Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Intel Launches Core I7-4960X Flagship CPU

timothy posted about a year ago | from the living-in-the-past-is-much-cheaper dept.

Intel 180

MojoKid writes "Low-power parts for hand-held devices may be all the rage right now, but today Intel is taking the wraps off a new high-end desktop processor with the official unveiling of its Ivy Bridge-E microarchitecture. The Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition processor is the flagship product in Intel's initial line-up of Ivy Bridge-E based CPUs. The chip is manufactured using Intel's 22nm process node and features roughly 1.86 billion transistors, with a die size of approximately 257mm square. That's about 410 million fewer transistors and a 41 percent smaller die than Intel's previous gen Sandy Bridge-E CPU. The Ivy Bridge-E microarchitecture features up to 6 active execution cores that can each process two threads simultaneously, for support of a total of 12 threads, and they're designed for Intel's LGA 2011 socket. Intel's Core i7-4960X Extreme Edition processor has a base clock frequency of 3.6GHz with a maximum Turbo frequency of 4GHz. It is easily the fastest desktop processor Intel has released to date when tasked with highly-threaded workloads or when its massive amount of cache comes into play in applications like 3D rendering, ray tracing, and gaming. However, assuming similar clock speeds, Intel's newer Haswell microarchitecture employed in the recently released Core i7-4770K (and other 4th Gen Core processors) offers somewhat better single-core performance."

cancel ×

180 comments

Die size? (5, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#44745779)

"a die size of approximately 257mm square."

I suspect that should be 257 square mm. A 257 mm square die couldn't even be covered by a standard sheet of paper (US:letter, EU:A4)

Re:Die size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44745869)

I wonder what the kill size it.

Re:Die size? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44745887)

While you say 257 square mm you write it as 257mm2 (imagine a website with proper support for shit like this).

So this is a typical Slashdot fuck up. I could write a script that would do a better job then those HasBeen.Dot moderators...

Re:Die size? (1)

msauve (701917) | about a year ago | (#44745981)

Writing "square mm" is perfectly correct [nist.gov] .

Re:Die size? (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year ago | (#44745899)

TFA says "15 mm x 17.1 mm"

Re:Die size? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44745919)

It also wouldn't fit on a 300mm (diameter) wafer... 400mm would work, and even have some room around the edges; but I probably don't even want to know what a CPU so large that you get only 1 die/400mm wafer would cost.

Re:Die size? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746075)

Xilinx makes an FPGA (XC7V2000T) which is speculated to only have about 1 good chip per wafer due to its size. I did a quick google search but couldn't find any reliable numbers for the die size. Single chip costs range from 30k to 70k dependant upon speed grade.

Re:Die size? (1)

razvan784 (1389375) | about a year ago | (#44746701)

That chip actually consists of 4 dice (Xilinx calls them Super Logic Regions) bound over a special silicon interconnect layer. Source: http://www.xilinx.com/support/documentation/data_sheets/ds180_7Series_Overview.pdf [xilinx.com] The reason they do this rather than use a larger die is exactly to get a higher yield (defect density is constant, defect probability increases with surface). Therefore I highly doubt they're only getting one good chip per wafer. Cost is based on supply and demand, and these chips are very, very specialized. They're used in applications where costs are huge anyway, such as high-performance IC prototyping - things like CPUs, ASICs for multi-hundred Gb/s switches/routers et cetera.

Re:Die size? (1)

camperdave (969942) | about a year ago | (#44746201)

It also wouldn't fit on a 300mm (diameter) wafer...

Well... perhaps if you cut the ingot lengthwise instead of normal to the axis?

Re:Die size? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44746315)

Wouldn't be compatible with any of the other processing equipment; but you could do it.

My impression(as a layman) is that getting fairly substantial amounts of silicon isn't a big deal, with difficulty increasing as your demands concerning purity, mono-crystallinness, and dimensional accuracy go up; but that the cost of the entire chip fabrication process get very big, very fast, if you want to work with larger wafers.

