AnandTech Ivy Bridge Performance Preview

[alyarb]

Intel has it right, and they are perfectly justified reserving 8-threadedness for the desktop i7's. Mainstream users have been presented with general purpose multiprocessing (x86/x64) scenarios for years and all of the ideal cases have long since passed to the IGP (multimedia encode/decode, rich web geometry). It was only relevant to have numerous strong cores in the 90-65nm timeframe because high-def flash video and web rendering could not yet be offloaded to the GPU (unless you were in the 1% with a high-end card). Netflix and their use of silverlight is one of the last exceptions to this, but eventually that domino will fall to the IGP as well.

We now live in a time when almost any multithreaded job within the scope of an everyday PC user would be done faster and with less power on the IGP. In fact, the prime domain of multicore consumer CPUs is multitasking, not multiprocessing, and to that end, the balance you want to give your customers is a couple of the fastest CPUs they can get, not a truckload of the smallest CPUs they can get, particularly when you sell more laptops than desktops and your TDP is 17-35 and not 95-125.

But even if intel didn't have its manufacturing or power advantage, they would probably win in the long run (and indeed Kentsfield was faster than Barcelona, when the technology field was far closer to level). As you add cores, the performance increase that you can get, even in an unachievably ideal hypothetical multithreading scenario, decreases rapidly, and that is how you can tell AMD's philosophy is failing, even though it may not have failed completely just yet. They really peaked at Thuban and then a concert of wrong choices were brought into Bulldozer, but the central point of it all is that heavy multiprocessing is not what consumers are doing, so the moment AMD decided to shoot for the aggregate throughput niche was also the moment that they abandoned/surrendered to intel the much larger and more important general computing/consumer/productivity space.

 

[blckgrffn]

I should be happy with 15 to 20% every two years? Why? That is pathetic.

To clarify - obviously Intel increased perf-per-watt much more than this.

Obviously, the minority of users are asking for pure computing performance increases in a way that aligns with what I want. Economics speak for themselves and a minority won't have much sway for a company with their eye on the bottom line, like Intel.

Hopefully AMD will address the "happy w/~95-125W CPUs, but want more compute power" and price those against the more efficient (on workloads with lower thread counts) Intel mainstream since they have to find a niche if they are not going head to head.

It's like I am ripping on the 79xx series over in VC&G -for not focusing on "performance" versus working on compute and perf/watt, which is a bit embarrassing, since over there I have argued how silly that is.

It all comes down to a given users usage patterns. For a ridiculous amount of users, something like an i3-2100 is incredibly adequate so it makes sense this is the performance envelope that Intel is going to focus on.

For the record, that usage pattern doesn't represent me and my desktops.

Intel has it right, and they are perfectly justified reserving 8-threadedness for the desktop i7's.

I'll agree with you (and for even thread counts above eight) if I am correctly interpreting your position that as "most users don't need this much general computing power, so Intel can charge the few that do much more and have great margins on those products." Intel is a shareholder directed company after all, so their directive is to return the maximum value to their shareholders. Hopefully I have some Intel stock through some of my diversified investments

This doesn't mean I have to like it (as a consumer.)

 

[fixbsod]

Griff -- if you want a 6 or 8 core intel then by all means go buy one. intel has multiple 6 core options including the 990x, 3930k, 3960x and xeons and also has 8 core xeons. so if you want more cores than go buy a cpu with more cores.

 

[blckgrffn]

Griff -- if you want a 6 or 8 core intel then by all means go buy one. intel has multiple 6 core options including the 990x, 3930k, 3960x and xeons and also has 8 core xeons. so if you want more cores than go buy a cpu with more cores.

Ah, but the utility of those SKU's doesn't merit their current prices. I have done the math - it would be a "better deal" for me to invest in two 2500k machines than to purchase a "high end" SKU. Without any market pressure this is unlikely to change with IVB or Haswell, unfortunately.

ie, cake and eat it. I am not trying to derail this thread, but my excitement for Haswell has dimmed significantly compared to where it was when we "knew" less.

Pelov's link to CPU world is even more of a bummer, as it indicates that IVB-E is 2H 2013. If that is our first realistic hope of octocore i7's and relatively inexpensive hexacore Intel processors... well... it looks like we are going from a relative golden age of Desktop CPU iterations into more of an ice age. As others have noted, it's all about notebooks and TDP. Sigh.

