Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ivy Bridge Running Hotter Than Intel's Last-gen CPU

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the water-under-the-bridge dept.

Intel 182

crookedvulture writes "The launch of Intel's Ivy Bridge CPUs made headlines earlier this week, but the next-gen processor's story is still being told. When overclocked, Ivy Bridge runs as much as 20C hotter than its Sandy Bridge predecessor at the same speed, despite the fact that the two chips have comparable power consumption. There are several reasons for these toasty tendencies. The new 22-nm process used to fabricate the CPU produces a smaller die with less surface area to dissipate heat. Intel has changed the thermal interface material between the CPU die and its heat spreader. Ivy also requires a much bigger step up in voltage to hit the same speeds as Sandy Bridge."

cancel ×

182 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

First (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39831971)

Post

I really wish they would release... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39831975)

... a processor without a on die gpu, if I'm going to have more heat I want more performance.

Re:I really wish they would release... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832147)

SandyBridge-E

Re:I really wish they would release... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832253)

issue: it is not Ivy-Bridge, when i heard Intel is selling Ivy-Bridge I7 I thought it is real one, i really got surprised when i heard it is actually not real(LGA 2011 socket) one but just renamed I5(LGA-1155 socket), Sandy-Bridge I7 has 8(16) core model i want and "normal" amount of cache for I7 (20MB) instead of only 4 cores and 8MB cache Ivy-Bridge cpu has, but issue with Sandy bridge I7 is extremely high TDP/power usage (it uses double amount of electricity compared to Ivy-Bridge for normal (non overclocked) frequency because of older 32nm technology used

Re:I really wish they would release... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832191)

If GPU is not used it does not use power, so just disable it in BIOS or drivers and your good to go (it does still increase price of CPU because of DIE area used but decreases it more than that because it makes CPU "mass market" since Intel can make only one model for ones wanting GPU and not wanting GPU)

Re:I really wish they would release... (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832237)

That's coming in q4.

Re:I really wish they would release... (1)

Auroch (1403671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832461)

... a processor without a on die gpu, if I'm going to have more heat I want more performance.

Yes, as I read the article, it basically says "New CPU processing speeds, New CPU heat levels ... with overclocked OLD cpu".

Re:I really wish they would release... (2)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833049)

Uhhh, you realise it turns itself off if you don't use it...

Good! (4, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832033)

After switching all my lights to LED bulbs, its a bit cold in my office. A new, hotter CPU could be just what I need.

Re:Good! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832075)

*facepalm*

I would love to see make a fail chip it's would be the best 2012 present ever

Re:Good! (1, Offtopic)

AC-x (735297) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832107)

Wait, you were in an office not lit with horrible fluorescent strip lighting?

Re:Good! (0)

ericloewe (2129490) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832125)

Does that even exist? I thought there was some building code that stated that all office spaces must use flourescent lighting, if possible the "extra-white" (blue) one.

Re:Good! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832569)

They didn't say "office building" they said "my office"

I switched all my lightbulbs for LED bulbs as well, and I find the heat kicks on more frequently.

Keep in mind that the thermal energy of a LED bulb is often low enough that it's just barely warm to the touch, where as even 40 watt bulbs are too hot to touch. There's a reason ez-bake ovens used lightbulbs. The thermal energy emitted by a Ivy bridge CPU is still around twice that of an ezbake oven.

Re:Good! (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832633)

And now I'm gonna try to make a cookie on my old Athlon, just to prove that I can.

(10 minutes later)

Mmm, pretty good, even if the bottom does taste like graphite!

