I don't see what's wrong with that. No matter the overclocks, the main goal is always to achieve better benchmarks scores not higher OCs. If a 4.5GHz IB is better than a 4.8GHz SB at a given benchmark then it is still better.It's bloody sad that people get excited over 2-5% better IPC, on a chip that OC worse than its predecessor.
Another terrible effort from Intel, heck they aren't even trying.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2012/04/23/intel-core-i7-3770k-review/7
looking at shogun 2 ib looks petty good. [for a dud]
It's bloody sad that people get excited over 2-5% better IPC, on a chip that OC worse than its predecessor.
Another terrible effort from Intel, heck they aren't even trying.
It's bloody sad that people get excited over 2-5% better IPC, on a chip that OC worse than its predecessor.
Another terrible effort from Intel, heck they aren't even trying.
The first part is true but the seconds is false. It will not spin slower.Temperature and heat transfer are not the same thing. The joules of heat produced by Ivy are less than Sandy at comparable clocks and volts. If you place a control volume around your system, LESS heat will be produced by Ivy vs. Sandy. Your CPU cooling fan will run SLOWER.
You cant make the inference that a lower die size is causing this. SB has a lower die size than Lynfield, yet it also runs cooler.2. Since the heat from the Ivy die has to be transmitted across a smaller surface area the flux is greater, or if it is not, then the temperature of the die will be hotter, which is what we are seeing.
This is the first time in recent memory that we’ve seen a die-shrink causing higher temperatures that couldn't be explained away with differences in coolers or from a higher TDP.
It's bloody sad that people get excited over 2-5% better IPC, on a chip that OC worse than its predecessor.
Another terrible effort from Intel, heck they aren't even trying.
The first part is true but the seconds is false. It will not spin slower.
A CPU fan is temperature controlled. My motherboard doesnt measure joules (or even TDP). It measures temperature and the higher the value, the faster it spins the fan to reduce it.
So with everything else being equal, a fan attached to IB will spin faster (and noisier) than on a SB.
You cant make the inference that a lower die size is causing this. SB has a lower die size than Lynfield, yet it also runs cooler.
Also a GTX480 has a 529mm2 die size vs GTX680 294mm2. This is a huge reduction in die size, far in excess of IB vs SB. Yet the GTX680 still runs cooler, despite having a less bulky cooler and much lower fan speeds.
This is the first time in recent memory that weve seen a die-shrink causing higher temperatures that couldn't be explained away with differences in coolers or from a higher TDP.
I think its related to the manufacturing. If I had to guess, Id say the heat is somehow getting trapped in those tri-grate transistors more than on planar transistors.
Of course with Intel being the only one with this manufacturing, it's only a theory until we see more examples.
I think it's sad that people stopped focusing on performance and instead focus on Ghz. Just because the OC number isn't as high doesn't mean that IB doesn't perform as well or slightly better. A 4.5 IB can perform just as well as a 4.8 SB while using less power. I don't see that as worse than its predecessor.
So you would rather focus on the the 4% IPC increase over sandy bridge? Nice. It isn't unreasonable to expect better overclocking (on air) with a node shrink. Fact of the matter this has always happened with node shrinks in the past 5 years. Obviously Ivy Bridge is better for those upgrading from older CPU's, and its definitely a nice CPU -- but for existing SB users.....its hard to get exited.
It isn't unreasonable to expect better overclocking (on air) with a node shrink.
So you would rather focus on the the 4% IPC increase over sandy bridge? Nice. It isn't unreasonable to expect better overclocking (on air) with a node shrink. Fact of the matter this has always happened with node shrinks in the past 5 years. Obviously Ivy Bridge is better for those upgrading from older CPU's, and its definitely a nice CPU -- but for existing SB users.....its hard to get exited.
No, it's nothing to get excited about if you have SB, but it's still not a failure. The chip performs the same or better in some scenarios and uses less power. How is that bad? Isn't OCing all about performance? So what if it can't reach the same NUMBERS as SB so long as it can reach the same PERFORMANCE.
No, it's nothing to get excited about if you have SB, but it's still not a failure. The chip performs the same or better in some scenarios and uses less power. How is that bad? Isn't OCing all about performance? So what if it can't reach the same NUMBERS as SB so long as it can reach the same PERFORMANCE.
Seems IB uses Non Soldered TIM
http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7171428&postcount=151
Not following, can you explain this more?
It's bloody sad that people get excited over 2-5% better IPC, on a chip that OC worse than its predecessor.
Another terrible effort from Intel, heck they aren't even trying.
So, is there a solution to this since we now know what the problem is? Or do we just have to deal with it?