Power consumption (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44745781)

Low-power parts for hand-held devices may be all the rage right now, but today Intel is taking the wraps off a new high-end desktop processor

Actually, I think that useful computation per joule is all the rage all over the device size scale. See? This one works everywhere.

Re:Power consumption (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44746595)

That's not necessarily true. Someone running a photo editing app on their Galaxy and saying it's slower than their PC is one thing but that's wrong on so many levels. My not-so-smart phone runs Brew and the 1000mAH battery has a realistic idle time rating of 27 days and screen-off talk time of something like 16 hours. If someone basically wants a 4 ounce laptop with a 4" screen that runs for 48 hours, they're dreaming. More reasonable people just want an absurd battery life and realize that a phone can't process like a computer so everything will be a bit slow.

So instead of performance per joule, it's really more like how quickly can it underclock and to how low of a TDP.

Re:Power consumption (3, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44748211)

You're basically reiterating what I've said. The more you can compute with a fixed amount of energy, the less energy you consume for a fixed amount of computation.

257mm That's A Monster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44745789)

257mm That's A Monster!

Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (3, Informative)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#44745805)

These chips are slightly faster (given equal core counts) than their predecessors but not in any interesting way.

  However, you have to remember that these are really server chips that are repurposed for high-end desktop use. The one vital metric where these chips shine is in their power consumption (or lack thereof): Techreport did a test where the 6-core 4960X running full-bore is using about the same amount of power as a desktop A10-6800K part ( http://techreport.com/review/25293/intel-core-i7-4960x-processor-reviewed/9 [techreport.com] )

That level of power efficiency will do wonders in the server world and these chips (and their 12-core bigger brothers) should do quite well in servers.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746121)

Intel segments the desktop and server market with ECC functionality. Xeons support ECC, everything else does *not*. So unless this new chip supports ECC, you're off your rocker thinking this is a repurposed server chip.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (3, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#44746361)

Intel segments the desktop and server market with ECC functionality. Xeons support ECC, everything else does *not*. So unless this new chip supports ECC, you're off your rocker thinking this is a repurposed server chip.

The same die is used for both chips; it's just that the ECC functionality is fused off in the non-Xeon parts binned for desktop use.

By the way, it's not strictly true that Xeons are the only Intel parts that support ECC. Ivy Bridge Celerons and Pentiums have this feature as well (if you use a compatible server motherboard). It was fused off on the mainstream desktop quad core parts because they wanted people to buy Xeon E3's instead.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746457)

Weird part is, E3/E3v2/E3v3 Xeons are priced quite competitively against their SB/IB/HW i7 cousins.
Makes the whole thing look like segmentation for segmentations sake.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746385)

Xeons support ECC, everything else does *not*.

... if you ignore all Ivy Bridge and Haswell i3s.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44747315)

Intel segments shit like AES NI, Vt-d and "TSX" as well (Haswell?). Not available on your i3.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (2)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44746449)

AIUI Intel takes a handful of basic designs and cripples them in different ways to produce a wide variety of products which they then sell at different price points depending on what they think customers will be willing to pay.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (2)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#44746553)

...which is what you do to run any successful business. The hothardware article is a pretty sweet read if any kind of a hardware geek, btw.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44746673)

Interestingly according to the die photo this time round it appears to have been designed as a 6 core rather than designed as an 8 core and then crippled to make a 6-core like it was with SB-E.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year ago | (#44746213)

Considering that AMD is a gen or two behind, and their chips arent currently known for their efficiency, I dont know how impressive that is.

A10 has a GPU too (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746231)

Hardly a realistic comparison, given the A10 has a GPU integrated and Intel 6 core doesn't.

