Ivy Bridge anyone?

[Icedrake]

I looked at the new Ivy Bridge processors on Newegg and felt sad because I don't have the money to build an entirely new system with those bad boys (I am, however, going to make myself a wishlist PC with the components so I can buy it when I get rich someday). Anyways, has anyone bought one of these new processors or built a PC with one?

[nodles]

Probably would buy if I'd build a new PC now, but I just did about 10 months ago (bought Intel 2600K which is Sandy Bridge).

[Icedrake]

I have to say though, I'm still waiting in anticipation for AMD's Piledrivers. Hopefully AMD can redeem themselves after Bulldozer getting stuck in the mud, and I won't have to fork out 200+ dollars for Intel.

[Winapp2.ini]

I've been using my Phenom II X955 Black Edition quite comfortably for a while now, but I'll probably go intel for my next build

[Icedrake]

I've been using my Phenom II X955 Black Edition quite comfortably for a while now, but I'll probably go intel for my next build

300+ dollars for the i7. Yeesh.

[Super Fast]

I've been using my Phenom II X955 Black Edition quite comfortably for a while now, but I'll probably go intel for my next build

 

I have heard that Intel i7 & similar may win a few benchmarks for single application performance numbers, maybe even 3 or 4, but that AMD 6 core chips do a much better job multitasking without slowing down when running many apps at once.

 

How true this is, I do not know...

[mdjonson]

I just built a PC with an i7-3770s a couple of months ago. Yes, the i7s are kind of expensive, but the new system is about 3 times as fast as my old one (with a Core 2 Quad 9400S) running Prime95, which is CPU-intensive. Also it uses about 15-20% fewer watts than the old one. I suppose a 6-core AMD would probably be better performance-wise, but would probably be much worse in power consumption.

[Super Fast]

I just built a PC with an i7-3770s a couple of months ago. Yes, the i7s are kind of expensive, but the new system is about 3 times as fast as my old one (with a Core 2 Quad 9400S) running Prime95, which is CPU-intensive. Also it uses about 15-20% fewer watts than the old one. I suppose a 6-core AMD would probably be better performance-wise, but would probably be much worse in power consumption.

 

 

Watch that & let me know what you think. This video says that AMD uses fewer watts, and Intel i7 locks up on the multi-tasks it is given, while AMD handles it very smoothly.

[nodles]

I thought we were talking about desktops, not laptops? And wouldn't say that test/"benchmark" is very reliable. Also it's benchmarking more GPU than CPU, and who buys just an integrated GPU for a desktop (especially if it's bought for gaming)?

[mdjonson]

 

Watch that & let me know what you think. This video says that AMD uses fewer watts, and Intel i7 locks up on the multi-tasks it is given, while AMD handles it very smoothly.

 

Well, it may be applicable to laptops, although they were comparing a brand-new AMD machine to an Intel machine with hardware that was introduced a year ago already. Ivy Bridge mobile should be better than Sandy Bridge, though from what I've read the AMD APUs are still somewhat better at graphics workloads.

 

As for desktop processors, I think AMD still has the lead in integrated graphics, but Intel is better at CPU-intensive stuff. Also, a quick look at the AMD web site to compare wattages of various desktop CPUs shows that they don't have any processors with under 80 W TDP except for some older Athlon II and Phenom II models. Intel's Ivy Bridge CPUs have TDPs of 73 W or less by comparison. TDP of course is not always a good indicator of actual power usage, however it gives a rough idea of relative power draw. My new box runs at about 100 watts total.

 

Oops - didn't mean to include the video in the quote.

Edited August 24, 2012 by mdjonson

[Super Fast]

Also it's benchmarking more GPU than CPU, and who buys just an integrated GPU for a desktop (especially if it's bought for gaming)?

 

I thought AMD integrated GPU into some of their newer CPU builds? If they have, could that be why they are so much faster at times?

What I am really interested in, however, is how true it is that AMD multi-tasks better, without locking up?

[nodles]

Intel also has integrated graphics within the processors (2600K has HD3000 integrated, all i7 Ivy Bridges have HD4000 etc).

Never seen a "lock-up" with my Intel 2600K, previously had only AMD processors. My GPU is AMD (6950).

There should be more info of the laptops in the description field like RAM amount/type & storage type.

 

Edit. If you buy laptop (or desktop) for gaming, it should have external GPU, not integrated. Same goes with other GPU-demanding stuff.

Edited August 24, 2012 by nodles

[Super Fast]

Edit. If you buy laptop (or desktop) for gaming, it should have external GPU, not integrated. Same goes with other GPU-demanding stuff.

 

Not sure what to think about that. Some say it helps gaming performance/multi-tasking, & in a way, it IS adding RAM to the processor (which is a good thing, right?)

Extra RAM on the processor itself will make it run faster, from what I have heard... Perhaps GPU on a CPU will make it even faster because it is on the chip die itself... If they don't scrimp & use something awful.

 

Hmmmm.... Tricky, complicated!