Re:Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832287)

Don't laugh. That's how I heat my home office. I have baseboard electric but I never use it. If I want to warm the room up, I slide the pocket door closed. Too warm? Leave the door open. I'm running a Dell XP laptop, a Dell CentOS server, a homebuilt Pegasos I (PPC/Morphos), and an Amiga 3000D. These four machines (and related UPSes, routers, etc.) are already using electricity, and generating "waste" heat. No need to use *more* electricity :) (I should experiment with leaving the door at certain positions to see where the equilibrium point is.) Lighting is provided by two 24" fluorescent lamps on top of bookcases, aimed up at the white ceiling, in opposite corners of the room. An additional 18w CFL in the center of the ceiling, covered by a black/purple/blue dancing bear tie-dye sheet, provides "mood" lighting :)

Who am I? (Bonus question)

Re:Good! (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832441)

This reminds me of something that happened in one of our old computer labs, one which we affectionately called "The Ice Box". As the story goes the A/C was originally designed on the assumption that the room would contain a few dozen computers, which it did, and an equal number of CRTs, which it did not. I suppose it's because the new building took so long going up that they missed the big switch to LCDs.

The whole thing is probably apocryphal but I found it quite amusing all the same; there's something quite absurd about a bunch of people in thick coats huddled over keyboards when it's twenty degrees outside.

Re:Good! (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832711)

Obviously, if it's twenty degrees outside you need more heat, not an air conditioner. ;)

Re:Good! (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832847)

That's twenty degrees celsius, which is quite warm where I'm from.

Re:Good! (5, Funny)

vjoel (945280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833581)

That's twenty degrees celsius, which is quite warm where I'm from.

That's twenty degrees of *WOOSH*, which is quite embarrassing where I'm from. ;)

Re:Good! (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39833013)

I got a better one: I helped set up a college computer lab, but it was really just a terminal lab for the old 3270 green screen CRT's to an IBM "mainframe" I administered ("Systems Programmer" in IBM parlance). My doofus manager somehow spec'ed the AC request so strong that on warm humid days in sunny southside Virginia, when the door was open to the hallway, just inside from the outside door, the humidity would condense on any CRT's that were not turned on, and short them out if they were turned on while still wet. We lost several before catching on.

Hotter != more heat (5, Informative)

Ken_g6 (775014) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832759)

After switching all my lights to LED bulbs, its a bit cold in my office. A new, hotter CPU could be just what I need.

You're confusing temperature and heat. A candle burns hotter than a person, but a person puts out more heat (100W) than a candle (80W). Likewise, Ivy Bridge puts out less heat than Sandy Bridge, even though it's hotter.

Re:Hotter != more heat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39833417)

The final form of all energy is heat. Given the cpus will be of similar mass and will have a similar rate of convection, one can conclude that yes, the hotter cpu will produce more heat.

Re:Hotter != more heat (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833601)

You didn't RTFA, did you? The new IC has poorer heat conduction, so it is hotter but produces less heat.

Obama ate a dog. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832063)

Obama ate a dog.

Re:Obama ate a dog. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832223)

At least he didn't strap one to his roof and drive for hundreds of miles, with the pooch so frightened that it looses its bowels all over the car and traffic. If this is how Romney treats his underlings, I hope you buy stock in Depends undergarments.

Re:Obama ate a dog. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832411)

“Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and two of his sons helped rescue a New Jersey family from a sinking boat over the weekend, a New Hampshire official said today.

  ''The Romneys took two of the passengers and brought them back to shore,'' Sergeant Robertson said...

“Mr. Fehrnstrom, who spoke to Governor Romney on Sunday about the incident, said the governor's two sons hopped on a motorized water scooter, while the governor got on another. They went to the sinking boat, and Governor Romney brought people to shore while his sons stood by at the scene. The Romneys also saved the family's dog, he said... McKenzie, a Scotty, the family dog.”

Re:Obama ate a dog. (2)

ad1217 (2418196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832577)

And I am guessing you eat other meat. Your point?

Re:Obama ate a dog. (-1, Flamebait)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833629)

Dogs and man are the primary cursorial hunters on this planet, and we have formed a partnership. It is no surprise that Obama devours his partners, something no honorable man would do.

Re:Obama ate a dog. (0, Troll)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833701)

Dogs and man are the primary cursorial hunters on this planet, and we have formed a partnership. It is no surprise that Obama devours his partners, something no honorable man would do.

Lol. What a fabulous display of ignorance. You sound like those Taliban who said George Bush was a dishonorable man because he doesn't wear a beard.