More cores for mainstream prices is what I want. If Intel is really interested in competing with themselves, it will be interesting how they get people interested in Haswell. Of course, IVB will be removed from the market so we will just march ahead to Intel's high margin tune.

This is why a healthy AMD is better for all of us - competition enables us to get more for our money. Whether we "need" it or not is another story

Ahh, that 5% chance will become greater if AMD would get their arses in gear and produce something competitive!

Exactly.

 

[greenhawk]

Thuban gave me 50% more power over Deneb for the same Watts in ~2 years. Intel did the same with Core 2 Quad.

The problem with using that as a example is that Intel "cheated" as they needed a quad and had nothing in R&D at the time, so they just placed two E series core 2 processors into the same CPU package. All quite easy since even the Xeon cpus of that range used the FSB to communicate.

 

[alyarb]

Because of intel's external interface scheme (off die MCH, GMA, everything...) having half the execution cores on separate dies does not help or hurt the performance, and unifying the cores into a "native" quad like Barcelona would have only introduced higher costs and lower yields. Intel did not cheat with Core2 Quad, in fact I would say it was executed perfectly given the technology constraints of the time.

Only after the memory controller is integrated would it make sense to unify your execution hardware. That is what they did with nehalem and everything seemed to work out.

 

[Joseph F]

Only after the memory controller is integrated would it make sense to unify your execution hardware. That is what they did with nehalem and everything seemed to work out.

By this logic, it would be best to have four separate dies on a Core 2 Quad. LOL
Stop defending Intel's quick and dirty MCM tactics.

 

[alyarb]

No, my logic states that there was no performance cost in MCM dual cores because of the limitations imposed by the FSB. Four cores can quickly saturate the FSB whether they are unified or in 4x1 or 2x2 configuration, but it was cheapest to do 2x2 because they were already producing dual core dies and would only branch the FSB once in a "Y-splitter" type arrangement. While 4x1 would be possible, it would not be the cheapest or simplest route to take, and when a large company undertakes a project they have more to worry about than what some zealous WoW-playing layperson thinks of their design.

Intel had to work within unique geometric constraints that AMD did not, and they made the most of it. If you knew the history you would know I'm not apologizing for anyone. Even at 65nm, intel had the technology to produce highly complex integrated products like Dunnington or Tukwila, but those are large HPC/enterprise chips and rolling that out to millions of customers, most of whom are laptop users, would've given them far thinner margins and lower performance per watt than dropping 2x1 or 2x2 cores into their existing LGA775 platform which was already widely implemented.

 

[fixbsod]

Can't please everybody all the time. There is no market at this time for consumer 6 core chips -- it's all about small form systems -- smartphones, tablets, ultrabooks.

 

[blckgrffn]

Can't please everybody all the time. There is no market at this time for consumer 6 core chips -- it's all about small form systems -- smartphones, tablets, ultrabooks.

Yep. Clearly I am outlyer based on the comments in this thread. Without a healthy level of discontent, we'll just have to be "happy" with 4c/8t as the mainstream top offering for a few more years.

 

[Edrick]

I just want more without paying a premium. What I want isn't wrong - it's just that Intel isn't under much pressure to deliver.

No offense, but when you want the best and not pay for it, then it kinda is wrong. That goes with just about everything in life.

As for CPUs, Intel has had a 6 core options for desktops for well over a year now and spans 2 generations of uArch.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

No offense, but when you want the best and not pay for it, then it kinda is wrong. That goes with just about everything in life.

As for CPUs, Intel has had a 6 core options for desktops for well over a year now and spans 2 generations of uArch.

This. If you want more cores, buy more cores. There's no reason for Intel to give them for free when they have nearly zero competition from AMD. Even then, the i7-3930K is decently priced given its single and multi-threaded performance.

 

[Magic Carpet]

No offense, but when you want the best and not pay for it, then it kinda is wrong. That goes with just about everything in life.

+1.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Does anyone have any idea of how the desktop integrated graphics performance will compare to the mobile version?

 

[nyker96]

damn Intel's got all the cool toys!

 

[blckgrffn]

No offense, but when you want the best and not pay for it, then it kinda is wrong. That goes with just about everything in life.

As for CPUs, Intel has had a 6 core options for desktops for well over a year now and spans 2 generations of uArch.

Hmmm... well, it's hard to have a wrong opinion... one that is debatable or even offensive, sure.

