actual amount energy that goes out as heat we cannot say anything about efficiency by using the temperature. Just because a CPU 1 gets hotter than CPU 2 does not mean that processor 1 actually radiates more energy than the other. If the Area for heat transfer gets smaller and the dissipation of heat gets more difficult you need LESS energy to achieve higher temperatures.
All we can do is measure the energy that goes IN during a given time period in which we let it perform a representative task, that gives us a "energy/task" figure. If that figure is lower on CPU 1 it's more efficient that CPU 2. If CPU 1 gets 100K hotter (arbitrary number ) it tells us only one thing: Dissipation of the heat is too difficult, we either need to work on reducing the resistance for heat or need more aggressive cooling.