Filipinos, Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese are just a few of the cultures where eating dog is unremarkable. As for being a "partner" a lot of muslims consider dog to be a dirty unclean animal.

Re:Obama ate a dog. (2, Funny)

damnbunni (1215350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832739)

You think that's bad?

He was born in Hawaii. Odds are, at some point, he has actually eaten Spam.

*shudder*

Re:Obama ate a dog. (3, Funny)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832961)

Dog is tasty. I just can't vote for someone who puts pineapple on his pizza.

Re:Obama ate a dog. (1)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833657)

Dog is tasty. I just can't vote for someone who puts pineapple on his pizza.

Practically nobody in Hawaii puts pineapple on pizza. Hardly anyone in Hawaii even cooks pineapple, we eat it fresh or at worst canned. I never even heard of "hawaiian pizza" until I moved to the mainland. Wikipedia says it was first created in Canada.

Re:Obama ate a dog. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833703)

Practically nobody in Hawaii puts pineapple on pizza

I sure did when I lived there. So did other people. Called it pineapple and ham though, not 'hawaiian.' The Dominos Chicken Pestoza was good too, but I don't know if they serve it anymore over there.

And spam musubi is the best bra.

Re:Obama ate a dog. (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833033)

Why, was he visiting Korea?

notice the "when overclocked" caveat (5, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832087)

It's clear in the article, but the headline here sort of implies that the chips run hotter in general, whereas this test is only saying the new chips run hotter when overclocked. From what I can find, when run at the rated voltages/speeds, Ivy Bridge CPUs run at about the same temperature as last gen's CPUs.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (5, Informative)

Alastor187 (593341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832245)

It's clear in the article, but the headline here sort of implies that the chips run hotter in general, whereas this test is only saying the new chips run hotter when overclocked. From what I can find, when run at the rated voltages/speeds, Ivy Bridge CPUs run at about the same temperature as last gen's CPUs.

Seems like that would make sense if at normal 'voltage/speed' the Ivy Bridge is using less power. Based on the the numbers in the link the Ivy Bridge has a higher overall thermal resistance, junction-to-air, of roughly 30% [=((100C-20C)/(80C-20C))*(231W/236W)]. Based on other reviews the Ivy Bridge processors uses less power at stock frequency/voltage so that may be offsetting much of the temperature rise due to an increase in package resistance and heatsink interface resistance, under normal conditions.

Power dissipation increases exponential with increases in frequency/voltage and it appears to rise faster with the Ivy Bridge processors. So as the power dissipation approaches or exceeds that of the Sandy Bridge processor much higher processor temperatures will be measured in the Ivy Bridge because of the higher thermal resistances.

I think this is a non-issue for the average consumer. However, overclockers would probably be better off with the Sandy Bridge hardware.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832403)

Uh, need to nitpick. Power dissipation does not increase exponentially with increases in frequency or voltage. P = a*C*(V^2)*f for dynamic power (a is the expected value of switching). So linear increase with frequency, quadratic increase with voltage.

Heat transfer scales with area (1)

grimJester (890090) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832687)

Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.

Re:Heat transfer scales with area (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832851)

No, it's not 74% the area for hear transfer, it's 55% the area for heat transfer. You clearly know nothing of these things.

Re:Heat transfer scales with area (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832987)

Clearly, you failed to read. The measurements are in mm^2, meaning they're area measurements, not linear. The GP is correct.

Re:Heat transfer scales with area (1)

Alastor187 (593341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833077)

Ivy Bridge is smaller in area than Sandy Bridge. Assuming I got the right numbers from Wikipedia, 160 mm^2 vs 216. That's 74% the area for heat transfer.

Agreed, but it doesn't necessarily scale linearly when including spreading affects. Using the numbers you provided one would estimate a ~35% increase in temperature at a given power dissipation, when comparing the Ivy Bridge to the Sandy Bridge. Based on the linked article the increase was only ~30%, which seems reasonable if expecting slightly improved heater transfer performance due to spreading across an oversized heatsink.

