Intel's Ivy Bridge processors slated for March 2012 release

By on October 21, 2011, 10:30 AM

Intel’s Ivy Bridge CPUs are slated for a March 2012 release, according to a tip originating from motherboard manufactures. Initial product offerings are expected to include dual-core and quad-core parts as well as multiple new chipsets.

The new 22nm dual-core CPUs are said to have TDP ratings of 35W and 55W while the quad-core pieces will be rated at 45W, 65W and 77W, says DigiTimes. New chipsets include Z77 and Z75 to replace Z68 and P67 offerings. An H77 chipset will take the place of existing H67-based boards and Q77, Q75 and B75 chipsets will cover business models, replacing Q67, Q65 and B65 products.

Ivy Bridge is expected to offer a 20 percent overall performance boost over comparable Sandy Bridge CPUs on the processing side. A reworked internal GPU will produce 30 to 60 percent better overall graphics performance with DirectX 11 and OpenCL 1.1 support. The 22nm chip will also support 4K video resolutions, meaning the GPU (and supporting monitor) can run a video stream at up to 4096 x 4096 pixels (known as 4Kx4K), a feat that Intel claims Ivy Bridge can do with ease thanks to their Multi-Format Codec Engine called MFX.

During an earnings conference call earlier this week, Intel CEO Paul Otellini stated that volume production had already begun on Ivy Bridge and that the chip was on target for a late Q4 “qualification for sale” which is likely code that the company will send off samples to OEMs for final testing prior to a public launch.




User Comments: 20

Got something to say? Post a comment
andy06shake said:

Anybody any idea what speed(Ghz) these new CPU will give us?

Mizzou Mizzou said:

There's a pretty good read over on bit-tech All About Ivy Bridge.

Staff
Jesse Jesse said:

Will there be ivy bridge xeons around the same time?

Staff
Jesse Jesse said:

I was considering building a SB-E system, but am feeling inclined to just wait and save a bunch of money going with Ivy Bridge.

OneArmedScissor said:

"Ivy Bridge is expected to offer a 20 percent overall performance boost over comparable Sandy Bridge CPUs on the processing side."

I hate to rain on the parade, but this statement will only lead to disappointment. There needs to be some responsibility to substantiate this claim. Otherwise, please just remove it.

Where does this "expectation" come from? Several sites have claimed this exact figure, and yet, not a single one has ever cited a source. You refer to the Anandtech article in regard to the GPU increase, but their immediately following article about the rest of the chip states, "On the CPU core side that means you can expect clock-for-clock performance improvements in the 4 - 6% range."

[link]

There has been no indication, at any point, that anything was going to significantly change on the CPU core side. The closest improvement to being tangible is likely just marginally reduced cache latency.

And while I'm sure someone is going to jump on me and claim the other 15% "could be" increased clock speed, please consider that you can?t have your cake and eat it, too. The TDP dropped for most of the range of parts, and universally for the fastest.

They're already riding up against 4 GHz, where power use increases significantly vs. clock speed. Another 15% would be about 4.4 GHz, which is completely unrealistic. You have to pick one or the other, and there are already other improvements to Ivy Bridge eating into the power savings (new GPU, faster memory support, doubled PCIe bandwidth), so that's not a valid expectation, either.

They're also not going to immediately dethrone the pricier, power hungry, 3.9 GHz Sandy Bridge E, so there's the explanation for the TDP drop in lieu of a clock speed increase.

It?s possible that ultra low voltage parts, which will see the greatest improvement due to the new gate, may improve appreciably, but that?s application specific and not representative of the Ivy Bridge core itself.

Sorry for the ?rant,? but everyone needs to keep their feet on the ground and shouldn?t sensationalize a claim Intel isn?t making.

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

prismatics said:

I was considering building a SB-E system, but am feeling inclined to just wait and save a bunch of money going with Ivy Bridge.

Same, infact il probs wait till few months after Ivy's release date to see how its all going, benchmarks etc...

Building completely new system which will need to last me for 5 years.

SammyJames said:

onearmedscissor said:

I hate to rain on the parade, but this statement will only lead to disappointment. There needs to be some responsibility to substantiate this claim.

I tend to agree. Claims like "20% boost" are all-too-common these days.

Just how much faster do we need our computers to be, anyway...?

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Fast enough that the speed of your CPU no longer matters for all typical applications. We are a very long way from that.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

So 4K by 4K has been around for about 10 years, and its finally hitting mainstream, like 2560 X 1600 did a couple years ago.

