Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-16-11, 11:40 AM   #13
ViN86
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,486
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

That's a lot of juice.
ViN86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-11, 03:55 PM   #14
AngelGraves13
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,383
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

If there's no USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt, I'll pass on the chipset and the CPU.
AngelGraves13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-11, 03:56 PM   #15
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViN86 View Post
That's a lot of juice.

To be honest, the chips do have an extra memory channel over the gulftowns(4 versus 3), and the AVX instruction set on all cores with sandy bridge E, while the gulftowns don't have it at all, and running AVX code uses more power and makes the chip run warmer, as it's already observed with the existing sandy bridge on socket 1155, but the E version brings 2 more cores to the party and still uses the 32 nm process as well as more cache onboard, so all these little things might add up in power use terms..


Ultimately though, if Sandy Bridge E is released in Q1 2012, might as well wait for the 22nm ivy bidge version wich is still stated as a Q2 2012 release, wich should use less power and perform better still clock for clock.....It should still use the X79 chipset boards as a basis for either one.
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-11, 04:37 PM   #16
ViN86
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,486
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelGraves13 View Post
If there's no USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt, I'll pass on the chipset and the CPU.
Weird...

These two technologies will become standards. I would hope they would make an effort to add them. Looks like we will have to wait until Ivy Bridge or later.
ViN86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-11, 09:38 PM   #17
Bman212121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,726
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow001 View Post
Ouch if true:


http://techreport.com/discussions.x/21469


180 watts under load for the high end 6 core sandy bridge E chips, with intel recomending that PSU makers make their PSU's deliver at least 23 amps on the secondary 12volt rail dedicated to the CPU...I wonder how high it can get once overclocked....Yikes.


Ivy bridge with it's 22nm finfet process and 30% power savings over the 32nm process sounds rather nice right about now, and some here actually wanted an 8 core version Sandy bridge E while still on the 32nm process....
I really don't believe that at all... Intel already has working I7 980x cpus on 32nm... A die shrink isn't going to make it draw more power than the previous generation. It would be more likely that Intel can either bump up the clock speeds can keep the same TDP or use similar clock speeds with a lower TDP rating.

The one thing they might be mistaken on was some of the server cpus were supposed to have configurable TDPs. So rather than set the clock speeds based on a model number, each part would change based upon the BIOS setting. Maybe then I could see some BIOS settings letting them scale up to 180W draw to maximize speed.

This is an Anand article about Ivy bridge: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4378/i...nfigurable-tdp

If they did implement that I suppose SNB-E could hit 180W for a very short period, but that would still mean they would need some pretty high OC's to be able to do that. I'd have to imagine 3.6ghz hex cores would be possible in the same TDP, so it would be well into the 4ghz range with turbo modes.
Bman212121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-11, 11:00 PM   #18
Viral
Registered User of Women
 
Viral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,523
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bman212121 View Post
I really don't believe that at all... Intel already has working I7 980x cpus on 32nm... A die shrink isn't going to make it draw more power than the previous generation. It would be more likely that Intel can either bump up the clock speeds can keep the same TDP or use similar clock speeds with a lower TDP rating.
Not disagreeing, but SB-E is still 32nm, there is no die shrink.

For the record though, a die shrink can certainly make a chip draw more power than a previous generation if leakage is excessive. This is pretty much almost always a given for the first few steppings on a new node... usually they will continue with revisions until they get the leakage and other problems under control before releasing retail chips. All of that is irrelevant to this thread though
__________________
Q9550 w/ Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme | 4GB Team Xtreme Dark 800MHz CL4 | Gigabyte X48-DS5
ASUS Radeon 5870 | 240GB OCZ Vertex 2 | 1TB WD Green Power | BenQ V2400W 24" LCD
Corsair HX-1000w | LG GGW-H20L 6x DL Blu-Ray Burner/HD-DVD Reader | Coolermaster Cosmos S

Acer TravelMate 4002WNLCi: Pentium M 725 @ 1.6GHz | Mobility Radeon 9700/64MB | 2GB DDR400 | 15.4" WXGA
Viral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-11, 08:27 AM   #19
Bman212121
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,726
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viral View Post
Not disagreeing, but SB-E is still 32nm, there is no die shrink.

For the record though, a die shrink can certainly make a chip draw more power than a previous generation if leakage is excessive. This is pretty much almost always a given for the first few steppings on a new node... usually they will continue with revisions until they get the leakage and other problems under control before releasing retail chips. All of that is irrelevant to this thread though
My bad. Thought SNB-E was going to be on 22nm.
Bman212121 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-11, 08:53 AM   #20
Q
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 7,808
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Intel is just sandbagging again because there is no competition.

/wild speculation
Q is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 08-17-11, 09:56 AM   #21
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Q View Post
Intel is just sandbagging again because there is no competition.

/wild speculation

Pretty much this right here, and it turns out that even after all this wait, AMD's high end bulldozer even though it's better than previous AMD CPU's, still isn't enough to threaten the current high end intel chips, so there's no rush at all in releasing new high end parts....



Should be an interesting fight in the mid range market with current 4 core sandy bridge chips though...
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-11, 02:39 PM   #22
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by slaWter View Post
Ivy Bridge will be compatible to Sandy Bridge but not to Sandy Bridge E and X79.
There will be other, smaller 7-series chipsets for Ivy Bridge.





Intel confirmed a long time ago that TB and USB 3.0 will come with Ivy Bridge and the rest of the 7 series chipsets.

This is just another negative aspect of Intel's new release schedule.

There won't be a 22nm 6/8 core ivy bridge using the 2011 pin socket form factor for high end desktops?....I doubt Intel will exclusively limit it to socket 1155 and 4 cores for the mid range of the market...
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11, 11:14 AM   #23
hirantha
SUC SUDO
 
hirantha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NY, Staten Island
Posts: 2,211
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Sandy Bridge-E Coming November to a Store Near You Woot!!
__________________
Intel i7 3770K
16 GB DDR3
Evga 670 SLI

Look me up in AION and GW2
Game Tag: Famorak
hirantha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-11, 12:24 PM   #24
shadow001
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,526
Default Re: snb-e pushed back to January 2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by hirantha View Post

If i'm reading this right, the chip to get would be the midrange 6 core model with the unlocked multiplier, even though it will be nearly 600$ at retail, and we still have to see the prices on the motherboards themselves too....
shadow001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.