With the limited amount of hardware information in this thread, one could probably conclude that most of the increase in temperature is due to a reduction in die size.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833663)

However, overclockers would probably be better off with the Sandy Bridge hardware.

At the same clock, probably, but with the die shrink, Ivy Bridge should get better performance per watt than the Sandy Bridge OC'd to the same power. I may be making the silly assumption that OC is still about getting more performance and not just pushing hardware beyond its limits.

How Intel prices those isn't directly relevant to their performance, of course, since Ivy Bridge is the "new hotness".

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (5, Interesting)

tommasorepetti (2485820) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832299)

Completely agree. The overclocking community is somewhat overrepresented in reviews of computer hardware. Overclockers are, in general, very knowledgable, so I am not saying that their voices as part of the reception are a problem--it is, after all, often overclockers who push the limits of current generation architectures and empower consumers. It is important to note, however, that thermal issues when overclocked are secondary to efficiency and power consumption for well over 99% of all computing applications. I work in HPC and obviously care about eeking out performance from my platforms, but I have never overclocked a CPU. A modest performance increase is completely secondary to jeopardizing the reliability of a computer system. As far as I am concerned, this particular critique is irrelevant, and I think that many other lay people and professionals would feel the same way. I am much more interested in knowing if the logevity of the new chips is commensurate with that of the previous generation.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (4, Insightful)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832563)

Overclocking had its day back when the Celeron 300A was out. Now its all poseurs OCing to get a few more framerates and burning out their CPUs. Very VERY few of them OC it for anything more then penis. Sure you'll get some folding guys or dudes running triple 4k monitors. When I OC'd back in the day it was so i could MOVE faster in Quake 3, not so i could post benchmarks. Overclocking should be used to reach a performance level you couldn't otherwise get with money.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832699)

I also care deeply about how other people use their hardware, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832985)

I don't agree. I've never burned out a CPU. I've never posted a benchmark. I don't post my "specs". I just enjoy overclocking. And if I get a few more FPS when blasting aliens, all the better. I think *most* overclockers are like me. It's just the ones posting all over forums are the other sort.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39833035)

I completely agree. You can also save yourself a lot of money by overclocking by buying a lower end model. I've got a Phenom II X6 1055T that's stock 2.8Ghz, OC'd to 3.8Ghz. I saved about $100 off the 1100T model and have the same performance. To me, it's fun and beneficial. I don't post benchmarks. I just use my CPU cores and every hert counts.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39833063)

ditto.

I've been OC'ing since the 300A days, I have a high end watercooling setup yet a 5 year old graphics card.. haven't played games in years. I OC because it speeds up my compilation times, thus makes me work faster.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (1)

jason777 (557591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833075)

I dont know. I got a core i7 950 @ 3ghz for my new workstation at home, and with a corsair bolt on water cooler I was able to easily get it to 4.2ghz stable. It runs cool and only uses a couple hundred watts. It crushes anything I throw at it, so why not overclock?

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (2)

Golden_Rider (137548) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833479)

I dont know. I got a core i7 950 @ 3ghz for my new workstation at home, and with a corsair bolt on water cooler I was able to easily get it to 4.2ghz stable. It runs cool and only uses a couple hundred watts. It crushes anything I throw at it, so why not overclock?

If you overclock because you enjoy tinkering with your hardware or if you actually need every little clock increase for whatever it is you're using your computer for, more power to you. But I think he has a point - overclocking is not as necessary anymore for "standard" users/gamers as it was a few years ago.

I, too, overclocked everything back in the days of the 486, Pentium, P2, P3 (plus the various AMD alternatives). But that was mostly because back then the clock increase actually made a huge difference when playing games, because most stuff was CPU limited. Overclocking my PII-400 to 450 actually meant I could choose more graphical details or maybe a higher resolution in the games without getting FPS which were too low to play.