Great. The Government is still doing a great job hording the best tech and keeping for themselves for a decade.

Win7Dev said:

20% speed boost in running applications is probably more likely than clock speed. In the article it does say 20% overall not just the Ghz.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

sammyjames said:

onearmedscissor said:

I hate to rain on the parade, but this statement will only lead to disappointment. There needs to be some responsibility to substantiate this claim.

I tend to agree. Claims like "20% boost" are all-too-common these days.

Just how much faster do we need our computers to be, anyway...?

Until video conversion is done in 1 second. Damn I'd buy something like that.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

On the CPU core side that means you can expect clock-for-clock performance improvements in the 4 - 6% range." <snip>.

You are right in that Intel have not disclosed CPU performance spec's part the preliminary explanations regarding power usage. Intel generally make preformance claims at IDF and CES and the like - and they are backed up by PDF's available at Intel's site.

On a related note. Since the advent of Core2Duo, Intel have always understated the performance of their CPU's prior to launch. Intel grasped the fact long ago that a good launch/positive public perception reinforces the brand- not just the launch part. Understating performance combats corner-case benchmarks that fail to live up to the "X% better" hype (since a few negative aspects will always carry more weight on the net than many positive aspects), and secondly, if reviewers, readers and potential customers are ingrained into thinking that a certain level of performance will be attained - that will be the least amount they expect -anything above that exceeds the expectation.

Case in point:

Intel touted Conroe (C2D) has having a 20% performance edge over the then reigning performance king (Athlon FX...oh, how times change!). Even previews* ( here's the Anand one since you've already linked to his site) showed that number to be ballpark accurate....actual launch for the top part (E6700) was some percentage points higher than that.

* Note to AMD: How to manage public expectation 101. How about sanctioning pre-release performance previews to keep expectation within the bounds of reality. Underselling and overdelivering sure beats the hell out of the reverse.

Breech said:

dividebyzero said:

* Note to AMD: How to manage public expectation 101. How about sanctioning pre-release performance previews to keep expectation within the bounds of reality. Underselling and overdelivering sure beats the hell out of the reverse.

Why go through the trouble when you can simply propagandize your base, slap on a legendary moniker, then kick your feet up whilst sipping on a margarita.........all while convincing yourself that you've done well by offering good value to your consumer by supplying not 4, not 6, but 8 (sort of) ultra inferior cores at bargain basement prices.

Sorry but having supported AMD for many years I've been left a little bitter by BD in case it wasn't obvious.

Guest said:

need confimation from intel whether it is haych 77 or aych 77 chipset. this is v. important to me

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

Is the South Bridge still being integrated into the CPU for Ivy Bridge?

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Is the South Bridge still being integrated into the CPU for Ivy Bridge?

If you mean does IB have an integrated USB3.0 controller then yes.

If you mean does IB control all I/O functions (SATA/eSATA/USB2.0/Intel RST/ GbLAN and HD audio interconnects) then no. No CPU (released or outlined for the near future) afaik has these functions integrated.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

breech said:

Sorry but having supported AMD for many years I've been left a little bitter by BD in case it wasn't obvious.

+1 on that!

I had a system all setup and ready for a decent CPU from AMD, I couldn't help but believe that they would bring out a CPU with the "FX" logo on it unless it was any good, I guess I was mistaken.

I've been soo pissed in fact i've gone and sold all my parts and getting an intel Rig Core i7 Sandy Bridge. TO HELL WITH AMD!

there... I Said it... Sorry AMD, but this is the last time you'll dissapoint me...

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

What comes after Ivy and have we details?

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

Haswell. Ivy Bridge is probably viewed by Intel as a "proof of concept" series of parts for Haswell since the performance parameters for IB aren't significantly greater than Sandy Bridge. I'd hazard a guess that Intel are making sure that they get their 3D tri-gate transistor tech up and running successfully. Once they have the kinks worked out of the 22nm process and 3D transistor- they can probably take their own sweet time on ramping and release thanks to AMD's no-show- they should have a clear run at Haswell on 22nm (new architecture), followed by Broadwell ( 16nm die shrink of Haswell) , and then the new architecture Skylake (14nm) followed by Skymont (die shrink to 10nm and supposedly the first commercial -volume- use of EUV lithography, though at 40m Euro/$US 55+ million per system and a significant hike in power requirement could mean some pricey parts)

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.