I am not arguing for having the "best" for mainstream (and lets be clear here, I am talking about pricing at the 2600k/2700k level, personally) for free. It's about being disappointed with pace of progress here.

Expecting to Intel to move the goalposts is really common sense from my standpoint. For example, I would expect that Haswell-E (or the like) will have eight core enthusiast level CPUs and 10-12 (or more!) core Xeon CPUs available.

I mean, would wanting something like a Pentium Quad Core @ ~2.8 Ghz w/reduced cache and weaker IGP around $90-110 be wrong too? In 2013?

Fine, most people don't care about getting (noticeably) more CPU power in PCs under $1k. Got it. But that won't change my mind

Given the disappointing feature set X79 (ie, less than what you get on Z68 in some respects, not acceptable IMHO) even that platform is a compromise.

/looks at his piles of Thubans, wishes Intel would make something similar in the next two years at a similar price point, knows they likely won't/

If AMD had been able to keep the pressure up, Intel might have a different road map. Obviously Intel likes bigger margins and people like paying the same for less and less chip. Yay.

It's not that I don't get your point - that if I wanted to spend the money I could get the compute density.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Hmmm... well, it's hard to have a wrong opinion... one that is debatable or even offensive, sure.

I am not arguing for having the "best" for mainstream (and lets be clear here, I am talking about pricing at the 2600k/2700k level, personally) for free. It's about being disappointed with pace of progress here.

Expecting to Intel to move the goalposts is really common sense from my standpoint. For example, I would expect that Haswell-E (or the like) will have eight core enthusiast level CPUs and 10-12 (or more!) core Xeon CPUs available.

I mean, would wanting something like a Pentium Quad Core @ ~2.8 Ghz w/reduced cache and weaker IGP around $90-110 be wrong too? In 2013?

Fine, most people don't care about getting (noticeably) more CPU power in PCs under $1k. Got it. But that won't change my mind

Given the disappointing feature set X79 (ie, less than what you get on Z68 in some respects, not acceptable IMHO) even that platform is a compromise.

/looks at his piles of Thubans, wishes Intel would make something similar in the next two years at a similar price point, knows they likely won't/

If AMD had been able to keep the pressure up, Intel might have a different road map. Obviously Intel likes bigger margins and people like paying the same for less and less chip. Yay.

It's not that I don't get your point - that if I wanted to spend the money I could get the compute density.

Oh, quit whining already. Comparing current and last quad-core i7s there's been a considerable increase in performance and a considerable decrease in power consumption. The average you got out of the 870 and 930 was 3.6-4.2GHz depending on how much over-voltage you applied, and with the 2600K and 3820 that goes to 4.3-4.8GHz. So you have 11% higher IPC and 18% higher clock speeds/overclocking on average (taking a median 3.8GHz and 4.5GHz), making the difference almost ~30% in terms of performance.

If you think a 30% performance increase in just one gen to the other is poor there's something wrong with your expectations.

 

[MaxPayne63]

If AMD had been able to keep the pressure up, Intel might have a different road map. Obviously Intel likes bigger margins and people like paying the same for less and less chip. Yay.

Of course the flipside of this is that the reason AMD couldn't provide more competition is because the scraps they were taking from Intel never brought in enough dollars.

 

[blckgrffn]

Of course the flipside of this is that the reason AMD couldn't provide more competition is because the scraps they were taking from Intel never brought in enough dollars.

That's one way to look at it, I suppose

They didn't exactly stay on top of things post Athlon FX, either.

At least Intel is vigorously investing in fab technology, etc. It is hard to imagine them really getting shaken down in the next decade or so, even if they take one segment (that I hold dear) a little less aggressively in order to better fill the needs of others.

They are undoubtedly putting Intel first

 

[Edrick]

It's about being disappointed with pace of progress here.

Blame software development for this. Intel is capable of putting out more cores, but why? There are very select few people who use applications needing more than 4C/8T. And those people move towards the SB-E lineup. If software was saturating 4 cores for most applications, then we would already be seeing 6 and 8 cores on the desktop. But that is not the case.

Given the disappointing feature set X79 (ie, less than what you get on Z68 in some respects, not acceptable IMHO) even that platform is a compromise

The only thing missing from the X79 is SAS support (how many of us really care about this?) and more than 2 ports of SATA 6Gps. Yes, I was disappointed with that as well. But the Z68 chipsets are no better and the 7 series may not be either in that regard. But you do get PCIe 3.0 (which Z68 does not have) and plenty of USB 3.0 ports and other nice features. Overall, I am happy with the X79 platform for SB and IB.