But today, when I overclock my i7-2600K (which cost much much less than my PII-400 back then), I notice no difference at all in games or in any other application, even stuff which should be only about CPU speed (say, zipping a couple hundred megs of files). Yes, maybe I save a second or two when I zip files, but does that matter? Any CPU which you can buy right now (if you do not choose something extraordinarily slow like an Atom CPU etc.) is fast enough that it does not limit you in any meaningful way when you do normal stuff or even games on your computer. Gaming performance today is limited by the graphics card, not the CPU. So if you have a decent graphics card which allows you to play at the native resolution of your screen with full details, overclocking your CPU won't give you any noticeable benefit. And that's why I do not overclock anymore. I just don't notice any difference to the standard clock speed.

Like I said, if you overclock because it's fun for you or because you need to run extreme calculation tasks 24/7, go ahead. But for games or normal applications? Nah, not needed anymore.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (1)

jason777 (557591) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833747)

I noticed a big difference from 3 to 4.2ghz. If youre just browsing the web fine. But I do development, run VMs, video editing, games, etc. All I needed was a $99 cooler, and I got another 1.2ghz. Totally worth it, and I've been running this for a year and a half and have had zero problems.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (2)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832307)

E1 stepping Ivy 3770K CPU can hit 4.6Ghz (while keeping temps under 70'C benched), the current Sandy Bridge 2600K CPU easily reaches 4.9Ghz under the same conditions, that is 300Mhz more, the power consumption after overclocking is greater too, for enthusiasts this means no deal. Hopefully this is only an early model issue, people are now waiting for a new stepping or a different Ivy line up.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (2)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832679)

The general benchmarking consensus seems to be that IB is ~10% faster than the comparable SB chips, without OCing. Throw that "invisible" 10% onto the OCed clock speed, and IB should still be coming out ahead, at a SB-style 5.1 GHz.

(I haven't seen any OC benchmark comparisons yet, to see if this is actually true)

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (4, Interesting)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832331)

This is true as far as it goes, but the behavior when overclocked is telling for more than how well you can overclock: At the risk of stating the obvious, the chips the overclockers are having heat issues with are the ones Intel is manufacturing. That means Intel isn't going to be able to ramp the clock speed very easily for the same reasons that the overclockers are running into trouble, unless there is some significant and avoidable flaw in the chip or the process that they can remove in future revisions.

On the plus side, this gives AMD a little breathing room to try to catch up a little.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832391)

That is normal marketing from Slashdot. Almost every one of the headlines resembles yellow press. The "Science News Cycle" is here, only in reverse. That's a pity, really. Idiocracy here we come.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832631)

Even though TDP has gone down from 95 to 77W the die size has shrunk from 216 to 160 mm^2, so energy density is up from 0.44 to 0.48 W/mm^2. It's probably getting harder and harder to make heat sinks to spread it effectively enough, particularly with overclocking. For the non-overclocker I'd say the new chips are clearly better though as they're fan noise, battery life and electricity-bill friendly with a small boost in performance and $5-10 cheaper than the equivalent SB. And a better IGP if you'll ever use it without a discrete graphics card. Too bad there's no IGP-less versions, a six-core Ivy Bridge chip with no GPU would have approximately the same die size and kill their high end line.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (4, Insightful)

Mattsson (105422) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832723)

Also, if a large part of the reason why the Ivy Bridge CPU runs hotter is the smaller area of the chip and the changed thermal interface materials, this means that while the new CPU chip might run hotter than the previous one, it doesn't put out more heat.
The CPU is hotter but the heat sink is cooler since the energy can't be transferred from the chip to the heat sink fast enough.
If this is the case, then Intel need to do something about the CPU package before going to higher frequencies.
It also means that people needing the extra heat in their cold rooms would be disappointed since the heat output would be lower, not higher. ;-)

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833683)

Intel need to do something about the CPU package before going to higher frequencies

This is the story of die shrink - more performance per area, less heat per performance, but more heat per area.

I remember when my 486's ran without any passive (much less active) cooling at all. Today even my Atoms struggle with passive cooling solutions.

Re:notice the "when overclocked" caveat (2)

WrecklessSandwich (1000139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833173)

Typical Slashdot sensationalism to leave that out of the headline. I clicked expecting another Prescott/Pentium D fiasco, but no. It's not even some kind of non-story with no merit, just being misrepresented by the submitter. It was even tagged "false" in Firehose and got posted as-is anyways.

What about running in spec? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832091)

I'm not going to be overclocking my CPUs, so does it run hotter in spec?

Re:What about running in spec? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832281)

no colder, it uses even less than (almost halves electricity used/TDP)
only problem is it is not real I7 (LGA 2011 socket) but just renamed I5 (LGA 1155 socket)

Re:What about running in spec? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832743)

its actually a bit cooler, intel does not give a shit about thermal performance outside of its defined operating parameters, and I dont blame them

Speed? (1, Insightful)

cbreak (1575875) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832097)

Ivy also requires a much bigger step up in voltage to hit the same speeds as Sandy Bridge.

I get the feeling that they have very weird notions about what constitutes CPU Speed...

Re:Speed? (2)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832353)

They omitted the word clock, but I'd still say their meaning was clear.

Not the biggest deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832105)

Go back in time to the introduction of 32nm and you'll see stories about how the 32nm chips don't overclock as well as chips the mature 45 nm process.
      Intel's 22nm process is currently tuned for the lower-clocks used in mobile devices where the early reviews are very favorable to IB. It will take some time for the process to mature and for us to see more overclocking headroom.

Even in its current state, Ivy bridge does overclock fine up to about 4.5Ghz. Where you see issues are at the very highest ends of the OC spectrum where the power density of the 160 mm^2 die becomes an issue compared to the larger 216 mm^2 die of Sandy Bridge. Ivy Bridge does use less power than Sandy... the problem is with sucking the heat out of an increasingly tiny area. Especially for overclockers who usually use discrete graphics and disable the GPU, the activated die area on Ivy Bridge is likely only about 100 - 120 mm^2, which is very hard to keep cool.

3d tri-gate not as good as promised (4, Interesting)

edxwelch (600979) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832115)

Remember a year ago Intel was bragging about their new 3d tri-gate process would be 50% more power efficient: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/standards-22nm-3d-tri-gate-transistors-presentation.html [intel.com] .
Comparing the i7 3770K against the 2600K, which is clocked at the same frequency it's only 17% more power efficient: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/20 [anandtech.com]
Also you have to bare in mind some of the power saving is due to the DDR controller power gating

Re:3d tri-gate not as good as promised (0)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832215)

Yes? So Intel was right and there are things in a CPU other than gates.

Re:3d tri-gate not as good as promised (5, Informative)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832249)

Read the Anandtech review, that's total system power consumption. If you compare just the CPU power consumption it's ~33% more power efficient (66W increase from idle to load for Ivy Bridge vs 98W increase for SB). And if you look at the GPU intensive comparisons, IB is ~20% more power efficient, but that's including a ~33% increase in GPU cores and an increase in GPU clock, for an ~40% increase in performance while using 20% less power. For the first generation chips on a brand new production process, those are very good results. I expect to see them improve as their 22nm tri-gate process matures.

Re:3d tri-gate not as good as promised (1)

SurfsUp (11523) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832359)

Remember a year ago Intel was bragging about their new 3d tri-gate process would be 50% more power efficient: http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/silicon-innovations/standards-22nm-3d-tri-gate-transistors-presentation.html [intel.com] .

Yes, the slides are unambiguous: "Greater than 50% reduction in active power going from 32nm to 22nm". Now, Intel tells us they have been predicting modest efficiency gains all along. For the last few months mabe. The truth is, Intel realized months ago the process would not meet expectations and already fired up the spin machine back then.

Subject needs "overclocking" (5, Insightful)

ganjaganja (2031696) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832151)

Not all of us do overclocking. Subject is misleading.

