Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Noel

Ivy Bridge: underwhelming from Anand's report

Recommended Posts

Final WordsIvy Bridge will bring about higher clock speeds thanks to its 22nm process, however the gains will likely be minimal at best. Intel hasn't been too keen on pursuing clock speed for quite some time now. Clock for clock performance will go up by a small amount over Sandy Bridge (4 - 6%), combine that with slightly higher clock speeds and we may see CPU performance gains of around 10% at the same price point with Ivy Bridge. The bigger news will be around power consumption and graphics performance.-----------I guess maybe w/ more overclockability it could be worth spending more $$ over Sandy Bridge. What's your take?Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Well 6-7Ghz and we may finally get FSX running where it needs to be.......not with Ivy Bridge though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the die shrink it should be a better OCer I think. So at stock it will not be much better but it will show in its strides when overclocked, also with its superb efficiency over SB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just as excited about the efficiency improvement as I am the performance gains. That's a big deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why efficiency? Do you really care about less watts? I mean OK, it produces less heat, less watt, less heat, but with a good cooler, how much potential is really open? Instead 5.0, you get 5.1?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will all make more sense once it gets released. No need to argue the implications when we don't even know the details yet wink.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why efficiency? Do you really care about less watts? I mean OK, it produces less heat, less watt, less heat, but with a good cooler, how much potential is really open? Instead 5.0, you get 5.1?
We are all greenies Talk to the Hand.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been saying this all along. Made for Ipads, Laptops etc. Why I went with a 2700K instead of waiting around for it.news will be around power consumption
Can't imagine an iPad being able to use that horsepower but I don't know. I was so hoping IB would be a serious upgrade over SB, as in maybe 20-30% more, but that sound iffy now. From what you see here, how much total CPU power increase could I expect going from a Q9600 at 3.8Ghz to a SB or IB at 5.0Ghz? Maybe 35%? That's very significant, but I can certainly see the machine bogging down w/ only that sort of increase. My GPU has room for improvement though too. Not too convincing really, for an upgrade. Was hoping more for 60+% increase in total processing power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will upgrade if I got the cash cos its like rebuilding the comp, which is what I just love doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are all greenies Talk%20to%20the%20Hand.gif
That coming from someone running his CPU at 4.8Ghz. Suuure LOL.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Err well, I can explain. Its coming from solar power.tongue.png
That must be some solar plant... did it even fit in your garden?? LOL.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a nuclear powered computer. Who knows what future bringt? Small nuclear reactors at home, on our tables, jeez... I get shivers from thinking about that.I bet it would run FSX decent!! im%20Not%20Worthy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want a nuclear powered computer. Who knows what future bringt? Small nuclear reactors at home, on our tables, jeez... I get shivers from thinking about that.I bet it would run FSX decent!! im%20Not%20Worthy.gif
You could go steal a reactor from one of these

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting bit about the nuclear-powered lighthouses!It does talke a honed bureaucrat, though, to place the lighthouse at sea-level right next to a mountain!2.jpgCheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting bit about the nuclear-powered lighthouses!It does talke a honed bureaucrat, though, to place the lighthouse at sea-level right next to a mountain!2.jpgCheers,- jahman.
Why is that a bad position? And shouldn't thread be about IB? Straight%20Face.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that a bad position?
Because the Earth is round (last time I checked) and you do want to have the lightbeam to be seem from as far as possible.
And shouldn't thread be about IB? Straight%20Face.gif
Didn't you just post about a nuclear-powered PC?Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the Earth is round (last time I checked) and you do want to have the lightbeam to be seem from as far as possible.Didn't you just post about a nuclear-powered PC?Cheers,- jahman.
I really don't know what you mean - I have a boat license, and I usually understand these things.The lighthouse is signaling the edge of the mountain as I understand it... so what does that have to do anything with the curvature of the earth? Of course, you could place it somewhere higher up, the problem with that is that you don't know, as a boat captain, how far really the cape goes... this way it's a sure thing.And lighthouses can have different angles of light to signal safe passageway at given angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't know what you mean - I have a boat license, and I usually understand these things.The lighthouse is signaling the edge of the mountain as I understand it... so what does that have to do anything with the curvature of the earth?
The lighthouse is like an NDB: The further away it is seen, the more useful it is, especcially if you can see two lighthouses, you have a fix. That's why lighthouses are usually tall. Since the earth is a sphere, the taller the object the further away it can be seen (distance to the horizon is proportional to the square root of the height of the object).
Of course, you could place it somewhere higher up, the problem with that is that you don't know, as a boat captain, how far really the cape goes... this way it's a sure thing.And lighthouses can have different angles of light to signal safe passageway at given angle.
Check the photo, the higher-up place is really nearby, say 300m, while the flat part in the profile is, say, 4x the height of the lighthouse, so just by putting the light on the ground there you would get 2x the range and 4x the area coverage.Also, having the lighthouse next to the water won't save you if there are shoals, or from any other capes except the particular one where the light is at.Generally speaking, if you need a specific point marked for reference, you would install a tall lighthouse, whereas if you need a specific point marked for avoidance, you would use a buoy.So the combo of "lighthouse" + "nuclear-powered" + "not on the heights right next to it" I find truly odd!Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Well, I guess they must have a reason to make it so low. Though in Croatia, where I usually speedboat around, most of lighthouses there are on similar heights, although possible to put higher. But they are not really much higher.But thanks again for the detailed answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. Well, I guess they must have a reason to make it so low. Though in Croatia, where I usually speedboat around, most of lighthouses there are on similar heights, although possible to put higher. But they are not really much higher.
Perhaps the limit is local visibility (so no point making the lighthouse taller)?
But thanks again for the detailed answer.
You're welcome!Cheers,- jahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites