is Xeon only option to have CPU without GPU?

[mikek753]

hi all,

In past about 2 years all consumer CPU got GPU in same die - SB or IB.
But, what to use for desktop / workstation / gaming PC?
Anyway desktop will need dedicated GPU card as IB 4000 isn't near mid range GPU card.
Why to pay for integrated GPU that will never be in use?
Will Xeon SB or IB based be better option for this matter?
Unless Xeon costs higher than consumer i5/7

Any links for IB Xeon performance vs i5/7 are very welcome.
Any one went with Xeon IB instead if i7 IB?

tnx

 

[Ratman6161]

hi all,

In past about 2 years all consumer CPU got GPU in same die - SB or IB.
But, what to use for desktop / workstation / gaming PC?
Anyway desktop will need dedicated GPU card as IB 4000 isn't near mid range GPU card.
Why to pay for integrated GPU that will never be in use?
Will Xeon SB or IB based be better option for this matter?
Unless Xeon costs higher than consumer i5/7

Any links for IB Xeon performance vs i5/7 are very welcome.
Any one went with Xeon IB instead if i7 IB?

Here are a couple with no integrated GPU. But as far as paying for a gpu you won't use? The 2550K actually costs more than the 2500K

tnx

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115230

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115231

 

[Meghan54]

hi all,

In past about 2 years all consumer CPU got GPU in same die - SB or IB.
But, what to use for desktop / workstation / gaming PC?
Anyway desktop will need dedicated GPU card as IB 4000 isn't near mid range GPU card.
Why to pay for integrated GPU that will never be in use?
Will Xeon SB or IB based be better option for this matter?
Unless Xeon costs higher than consumer i5/7

Any links for IB Xeon performance vs i5/7 are very welcome.
Any one went with Xeon IB instead if i7 IB?

tnx

Ever heard of the 2550K cpu? It's a 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge cpu without integrated graphics. Interestingly, it costs more than its brother, the 2500K.

So, they do exist, but the cost is pretty negligable as for the integrated gpu in Intel's cpus. Honestly, a 2500K for $200? One of the fastest and best performing cpus at that low a price.....and OC's like a scalded dog. These are the salad days in cpus, more than when the Celeron 300A was out and was the OC'er king.

 

[rickon66]

It had not really occured to me until a couple of days ago, and the thought popped into my head, "Self, you just built a new computer and do you realize that it had built in graphics"?. I had not built anything in two years since I7-930 days and had not really followed the new processors, so I had wondered the same thing as the OP's question. I have been building for 20+ years and all of the machines had seperate video cards or relied on the motherboard for graphics. Oh well, the built in graphics allowed me to assemble and test the rig and have a couple of weeks to find a scarce video card - GTX670.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Ever heard of the 2550K cpu? It's a 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge cpu without integrated graphics. Interestingly, it costs more than its brother, the 2500K.

The 2550K still got the transistors for the iGPU.

 

[exar333]

Is this a serious question? Any LGA2011 CPU option does not have a GPU...

 

[pantsaregood]

There is literally no reason for the average consumer to buy an Xeon unit instead of a consumer-level CPU. You don't need the IGP? Then don't use it - really, it's that easy.

You can get a 2600K for $290, a 3820 on a more expensive LGA 2011 board for $300 (but - it has no IGP), a 2700K for $310, or a 3770K for $350.

 

[paperwastage]

hi all,

In past about 2 years all consumer CPU got GPU in same die - SB or IB.
But, what to use for desktop / workstation / gaming PC?
Anyway desktop will need dedicated GPU card as IB 4000 isn't near mid range GPU card.
Why to pay for integrated GPU that will never be in use?
Will Xeon SB or IB based be better option for this matter?
Unless Xeon costs higher than consumer i5/7

Any links for IB Xeon performance vs i5/7 are very welcome.
Any one went with Xeon IB instead if i7 IB?

tnx

technically, if you look at the business/economics side, costs are different

Intel pays for R&D on 1 chip design.

Manufacture

Some defects on the silicon... maybe iGPU doesn't work (binned to 2550k, IGP lasered off)... maybe the ECC part doesn't work (ECC lasered off, not XEON, becomes consumer chip)... maybe it doesn't pass QC at quad cores @ 3.6ghz (binned to an i3 dual coregets binned at lower clockspeed)

whatever you buy, Intel decides how much of the R&D, manufacturing costs you should pay etc.......

so it's not up to you to decide that "I dont need an IGP, intel should sell me a 2500k with the IGP lasered off at a 2500k-price-minus-$5"

 

[pantsaregood]

technically, if you look at the business/economics side, costs are different

Intel pays for R&D on 1 chip design.

Manufacture

Some defects on the silicon... maybe iGPU doesn't work (binned to 2550k, IGP lasered off)... maybe the ECC part doesn't work (ECC lasered off, not XEON, becomes consumer chip)... maybe it doesn't pass QC at quad cores @ 3.6ghz (binned to an i3 dual core)

whatever you buy, Intel decides how much of the R&D, manufacturing costs you should pay etc.......

so it's not up to you to decide that "I dont need an IGP, intel should sell me a 2500k with the IGP lasered off at a 2500k-price-minus-$5"

I think the dual-core SB units actually use a native design.

 

[borisvodofsky]

The 2550K still got the transistors for the iGPU.

Yup. and it's better to have the dead silicon than not, because it helps heat transfer, thus cooling the CPU.

 

[paperwastage]

I think the dual-core SB units actually use a native design.

i wasn't sure about that point, but you get my general idea...

 

[IntelUser2000]

.Why to pay for integrated GPU that will never be in use?

You don't.

CPU dies are cut from wafers, and they can have defects in manufacturing that can render some parts of the wafer unusable. Manufacturers like Intel and AMD add redundancy and disable the parts with defects, selling them as cheaper parts.

Also because majority of the people opt for systems with integrated graphics, and that actual costs of making the chip is far less than what they sell you for, the extra costs become irrelevant, since the people that need the integrated graphics will pay for the trivial costs that come from it.

Here's a Sandy Bridge quad core die in its full 4 core, 8MB L3 cache, GT2 graphics configuration: http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/01/intel-sandy-bridge-review/sandy-bridge-die-map.jpg

Notice the clean spot at the bottomleft corner? That contains nothing. The quad core parts are taking few mm2 die hit to enable modularity in making derivative parts like dual cores with much higher volume.

 

[Arkaign]

I'd love a hypothetical 2*00k that had an additional 16MB of L2 cache instead of a GPU

 

[nenforcer]

Clear you are in the market for this CPU

AMD Athlon II X4 641

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819113133

otherwise just purchase a P67 motherboard and call it a day.

 

[AtenRa]

You don't.

CPU dies are cut from wafers, and they can have defects in manufacturing that can render some parts of the wafer unusable. Manufacturers like Intel and AMD add redundancy and disable the parts with defects, selling them as cheaper parts.

Also because majority of the people opt for systems with integrated graphics, and that actual costs of making the chip is far less than what they sell you for, the extra costs become irrelevant, since the people that need the integrated graphics will pay for the trivial costs that come from it.

Here's a Sandy Bridge quad core die in its full 4 core, 8MB L3 cache, GT2 graphics configuration: http://images.bit-tech.net/content_images/2011/01/intel-sandy-bridge-review/sandy-bridge-die-map.jpg

Notice the clean spot at the bottomleft corner? That contains nothing. The quad core parts are taking few mm2 die hit to enable modularity in making derivative parts like dual cores with much higher volume.

Yes you do,

See the part that says Processor Graphics ?? it takes time, resources and money to design it. Higher end user cost.

It makes the die bigger, less dies per wafer. if you only had a quad core design that translates in to higher price.

Or you could add two more cores + L2 (same die size) at the same price point of a quad + iGPU.

So, buyers that dont use the iGPU pay for it and have a quad core when they could have a 6-core CPU at the same price of a quad + iGPU or a cheaper Quad.

 

[mikek753]

thanks everyone for your answers ;-)
that was my misunderstanding
why to pay for CPU with GPU that takes 20 - 30% of die that will not be used in desktop with discrete GPU?
What other options?
Looks like there are no other options as i5/7 with GPU on die (dead or alive) cost less than Xeon that isn't faster to justify price premium
No, I don't see AMD as option for a while :-(

Yes, office desktop will NOT need any DX11 GPU to run Crysis or etc, so on die GPU will be just fine. And as result I'm in minority who hunts for speed cores with memory bandwidth only...

 

[Yuriman]

I'd wager an Ivy without the iGPU would be significantly more thermally limited in overclocking. It's a very tiny chip as-is. Ideally, I'd want a chip that has a shorter die with a larger area (cut from a thinner wafer). I doubt we'll get that though as Intel seems to be moving toward lower power designs.

 

[pantsaregood]

Without the IGP, there would be no reasonable expectation of lower prices. Prices are related to market segmentation, not production costs.

Intel's current lineup is as follows:

Celeron G440 - $37
Celeron G460 - $37
Celeron G530 - $42
Celeron G540 - $42
Celeron G560 - $52

Pentium G620 - $64
Pentium G630 - $75
Pentium G640 - $64
Pentium G840 - $75
Pentium G850 - $86
Pentium G860 - $86
Pentium G870 - $86

Core i3-3220 - $117
Core i3-3240 - $138

Core i5-3450 - $195
Core i5-3470 - $184
Core i5-3550 - $213
Core i5-3570 - $205

Core i7-3770 - $278
Core i7-3820 - $294

Core i7-3930K - $583
Core i7-3960X - $999

You'll notice that up to the 3820, Intel has every price point covered. The low end is a mess now because Celerons and Pentiums are still being produced on the 32nm process. I can't say I understand some of the pricing decisions Intel makes - 3550 is more expensive than 3570, for example.

An interesting point here is that the i7-3770 is actually slightly faster than the i7-3820 in most cases due to some minor optimizations from Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge. The i7-3770 also features integrated graphics, which the i7-3820 lacks. The 3820, however, is priced above the 3770.