Re:Subject needs "overclocking" (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833187)

I agree, i mean only enthusiast overclocks really, for MOST people stock speeds cpu is way more then fast enough. I am a pretty heavy gamer and i have a first gen i7 870, most Overclocking i do on it, is the turbo boost from 2.9 to 3.2 ghz built in the cpu and its a fast cpu, on everything i use it for. No need to overclock it.

Re:Subject needs "overclocking" (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833527)

If you have a sandybridge CPU you overclock by default. The CPU supports dynamic OCing to increase performance based on available cooling capacity, and CPU/GPU demand.

Engineering Samples, or Actual CPUs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832163)

TFAs don't make this clear. I read around mid-March that the same problem showed up in the engineering samples [anandtech.com] . I'm curious: with over a month between the discovery and now, wouldn't have it been possible for the engineers to figure out some sort of solution? Or, is that just not possible, with the potential of chip production occurring at the same time as the engineering sample testing?

Certainly, I understand that the problem appears to appear only during overclocking. It's still interesting.

Re:Engineering Samples, or Actual CPUs? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832221)

>wouldn't have it been possible for the engineers to figure out some sort of solution

They did. The solution is "Don't overclock your processor".

Re:Engineering Samples, or Actual CPUs? (1)

MagusSlurpy (592575) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832705)

Or "Overclock it less, since Sandy Bridge spoiled everyone."

Re:Engineering Samples, or Actual CPUs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832821)

When I last overclocked my cpu, a decade ago, programs started crashing. Why do they only mention overheating problems, can it be done reliably now?

You're slipping, intel. (4, Interesting)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832233)

So lemme see here...Intel's new CPU dies are now smaller (good), which makes them less dissipative of heat (bad), so they decide to use worse thermal paste stuff?

Seems legit.

Re:You're slipping, intel. (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832771)

it runs fine when your not voiding your warranty. You seriously want them to find the right balance between all the factors while accommodating some dipshit gamerz that want to run their cpu a GHz out of spec?

Re:You're slipping, intel. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39833207)

The point of the K models is that they're unlocked and are specifically meant for overclocking... But we'll see when IB comes out officially..

Re:You're slipping, intel. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39833235)

If you are overclocking, you are also using your own cooling system, right? Right?

Re:You're slipping, intel. (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833715)

so they decide to use worse thermal paste stuff?

I don't think I've used Intel or AMD-supplied thermal paste in 10 years - I haven't done the precise math, but I assume I make it back on the electric bill over time by using less active cooling energy. And I rarely overclock anything.

Its an ENGINEERING SAMPLE (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832309)

Emphasis on sample
If the retail releases also have this issue, then its newsworthy

Re:Its an ENGINEERING SAMPLE (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832713)

From my experience, marketing samples are much much better than the normal consumer product.

waste (0)

haggus71 (1051238) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832329)

So, the "new" processor burns more electricity, runs hotter, and most reviews have it doing marginally better than Sandy Bridge...all for what will be a higher price. Never buy a new framework when it first comes out.

Re:waste (2)

ericloewe (2129490) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832567)

Ivy Bridge does not use more power than Sandy Bridge and it's as expensive/cheaper than Sandy Bridge.

The only thing that isn't as good is overclocking headroom. Hardly sounds like a bad compromise, especially considering the much-improved GPU.

Re:waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832637)

People paying for these CPU are gamers and enthusiasms anyway, they have a discrete GPU and don't use the built-in one. I'm pretty sure less than 1% of the SandyBridge/IvyBridge sold use the built-in GPU since it's an horror compared to real graphic cards.

Re:waste (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832607)

So this Mustang Cobra uses more gas, runs hotter, and its only a half a second faster in the 1/4 mile then the stock mustang?

P.S. You should check out the Ivy Bridge pricing before opening your stupid mouth.

CARE FACTOR ZERO - don't over clock problem solved (2)

aristotle-dude (626586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832463)

The majority of people do not overclock their CPUs so this is not an issue for the majority.

Re:CARE FACTOR ZERO - don't over clock problem sol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832619)

With Sandy Bridge Intel basically said it was normal and wanted to overclock the K series. I have a Corei5 3.3ghz and increased it to 4.4ghz with a single BIOS parameter change with no additional tweaking and no disadvantage at all. Paying for this CPU and not doing it would be stupid.

