Hey everyone,I just wanted to make this thread in an effort to keep the discussion about IB in here. Word Not Allowed has said in other threads to keep the discussion about IB in other threads so we don't end up hi-jacking other threads.

http://m.itproportal.com/2012/02/06/intel-ivy-bridge-be-officially-launched-march-6th/Some interesting news none the less.

Well that would be nice!

I just wanted to make this thread in an effort to keep the discussion about IB in here. Word Not Allowed has said in other threads to keep the discussion about IB in other threads so we don't end up hi-jacking other threads.

:Talking Ear Off: :LMAO:Thank you, my hardware post was getting KILLED.

Well that would be nice!

I hope this is true because there is more news of Kepler arriving as early as April..

The only thing I want to know is, would the new Ivy Bridge be better (or even the equivalent) than the Core i7-3930K If it is, then its a non issue.... Ivy Bridge is the way to go.. IF not, then I am in a quandry.Do I go with the faster Core i7-3930K which the FSX would benefit... and lose all the other goodies like the potential for Kepler video cards etc. How much of those extra goddies that comes with the Ivy Bridge are benefecial for FSX? Manny

Edited February 7, 201214 yr by Manny

The only thing I want to know is, would the new Ivy Bridge be better (or even the equivalent) than the Core i7-3930K

The Ivy Bridge chips will likely be better for solely using FSX.-Remember with FSX less cores is more FPS. Few cores @ High clock is the best scenario.

http://m.itproportal...ched-march-6th/Some interesting news none the less.

Indeed, 20% improvement is news! That is not what I read at AnandTech in the past, which I think hinted that only 6-10% improvement clock for clock was it, and that the main gains were in mobiles that benefited from lower power demand and better GPU performance. If 20% is accurate, that would be potentially leveraged by better overclockability, however that is not assured from what I have read either. We'll see soon! I'm poised to decide on this too, and I'm coming all the way from a Q9650. If performance isn't sterling, I may hold off yet again til Haswell. The sim still runs quite well on my aging platform, thanks to the many pearls of tweaks and advice I've had over the years from others here.Noel

i'm not a huge computer geek so i have couple questions about the launch of new processors.1. How long does it take for the processor to launch and for me to be able to purchase it in a laptop off hp.com (only using hp as an example)2. How will this affect the price of new laptops (you can imagine i'm looking to purchase a new laptop) and by how much?

i'm not a huge computer geek so i have couple questions about the launch of new processors.1. How long does it take for the processor to launch and for me to be able to purchase it in a laptop off hp.com (only using hp as an example)2. How will this affect the price of new laptops (you can imagine i'm looking to purchase a new laptop) and by how much?

1. Really good question. I was keeping a not so close eye out for Sandy Bridge laptops last year for a family member and it seemed like it was a few months beyond release before there was a good variety of models to choose from.2. I don't think it will affect prices at all. From what we know so far, the PC chips aren't any more expensive than their Sandy Bridge counterparts.

Edited February 14, 201214 yr by cmeeks

will we finally be able to run fsx to its full potential with ivy bridge i7 3770k processor and a nvidia gtx 680 graphics card i really hope so the game has been out nearly six years now.

will we finally be able to run fsx to its full potential with ivy bridge i7 3770k processor and a nvidia gtx 680 graphics card i really hope so the game has been out nearly six years now.

+1And with the OC potential likely higher than SB, we will be able to squeeze out even more FPS. The GTX680 also features a 512Bit memory interface.(Never been done before by Nvidia!) The very wide memory interface will give us more FPS due to FSX populating them. The PCIe3 bandwidth will also help considerably during heavy autogen areas.

The Ivy Bridge chips will likely be better for solely using FSX.-Remember with FSX less cores is more FPS. Few cores @ High clock is the best scenario.

Can you explain in simple terms why your statement is true? It is hard to find information like this.ThanksDon

Can you explain in simple terms why your statement is true? It is hard to find information like this.ThanksDon

It has already been tested by other people on these forums. Extra cores/threads provide little to no benefit in FSX. FSX takes advantage of high IPC and fast clock speed.

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sweclockers.com%2Fnyhet%2F15045-intel-ivy-bridge-overklockar-som-en-gud&act=urlAccording to an anonomus source to Sweclockers the 3770K can reach 5Ghz on air fairly easy. Most people get the 2600K up to around 4.6Ghz on air easily so if thats true we would see around 10% improvement from clockspeed alone from Ivy + IPC improvements (that I suspect will be minor). But the 3770K actualy replaces the 2700K pricewise and I belive most people get that one closer to 5Ghz so maybe the improved overclockability wont be too notable with Ivy.It also says that the 3770K is able to hit almost 1Ghz higher OC on nitrogen compared to 2600K. I havent actually looked in to how high they OCd the 2600K on nitrogen but i guess that the 3770Ks max multiplier of 63 compared to 57 on the 2600K has somthing to do with it.It's going to be intresting to see more reports on overckocking on Ivy.

Can you explain in simple terms why your statement is true? It is hard to find information like this.

FSX idealy uses one core for the Main thread, one core for "fibers" and the remaining cores for texture loaders. The work of the main thread+the fibers=FPS. If you have no texture loader the main thread does that as well, that reduces your FPS. More than one texture loader actually gives you slightly less FPS (but faster load times).Iv'e tried to explain a bit more in detail it in these three postshttp://forum.avsim.net/topic/360847-bp0-and-the-pcie-bus-or-why-you-should-have-a-fast-enough-gpu-to-actually-make-use-of-your-cpu/http://forum.avsim.net/topic/355264-update-1-to-how-fsx-works-and-how-performance-is-affected-by-different-hardware-explained/ http://forum.avsim.net/topic/321806-how-fsx-works-and-how-performance-is-affected-by-different-hardware-explained/page__p__1896759#entry1896759