News
 

Bookmark and Share

(7) 

Even though Intel Corp.'s Ivy Bridge-E/EP chips will arrive only in the third quarter of next year, substantially later than a year after Sandy Bridge-E/EP, they will be more powerful than originally expected as the new chip design sports no less than twelve cores, a media report claims.

The new Ivy Bridge-E/EP design, which is set to emerge in the third quarter 2013 and to power various microprocessor products, will have physical twelve cores and 30MB level-three cache, up significantly from eight cores and 20MB L3 cache inside Sandy Bridge-E/EP, reports VR-Zone web-site. The Ivy Bridge-E variation of the chip will be the base for high-end enthusiast-class Core Extreme processors as well as workstation-class Xeon chips, whereas the Ivy Bridge-EP will be be used for Xeon chips for dual-socket severs.

It is expected that Ivy Bridge-E central processing units will have eight or ten cores (thus will have two cores disabled) as well as high clock-speeds to provide decent performance in workstation applications as well as video games. The Ivy Bridge-EP will come with all cores enabled and therefore will feature up to twelve cores. The new chips will be made using 22nm process technology and will have up to 150W thermal design power. The new processors will retain LGA2011 packaging.

At present Intel Xeon processors "Sandy Bridge-EP" for dual-socket servers have maximum of eight cores, whereas Intel Xeon "Westmere-EX" for multi-socket servers feature up to ten cores. With the Ivy Bridge-E/EP the world's largest maker of chips will be able to offer whopping twelve cores even for mainstream servers.

Intel did not comment on the news-story.

Tags: Intel, Ivy Bridge, Ivy Bridge-E, Ivy Bridge-EP, Core, Xeon, HEDT

Discussion

Comments currently: 7
Discussion started: 10/01/12 11:36:36 PM
Latest comment: 10/18/12 06:44:17 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-4]

1. 
show the post
0 3 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 10/01/12 11:36:36 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
The people who buy server CPUs aren't of the same mindset as a consumer. They either want maximum performance per watt (because running thousands of these, a tiny bit lower power consumption is a big deal), or they want absolute maximum performance (the "we have government funding/a big grant" crowd). I can tell you that customers are already raising their hands for Haswell server...because they need the performance and they need it now.
3 0 [Posted by: AnonymousGuy  | Date: 10/02/12 03:32:30 PM]
Reply

2. 
Mother of God.

That's too much power hoho.

12 cores + hyperthreading. I think that will do for the performance difference with Haswell IPC and new extensions in a lot of workloads.

Having the same 150W TDP I expect Intel using direct contact with IHS instead the current method used on Ivy Bridge with the TIM sitting between the core surface and the IHS.

Edit: And 30MB of L3 cache. Man, that's incredible. As for Extreme procs, knowing they'll be used for gaming, having a Haswell core would be better. For playing computer games you need all the IPC you can squeeze out of the CPU. But Intel doesn't feel the need for pushing the envelope, and that's bad for the user knowing that the following year (2014) Intel Haswell E will be out on the streets, and the Extreme platform is more expensive for upgrading, even for the proc that's not the extreme edition, as in current 3930K.
0 0 [Posted by: Filiprino  | Date: 10/02/12 11:31:34 AM]
Reply

3. 
12 cores is that because 4 cores were disabled as well because base on the binary power of 2 it seems as 16 cores is the most likely in this power of 2 logic. INTEL is just playing a waiting game for AMD to catchup to 12 before INTEL just enable those 4 cores.
0 2 [Posted by: idonotknow  | Date: 10/02/12 12:28:27 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
No, no disabled cores, it's just the way they go. For Xeon, Nehalem was 4 cores, Westmere was 6 cores and Sandy Bridge was 8 cores.

However this new processor is indeed somewhat conservative as you imply. The shrink means they in principle have double the transistor budget, but they 'only' increase the number of cores and cache 50%. So it should be a smaller chip. I guess they could have gone further if they had competition, but they can save costs this way. Haswell Xeon is likely to have more cores on the 22nm process.
2 0 [Posted by: martinw  | Date: 10/02/12 05:57:58 PM]
Reply
 
They dont need double number of cores because this way they can produce smaller die, probably less defect prone and more dies on wafer. If you put all this together this means more 12C and 10C parts whic can be sold on higher price. And Ivy Bridge core itself is bigger than SB.

All in all one who have money this will be nice part to play with. Only bad thing is that AMD has nothing to offer even now, and with deeply redesigned BD2 (if ever) and only same number cores as today +1 module to be 10Cit wont be competitive when IB-E cames out

Only bad thing is that intel won release this one before but after 10C bulldozer cames out.
0 0 [Posted by: OmegaHuman  | Date: 10/18/12 06:44:17 PM]
Reply

4. 
show the post
0 5 [Posted by: alpha0ne  | Date: 10/03/12 01:21:39 AM]
Reply

[1-4]

Add your Comment




Related news

Latest News

Monday, July 28, 2014

6:02 pm | Microsoft’s Mobile Strategy Seem to Fail: Sales of Lumia and Surface Remain Low. Microsoft Still Cannot Make Windows a Popular Mobile Platform

12:11 pm | Intel Core i7-5960X “Haswell-E” De-Lidded: Twelve Cores and Alloy-Based Thermal Interface. Intel Core i7-5960X Uses “Haswell-EP” Die, Promises Good Overclocking Potential

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

10:40 pm | ARM Preps Second-Generation “Artemis” and “Maya” 64-Bit ARMv8-A Offerings. ARM Readies 64-Bit Cores for Non-Traditional Applications

7:38 pm | AMD Vows to Introduce 20nm Products Next Year. AMD’s 20nm APUs, GPUs and Embedded Chips to Arrive in 2015

4:08 am | Microsoft to Unify All Windows Operating Systems for Client PCs. One Windows OS will Power PCs, Tablets and Smartphones