Naturally I hope they put out a killer E platform for Haswell with no short commings.

I would expect that Haswell-E (or the like) will have eight core enthusiast level CPUs and 10-12 (or more!) core Xeon CPUs available.

I fully expect that to be true. And I will be getting one. If Intel does not go to that level, I will be very disappointed.

 

[jimpatrick]

The only thing missing from the X79 is SAS support (how many of us really care about this?) and more than 2 ports of SATA 6Gps. Yes, I was disappointed with that as well. But the Z68 chipsets are no better and the 7 series may not be either in that regard. But you do get PCIe 3.0 (which Z68 does not have) and plenty of USB 3.0 ports and other nice features. Overall, I am happy with the X79 platform for SB and IB.

afaik it does,although you need ivy chip for it to work :awe:

 

[blckgrffn]

Blame software development for this. Intel is capable of putting out more cores, but why? There are very select few people who use applications needing more than 4C/8T. And those people move towards the SB-E lineup. If software was saturating 4 cores for most applications, then we would already be seeing 6 and 8 cores on the desktop. But that is not the case.



The only thing missing from the X79 is SAS support (how many of us really care about this?) and more than 2 ports of SATA 6Gps. Yes, I was disappointed with that as well. But the Z68 chipsets are no better and the 7 series may not be either in that regard. But you do get PCIe 3.0 (which Z68 does not have) and plenty of USB 3.0 ports and other nice features. Overall, I am happy with the X79 platform for SB and IB.

Naturally I hope they put out a killer E platform for Haswell with no short commings.



I fully expect that to be true. And I will be getting one. If Intel does not go to that level, I will be very disappointed.

I fully concede your first point. With any luck games (and gamers) will provide the impetus to move the desktop forward. Even then, the numbers probably are not sufficient.

X79 does not have SRT, correct? And nearly all of the IVB chips do (and Z68)? That is the primary feature I speak of... also, yes, it would have been expected for all of the SATA ports to be Gen 3 (like my lowly AMD 870 chipsets?) but I would say that is a nitpick and is not "behind" Z68.

I have used that feature in a number of builds with great results. I plan on using the SSD and mechanical in my sig for my games and desktop VMs and using a 128GB SSD for my main boot/app drive in the future. Without SRT that cannot happen... and what else am I going to use that little SSD for?

 

[Edrick]

I have used that feature in a number of builds with great results. I plan on using the SSD and mechanical in my sig for my games and desktop VMs and using a 128GB SSD for my main boot/app drive in the future. Without SRT that cannot happen... and what else am I going to use that little SSD for?

Personally, I think SRT is just a short term technology that will go away when SSDs move even closer to mainstream. So I did not care if X79 had it or not.

What I did is use my main 128GB SSD for a boot and application drive. I used my second "extra" SSD for a game data drive. Then I used my large HDD for just data like pictures and code and such. Do not need too much speed there.

 

[Arachnotronic]

no offense, but when you want the best and not pay for it, then it kinda is wrong. That goes with just about everything in life.

As for cpus, intel has had a 6 core options for desktops for well over a year now and spans 2 generations of uarch.

+1 * 10^6

 

[pelov]

Personally, I think SRT is just a short term technology that will go away when SSDs move even closer to mainstream. So I did not care if X79 had it or not.

What I did is use my main 128GB SSD for a boot and application drive. I used my second "extra" SSD for a game data drive. Then I used my large HDD for just data like pictures and code and such. Do not need too much speed there.

While X79 does offer something the Z68 does not, that *something* is actually just PCIE 3.0 ... Great...

The reason for that is Intel had issues integrating the USB 3.0 and it kept getting delayed. The fact that SRT isn't there, nor more than 2 6GB/s sata nor SAS is something you should be complaining about, particularly when it's marketed as the workstation platform that essentially sells you server chips at skyrocket prices.

Which begs the question: why the hell would you pay an inflated amount of money for a platform that's really no different than 1155 other than the differences in chips that are compatible? The SB-E chips are great because the Xeons are great, but the 2011 platform in its current iteration is a pass.

If the lack of goodies was coupled with a cheaper price then fine, but at the moment it's both neutered and expensive and I still don't get it.