Re:A10 has a GPU too (1)

CajunArson (465943) | about a year ago | (#44746561)

Yes you are right... it is unrealistically favorable to AMD that is since if you had bothered to look at the charts you'd note that the benchmark was a CPU-only test that gave AMD the advantage of being able to run the GPU at very low power since it isn't being stressed and redirect the power consumption to the CPU...

Oh and they also tested with discrete GPUs that completely relieve the APU of having to expend any energy on the IGP at all.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44746617)

I doubt anyone being serious about cutting their server power costs would go with this new chip in the first place. The socket Xeon E5 T-series are purposely underclocked but with a high single-core turbo so they benchmark (at single operations) at a somewhat close speed but take up immensely less power. It's like 50% less on most chips if I remember correctly.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year ago | (#44747271)

That level of power efficiency will do wonders in the server world and these chips (and their 12-core bigger brothers) should do quite well in servers.

And later this year, when Atom goes to 22nm, it may also do quite well in mobile phones, given they've already developed a quality ARM emulator.

Re:Boring on the Desktop Great in Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748127)

>Techreport did a test where the 6-core 4960X running full-bore is using about the same amount of power as a desktop A10-6800K part

Actually, that really just tells just how badly AMD is behind.

Another marginal perf iteration of Core (4, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#44745807)

It's laughable how small the performance gains are between recent generations of Core processors. I realize there are other improvements like power consumption and integrated GPU performance but the desktop gamer isn't going to drop another grand to save watts or get better performance on an IGPU he never will use anyway.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44745843)

Furthermore, this particular CPU doesn't even have an IGPU.

Re: Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year ago | (#44746091)

Is this the first multiplier unlocked Intel chip (K series) that I can buy without a crappy Intel IGPU? So it should be cheaper, right? I already have a high end discrete GPU.

Re: Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44746539)

Is this the first multiplier unlocked Intel chip (K series) that I can buy without a crappy Intel IGPU?

No.

Even counting just K suffix chips. There was the i7-875K back in 2010 though noone showed much interest because it was before Intel clamped down on multiplier overclocking. There was also the i7-3930K 6-core SB-E chip more recently. If you also count extreme edition (X suffix) chips then there were a lot more unlocked intel chips without integrated GPUs.

So it should be cheaper, right?

No

While you are doing away with the GPU yes but you are getting more memory channels, more PCIe lanes and possiblly more cores (depending on which of the three models you buy). To support the extra memory channels and PCIe lanes (as well as the QPI links for dual socket variants) the socket also has a lot more pins.

Re: Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44746787)

before Intel clamped down on multiplier overclocking.

Brainfart, I mean before they cracked down on FSB/BCLK overclocking.

Re: Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | about a year ago | (#44747359)

Actually, the i7 3820 is cheaper than 2600K and 3770K, the i7 4820K will be cheaper than 3770K and 4770K I think (even just 20 euros). This is more than offset by the cost of the motherboard though.

Re: Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748207)

I already have a high end discrete GPU.

So do I, but I figured the $5 extra I paid at the time was worth it for a version of the cpu with a gpu as opposed to the same model without a gpu. If the discrete version ever breaks or has issues, I have a reasonable backup without having to dig out an older board from somewhere or someone.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44745855)

You don't know desktop gamers very well.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44745977)

You don't know desktop gamers very well.

The better per-thread performance of the competing Haswell part may keep them away, though(unless the increased cache makes up for it). Games make better use of additional cores than they used to; but they still don't tend to go as far in that direction as server or some workstation loads.

Some people are going to buy it just because it's the flagship, of course; but better performance on highly threaded tasks won't necessarily save it among gamers. (Especially if Intel prices it so as to discourage people who might otherwise buy Xeon-based workstations from buying this part instead).

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

Shinobi (19308) | about a year ago | (#44746187)

Actually, given that streaming is becoming more and more common among gamers, so multiple cores/hyperthreading is becoming quite popular with gamers too.

1080p streaming in 60FPS is quite CPU intensive.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about a year ago | (#44746389)

I have an i7 3660, and with 8 threads, I still have only found a single program that would thread onto more than four of the cores: VLC Media Player. It seems only the super techy, data-intensive, community-built software can keep up with the core wars? Am I just playing the wrong games?

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (3, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#44746603)

Hush! To Adobe's Flash unit, that might sound like a challenge.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746627)

As a developer, my workstation has a 8 threads machine. Cause the product we developing are using more then 40 threads no problem at all.
Why? Cause people can not program, cause Java is to easy. There are different reasons. Do I need a 8 thread+ machine at home?
No I dont, but will I buy one? Yes I will. Why? Cause having threads over makes other programs run nicely. Run a program eating 4 threads, and you still have response in GUI and other programs. Unless you hit some other bottleneck (and you will).
My next machine will be a i7 with SSD, no bit storage anymore, internet will keep my movies from now on :-)

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746689)

PS4 and Xbox One have 8 threads so more games may use them on the PC when they are ported over between the platforms.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747305)

uhh no. if the game is streaming, then all the machine is doing is decoding video. that can be done with 4 year old hardware..or anything with a recent budget gpu.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#44746279)

The better per-thread performance of the competing Haswell part may keep them away, though(unless the increased cache makes up for it). Games make better use of additional cores than they used to; but they still don't tend to go as far in that direction as server or some workstation loads.

Indeed.

Since sandy bridge Intel has been releasing the high end desktop parts very late compared to the mainstream parts. By the time SB-E came out the mainstream desktop parts were on very nearly on IVY bridge. This time it was even worse, not only did IB-E comw out AFTER the mainstream desktop parts were on haswell but haswell brings a more substantial improvement in IPC than IVY did.

They try to hide it with misleading model numbers but I strongly suspect that most of the people who spend this much money on a CPU are not so easilly fooled.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

DrXym (126579) | about a year ago | (#44746569)

The better per-thread performance of the competing Haswell part may keep them away, though(unless the increased cache makes up for it). Games make better use of additional cores than they used to; but they still don't tend to go as far in that direction as server or some workstation loads.

Maybe some gamers shut down everything on their desktop when they are playing. Personally leave all my apps open, sometimes even playing music or videos on another screen. So regardless of a game making full use of a CPU, any spare capacity can be used to service the rest of the desktop.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

DarkXale (1771414) | about a year ago | (#44747303)

The problem more lies in that there are several games whose performance is dictated by the per-thread performance of the CPU, and virtually never by the total performance of the CPU.

The video game norm is to have 2 main threads and one GPU driver thread ("3 core utilization"). There'll be a whole bunch of secondary threads as well - but these consume negligible amounts of time (tops 5% or so totalling all of them), and many are only triggered in specific conditions - such as when the game needs to load new resources.

Consequently, even a 4 core CPU can have one of its cores idling pretty much at 100%, and there will nearly always be a fair bit of spare resources on the GPU driver thread, and often on the secondary 'main' thread. Far more than enough to run anything and everything in the background, save recording software in some configurations - backgrounds tasks simply aren't CPU demanding enough to care.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747157)

Actually, I haven't seen this mentioned in regards to Ivy Bridge-E, but Sandy Bridge-E supported 4 memory channels, while all the non-E lines, including Haswell, only support 2 memory channels. That's the big feature and generally makes up for IPC differences.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (3, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year ago | (#44745881)

There are two reasons:
1) AMD is really behind after they reworked their architecture, hence no pressure on Intel.
2) Moore's Law has ended some time ago on a per-core basis and nobody noticed.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746305)

The problem is that there really just aren't any significant architectural improvements left to make. Processor speedup comes from either running it faster (i.e. more GHz) or harnessing more parallel execution. Processes hit a wall on GHz scaling with Moore's law a decade ago and around the same time, processors exploited just about all of the practical instruction level parallelism. There really isn't much performance benefit left unless you are willing to say "screw power" and either run the chip faster and invest a thousand dollars for a cooling system or use up more area for very marginal gains/unit size. Obviously the vendors assume better power and more cores is the better use of those transistors.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746383)

To followup, most programs are memory bound anyways so processor performance is rarely your bottleneck anyways. Your cache can only get so big.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44746501)

"screw power" and either run the chip faster and invest a thousand dollars for a cooling system "
Water cooling systems are a LOT cheaper than that. Look at what overclockers are using today you can get a good watercooling system to suck out a LOT of that heat for less than a couple hundred bucks.

Problem is that most guys undersize the heat dump radiator.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746429)

moore's law isn't about performance.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (2)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44746557)

Everyone says AMD is behind but that's based on a ridiculous comparison. Just do the #1 most important benchmark, speed vs price, and AMD is winning. Yeah, power vs performance comes into play but at least in bang for your buck, they're crushing Intel. It's just like Roundy's with food. If you're almost as good, just price it lower to compensate and everyone will buy your product instead. If Intel wanted to put AMD in some real trouble, they wouldn't have kept the i3-2100 at the same price for 2 years straight.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746633)

Intel doesn't have to lift a finger; AMD is still losing money. They won't be around much longer.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747127)

AMD winning, AMD crushing Intel? That's some serious stuff you're smoking. That said I sure hope there are plenty of you fanboys buying AMD's stuff to keep them alive.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | about a year ago | (#44747277)

Speed vs Price is important when comparing similar speeds. Price doesn't matter if the speed isn't good enough, which is where Intel is winning.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

lexman098 (1983842) | about a year ago | (#44748237)

"Not good enough for what?" is the question though. We're talking about desktop CPUs here.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748089)

Too many Intel fanboys replied to you already, so I thought I'd chime in to balance things out.

Speed vs. price, particularly when it comes to gaming, is very important. You're also correct: AMD is wrecking Intel there. The problem is, you have sites like Tom's Hardware with an obvious pro-Intel bias telling consumers ridiculous things like the i5-2500K being two tiers above the AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE when in actuality there aren't any benchmarks that support this viewpoint (I don't consider a 5 FPS difference worth an extra $100). An anecdote: I'm running two gaming systems that happen to use both these CPUs and there is zero perceivable difference in performance amongst dozens of titles. What's funny about this is the Intel system actually has a superior GPU.

On the other hand, I always laugh when I see someone waste hundreds on an i7 for a gaming rig, while I spend less than 50% on an AMD processor and get the same performance. Another trick I like to use is spend what I saved on the AMD CPU on a better graphics card - this more than balances out the equation on titles that are GPU bound.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

Hadlock (143607) | about a year ago | (#44748205)

And yet nobody is buying AMD products in the desktop or server space. AMD has consistently been below 10% for over a decade I believe.
 
Price/performance doesn't matter a whole lot when the difference in price on the chips is less than $100. If you're buying i3/i5/i7-class chips you're already looking at real world performance rather than budget.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about a year ago | (#44748013)

There are two reasons:
1) AMD is really behind after they reworked their architecture, hence no pressure on Intel.

That's a really stupid thing to say, as if thousands of highly skilled engineers at Intel turn up every morning and just don't give a shit. If you've been paying attention, if there's any lacking on the desktop/server chips it's probably due to Intel going all out to take ARM's business in the mobile and tablet space.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about a year ago | (#44745885)

Lower watts in = lower watts out = more thermal room for overclocking.

Tell me again how gamers aren't interested in how much power a stock CPU uses.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (3, Insightful)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#44745941)

Sure, I'll tell you again. Even though the power consumption drops for each new process shrink the heat drop isn't commensurate because the transistors are packed more tightly together. Do a search online about how poorly Ivy Bridge OC's vs Sandy Bridge on a relative CPU frequency basis.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (3, Informative)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#44746233)

Actually, that has to do with the fact Ivys CPU packaging uses thermal interface material between the die and heat spreader whereas Sandys have them spreaders soldered to the die. Stupid mistake on Intel's behalf if you ask me!

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44746649)

While you are correct, that wasn't the reason in that case. Sandy vs Ivy overclocking was due to the way they added thermal compound inside the CPU itself. They did it differently and it jacked up the average core temp on every Ivy chip by as much as 10C in some cases.

Anyway, in response to the original post, lower power means cheaper power components that can't handle as many watts so it actually limits the amount of power the CPU can use. They don't make a chip twice as efficient and then leave the same old power handling components inside it.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | about a year ago | (#44747307)

Anyway, in response to the original post, lower power means cheaper power components that can't handle as many watts so it actually limits the amount of power the CPU can use.

Do you have any evidence of this? That sounds like pure conjecture to me.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44745991)

Lower watts in = lower watts out = more thermal room for overclocking.

Tell me again how gamers aren't interested in how much power a stock CPU uses.

Unfortunately, gamers are more interested in the graphics card, since it's the workhorse in the vast majority of recent titles. Admittedly, there are games that tax the CPU heartily, but not enough to make this beast of a processor a relevant purchase.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746107)

13% lower power than SB-E with a 41% smaller die == 47% higher power per area.
Worse, IB-E has thermal compound between die and heatspreader, same as IB vs. SB.
-> good luck pushing the thing even under water.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year ago | (#44746397)

Worse, IB-E has thermal compound between die and heatspreader, same as IB vs. SB.

Source? I thought a while back someone pulled the lid off a Ivy Bridge-E CPU engineering sample and found that it was soldered (the CPU was destroyed in the process). There were photos of this posted on a couple of sites.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44745891)

With each faster processor release we should get work done faster to have time to relax but we just keep getting more to do. Boss will be happy when a processor finally comes out that allows getting tomorrow's work done yesterday.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44746623)

Who said anything about a gain? I looked at 3 respectable benchmarks and overall, this chip is slightly slower than a 4770K.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

robthebloke (1308483) | about a year ago | (#44746807)

AVX v.s. SSE4.2 : 8 x floats per instruction v.s. 4 floats per instruction. (Nehalem v.s. Sandy Bridge)
AVX2 v.s. AVX : 8 x 32 integers per instruction v.s. 4 x 32 bit integers per instruction. (Ivy Bridge v.s. Haswell)

The performance gains certainly are there. As per usual, meaningless benchmarks are meaningless.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (1)

green is the enemy (3021751) | about a year ago | (#44747719)

I'm wondering if all this SIMD is even worth it. It is far too difficult to program. For the average programmer, going the GPU (CUDA) route offers far more bang for their effort. These SIMD instructions will find very limited use, maybe in some video codecs. The same codecs probably run an order of magnitude faster on a GPU anyway, even on the Intel built-in one.

I would tend to agree that single-threaded performance has pretty much reached a practical limit. Calling SIMD single-threaded is a stretch, as it does not easily conform to the single-threaded programming model. Now we have a daunting task of figuring out which explicitly parallel architecture to concentrate on: Traditional multithreading vs. SIMD vs. GPU (SIMT) or a combination, or something else entirely. So far the GPU way seems to be winning for most tasks.

Re:Another marginal perf iteration of Core (3, Informative)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about a year ago | (#44747191)

It's laughable how small the performance gains are between recent generations of Core processors. I realize there are other improvements like power consumption and integrated GPU performance but the desktop gamer isn't going to drop another grand to save watts or get better performance on an IGPU he never will use anyway.

The only thing that's laughable, is that the desktop gamer thinks everything is about him and that his concerns add up to even 1% of the market.

Can't wait for the server version (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44745937)

3.6GHz base clock is the fastest we've had since the last generation P4's, and with the obviously superior IPC of the IB this thing's going to be a monster for certain workloads where the code doesn't scale well to multiple cores. The only downside is it's not 8 cores/16 threads at those speeds which is a bummer for virtualization hosts. Oh well, the E5-2670's at 2.6GHz do a pretty good job =)

Re:Can't wait for the server version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746257)

3.6GHz base clock is the fastest we've had since the last generation P4's

E3-1290v2. 3.7GHz base clock.

Re:Can't wait for the server version (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44746415)

2 memory channels makes it not very useful for my purposes but it is in fact slightly faster =)

Re:Can't wait for the server version (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746629)

E5-1660v2 (Xeon cousin of the 4960X) will have 3.7/4.0 base/turbo. Expect about $1k street.

Re:Can't wait for the server version (1)

afidel (530433) | about a year ago | (#44746821)

bah, why not a dual socket chip? Why can't I get the best single core performance in something that actually makes sense to license (ie VMWare and MS both license based on two sockets per server minimum).

Hhaha I had a P4 that ran 4 G TEN years back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746171)

And this is what intel calls Moorse law?

Amd rulez!

Re:Hhaha I had a P4 that ran 4 G TEN years back (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747327)

Moore's law is about the number of transistors increasing, not speed.

Re:Hhaha I had a P4 that ran 4 G TEN years back (1)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | about a year ago | (#44747357)

Your P4 at 4GHz can't do nearly as much as a single core on a newer processor. My 2.4GHz P4 coverts DVD movies to low-res in 8 hours or so, my 2.8GHz i3 does the exact same thing in 20 minutes, 24x faster overall and 6x faster per thread.

And still ineffective... (2)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year ago | (#44746471)

Because the only Multi Chip processors are still 4 years behind this. Why dont they just enable the ability for me to drop 4 of these on a single motherboard so I can have my 24 core monster for editing and rendering 4K video?

2CPU.COM (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about a year ago | (#44746947)

I still have an old Abit BP6 system sitting next to my desk gathering dust if you want it. I even have 4 extra celeron processors for it!

Back when men where men, and dual core meant two processors!

Sadly other than specialized software, most are still only designed for single core anyway, making the performance gains negligible for most people, which means other than an expensive marketing ploy to a small enthusiast market, not much of a market advantage for any company to do so...

wrong wrong wrong (-1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year ago | (#44746497)

"that can each process two threads simultaneously"
That is absolutely not how it works. It's been what, 10 years and they're still lying about hyperthreading to make it sound better? Super short summary of how it really works: Every core does 4 things, 1 per cycle. 1 & 3 and 2 & 4 can operate at least 1 clock cycle apart from each other so you can alternate threads using the same core as long as they alternate odd-even like that. So since they're always 1 clock cycle apart, they're not running "simultaneously," especially considering Intel made no effort to simply streamline the same thread to eliminate gaps and load the data in a nonstop stream (for certain types of calculations that are non-dependent on previous results) and approximately double single core performance.

Re: wrong wrong wrong (1)

jsh1972 (1095519) | about a year ago | (#44746731)

Does this scale up, as in could you arrange four cores in a manner to approximately give 4x performance?

Re:wrong wrong wrong (2)

razvan784 (1389375) | about a year ago | (#44746867)

I don't think you understand correctly how a superscalar processor works. Maybe you're confusing parallel instruction execution with pipelining? Even single-core, non-hyperthreading processors have been able to execute multiple instructions *simultaneously, in a single cycle* since the first Pentiums or earlier. See, they can fetch two instructions at once from the cache because it has a wide internal bus, decode them simultaneously, and execute them simultaneously (if they are independent) because each core has multiple execution units. Modern processors can easily execute 3 or 4 instructions at once on a single core, in a single cycle. As I understand it, hyperthreading comes in when part of those execution units are sitting idle because there are not enough instructions in the main thread that can be executed in parallel - they're not independent, some depend on the results of others - and so those idle units are used to process another thread. Of course it's slower than having two full cores, but the point is that a single core CAN execute a lot of stuff in parallel.

Re:wrong wrong wrong (1)

m.dillon (147925) | about a year ago | (#44747291)

General rule of thumb is that 2x hyperthreads is approximately equal to 1.5 real cores. Nobody is lying, Intel makes the thread/core distinction very clearly. The reason is primarily due to pipeline and memory stalls creating space which can be filled by the other thread.

Keep in mind that a modern superscale cpu can have something like 160? (number not exact) instructions in-flight at any given moment, depending on how good the branch prediction is. Instruction execution is not really a matter of clock cycles so much as it is a matter of waiting for memory and execution unit resources. Even instruction-instruction dependencies can often be absorbed by the out-of-order execution engine.

-Matt

Re:wrong wrong wrong (4, Informative)

MrFlibbs (945469) | about a year ago | (#44748151)

Amazing. Everything you said about HT is completely wrong. Where ever did you get this information?

Intel's hyperthreading consists of two logical processors sharing the same compute resources. Each logical processor has its own register set but shares decoders, adders, shifters, cache, etc. as it goes about executing its assigned thread. The sharing process is vastly more complex and efficient than you seem to think -- there's no alternating of cycles. Once instructions are decoded into uops, they flow through the pipeline in a dynamic fashion that sometimes leads to one thread using most of the resources while the other one waits. In fact, this is a big advantage of the design -- when one thread stalls from a cache miss, the other one uses all the resources until the first thread's memory access completes. A much better plan than your scheme of using only even/odd cycles.

Managing this process is not simple, and steps must be taken to avoid both deadlocks and livelocks as the two threads compete for resources. But the process is dynamic -- the design allows one thread to run unimpeded when it makes sense to do so, while still preventing one thread from being starved at the other's expense. But this "every other cycle" notion of yours is pure nonsense. The core can retire up to four uops per cycle, and at times these all come from the same thread.

Does it support TSX? (1)

adisakp (705706) | about a year ago | (#44746619)

Thats an important question for me as I write the base level concurrency libraries for our company.

I wanted to get a 4770K but Intel disabled TSX (Transactional Synchronization Extensions) on that CPU.

Re:Does it support TSX? (1)

adisakp (705706) | about a year ago | (#44746695)

For what it's worth, none of the Haswell 'K' line supports TSX. You actually have to buy a cheaper CPU to get this feature which is odd... maybe it didn't validate well with overclocking though? The new 'HQ' line seems to support it but the new 'R' line does not.

Anyhow, I'm wondering if the 'X' line supports TSX or not. I can't find docs or specs that answer one way or another right now.

Re:Does it support TSX? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746713)

You'll probably have to wait for em to get listed on ARK to find out.

TPM no more (2)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#44747011)

Since their devotion to TPM, my answer to intel was, is and will be: GO F**** yourself.

257mm square (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747497)

That's absolutely enormous. How could it possibly take over 66,000 mm^2 to house just 1.8B transistors?

What's a grand really worth? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | about a year ago | (#44747557)

So for $1000 I can get 1.5x the peak multithreaded performance over the $300 processor released three months ago. And if you run lightly threaded apps, the processor from earlier in the summer may still be faster. Wow...what a bargain. I'd say sign me up for two but, alas, Intel won't let you run multiple processors without paying the xeon tax.

Re:What's a grand really worth? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44748325)

How is this any different from how it has been for many years? The $1000+ processors were never proportionately better than the more reasonably priced ones.

WTF - 3.6GHz? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747831)

We should have like 20GHz now.

What's point of upgrading from 3.4GHz to 3.6GHz plus a number of tiny improvements that nobody cares?

They should stop selling new CPUs until they get double speed at least.

Cue the Mac Pro (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44747907)

Finally they can release the new Mac Pro

Lowest performance per price (2)

Reliable Windmill (2932227) | about a year ago | (#44748111)

This CPU very low, if not the lowest performance per price of current models, so in one category it is the worst possible buy you can make; it is incredibly over-priced.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...