Welcome to the future of scaling. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832579)

There's only so many tricks that Intel can pull off to keep the power dissipation down. Intelligent power gating, process improvements, optimized circuits, etc... and still, we have WAY more transistors on die that we can actually switch due to power constraints. Think about that for a second. Even ignoring the fact that 90% of the chip is very low activity cache, we cannot utilize all our transistors and get under 100 W/cm^2 (the limit of conventional fan + heatsink cooling). A lot of your chip is going to waste because of power constraints.

And it's just going to get worse. Imagine what the power density will be like when 3D monolithically stacked ICs go into serious production? Multiply your power density times the number of vertical layers!

There's only so much you can do when you're cooling your chip by essentially blowing on it. One of the big innovations is going to have to be improved cooling. Microfluidic channels, which were developed almost THIRTY YEARS ago, might be a good option.

Traditional scaling has been over for a couple generations now (ask any Intel process engineer). Power and process variation are what matter now. And both of them are very, very difficult problems to solve that will get much worse with each generation.

Upper limit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832589)

The CPU is 20C hotter, but does the upper limit it can reach safely is also 20C hotter or stay the same?

I too run a little hot when overclocked. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832613)

I too run a little hot when overclocked.

Keep in mind... (1)

kaws (2589929) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832623)

I think that something that people need to keep in mind is this chip is ~31% smaller. Even with that it's using the same amount of power. I'm not surprised that a byproduct of compressing an area like that is more heat. Also, the chip uses Turbo Boost 2.0. This is automatic overclocking.

Easily explainable (2)

Ikkyu (84373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832675)

Power consumption varies with the square of the voltage (p=v^2/r) while the power consumption varies linearly with the frequency, if it takes signicantly more voltage to over clock then it's no wonder the power usage is so high.

Re:Easily explainable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832859)

Power consumption varies with the square of the voltage (p=v^2/r) while the power consumption varies linearly with the frequency, if it takes signicantly more voltage to over clock then it's no wonder the power usage is so high.

That makes sense. But why does it require more voltage to get to the same overclocked rate compared to sandybridge?

Re:Easily explainable (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833027)

RTFA, it doesn't take more voltage (absolute), it requires a higher boost above "stock" voltage.

There are several reasons for this:
1. lower thermal conductivity of the packaging. Higher temperatures can increase resistance, and therefore, voltage requirements.
2. 22nm process is brand new. Neither the process nor the CPU die have been optimized yet. Both will mature over the next 12 months.
3. SB is a second generation 32nm design on a fully mature process, it's nearly as good as it will get.
4. At 22nm, there is likely more resistive and capacitive loss in the interconnects. Those losses both increase with voltage & frequency.

I want a CPU that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39832741)

uses less power, and is comparable fast. That way, i can save literally hundreds of euro's each year. My PC is fast enough. I'm not even remotely interested in overclocking. All i want is a gaming-PC that uses only 25W power. Ty.

Re:I want a CPU that (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39833043)

You should worry less about the CPU and more about the GPU... they're the ones burning all the power.

Heat Spreader (1)

Guppy (12314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832815)

Looking at the pictures in the Overclockers.com link, you'd probably get better thermal dissipation if had Intel left the heat spreader off, with nothing expect the protective overcoat on the back of the chip.

Actually, I bet modders are going to start cracking the IHS off for that very purpose, in order to directly contact their heatsinks.

*ahem* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39833137)

so let me get that right. The summary states that they have the same power consumption and a smaller area?

i am a physicist. If you have the same heat flow trough a smaller area then i expect that the higher thermal resistance causes a higher temperature difference.

\Delta T \lambda A t = P

where \Delta T is the temperature difference to ambience, \lambda the thermal conductivity A the are an t the thickness of whatever coupled you to outside, and P the power dissipated.

I am still looking for the mystery. The most interesting question is if the performance is higher.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>