Also, the above poster is right. Cutting the IGP off the die would be an awful idea. Given that Ivy Bridge is a die shrink, it should be pretty safe to assume that 15-25% of the die is the IGP. Cut that off, and you have significantly lower surface area. Ivy Bridge produces a lot less heat than Sandy Bridge - it just happens to do so in a much smaller area. Dead or alive, the IGP section of the die helps cool the CPU. The IGP doesn't pull much power at all.

 

[palladium]

Yes you do,

See the part that says Processor Graphics ?? it takes time, resources and money to design it. Higher end user cost.

It makes the die bigger, less dies per wafer. if you only had a quad core design that translates in to higher price.

Or you could add two more cores + L2 (same die size) at the same price point of a quad + iGPU.

So, buyers that dont use the iGPU pay for it and have a quad core when they could have a 6-core CPU at the same price of a quad + iGPU or a cheaper Quad.

Agreed, plus the iGPU has some s*** most people would rather not have (*cough* Intel Insider *cough*)

 

[pantsaregood]

Again, you don't pay for CPU production costs. You pay for the piece of market segmentation you want. If it was about productions costs, one could easily assume that a Core i5-2300 would cost a bit less than twice as much as a Pentium G640. The G640, however, is $64 - the i5-2300 is $177. 2.77 times as expensive as the Pentium, and you don't even get twice the silicon. You still only get one memory controller and one IGP. Turns out you just paid 2.77 times as much for about a 50% increase in silicon.

 

[ShintaiDK]

thanks everyone for your answers ;-)
that was my misunderstanding
why to pay for CPU with GPU that takes 20 - 30% of die that will not be used in desktop with discrete GPU?
What other options?
Looks like there are no other options as i5/7 with GPU on die (dead or alive) cost less than Xeon that isn't faster to justify price premium
No, I don't see AMD as option for a while :-(

Yes, office desktop will NOT need any DX11 GPU to run Crysis or etc, so on die GPU will be just fine. And as result I'm in minority who hunts for speed cores with memory bandwidth only...

If Intel was to produce 2 more masks without iGPU for LGA1155. I´m sure we would all simply pay even more for the CPUs. No savings, just extra cost.

So take the technological purerity into a dark place where the sun doesnt shine. When the iGPU aint used its gated.

So you dont pay extra, its actually a benefit to have an unused iGPU on the CPU due to heat transfer.

LGA1155 Xeons also contains an iGPU.

 

[AtenRa]

Dead silicon cost money and it will not help in hot spot temperature problems. Hot spots are being generated inside the different logic blocks of the CPU core (INT and FP execution units etc).

The difference in temperature with and without a power gated Graphics processor acting as dead silicon would be negligible since the CPU has an IHS.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Dead silicon cost money and it will not help in hot spot temperature problems. Hot spots are being generated inside the different logic blocks of the CPU core (INT and FP execution units etc).

The difference in temperature with and without a power gated Graphics processor acting as dead silicon would be negligible since the CPU has an IHS.

IB only cost a few $ to make. Rest is R&D, administration etc.

Surface area dictate heat transfer. IHS or not.

 

[AtenRa]

The problem is hot spots generated in small logic areas inside the core.

CPU cores (not CPU die) are becoming smaller and smaller and thus the logic blocks inside each CPU core, like Integer Execution Units are becoming smaller and thus generating more heat per mm2. You can have a bigger CPU die (large L3 that occupies more space than the four(4) CPU Cores) and yet you could still have temperature problems because your CPU cores would be very small and you will have hot spots and a non uniform power map.

All im saying is that a bigger die because of dead silicon (powergated iGPU) will not help the hot spot problem that manifest in the CPU Cores that much. Having the iGPU as dead silicon will not have any significant effect in the thermal characteristics of the CPU when you already have the IHS. Intel didnt install the iGPU to act as dead silicon for thermal reasons.

Also to note, the topography of the CPU Cores and L2, L3 etc plays a big role in thermal management and uniform/non uniform power maps.

 

[Kristijonas]

Again, you don't pay for CPU production costs. You pay for the piece of market segmentation you want. If it was about productions costs, one could easily assume that a Core i5-2300 would cost a bit less than twice as much as a Pentium G640. The G640, however, is $64 - the i5-2300 is $177. 2.77 times as expensive as the Pentium, and you don't even get twice the silicon. You still only get one memory controller and one IGP. Turns out you just paid 2.77 times as much for about a 50% increase in silicon.

If it was about manufacturing costs, all chips would cost the same, because they are same.
As for integrated graphics, even users who don't need them should be happy about it, because if Intel created ~10 different chips for all kinds of tastes, they would all cost very much because of a need to design those ~10 chips and build separate factories for them. Intel takes the least costly way and just puts everything on a single chip. It's like a newspaper - it contains many different sections for each taste, and costs 10 times less than a specialized magazine.
SB-E is a magazine, however. It has exactly what some people say they would like to see - 2 more cores in place of integrated graphics.

IB only cost a few $ to make. Rest is R&D, administration etc.

It's not the simple. Creating technology also costs. Building factories cost even more. I think in economical terms, these two factors are also considered "manufacturing cost", so my guess of an overall manufacturing cost of a chip is roughly ~20$. Everything else as you've said is administration, advertisement and all that stuff.