Ivy Bridge-E out
 

Ivy Bridge-E is officially out now.

[URL="http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-benchmark,3557.html"]Tom's Hardware[/URL]
[URL="http://anandtech.com/show/7255/intel-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review"]AnandTech[/URL]
[URL="http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/165498-core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-review-intels-great-limp-forward"]EXtremeTech[/URL]

I only read Tom's so far. It's about what I expected. They ran their benchmarks with 1600 MHz memory, sadly. I would have liked to see them try to push the CPU and the Memory to their limits.

If I was building an LL-machine, I would be considering the 6-core variants, obviously. The 4960X is just way too expensive when the 4930X is going to be just one or two hundred MHz slower. I'm going to assume the 4930X and 3570K have the same speed, clock per clock.

I expect I would need roughly 2800 MHz of dual channel memory to max out four workers at 4.6 GHz. I'm expecting 4.6 GHz to be fairly reasonable on IB-E. To max out six workers, I would then need 4200 MHz. However, the quad channel memory means doubled bandwidth so I could be back down to 2100 MHz. 1600 MHz is just not going to cut it.

Max official support is for 1866 MHz which is closer. Of course, Intel has never officially said their platforms support more than 1866 (in fact I think this may be the first time 1866 is officially supported) so that really doesn't mean anything. Still, no matter how you cut it you're going to ask the memory controller to feed 50% more data. Is it up to the task?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;351735]I only read Tom's so far. It's about what I expected. They ran their benchmarks with 1600 MHz memory, sadly. I would have liked to see them try to push the CPU and the Memory to their limits.

If I was building an LL-machine, I would be considering the 6-core variants, obviously. The 4960X is just way too expensive when the 4930X is going to be just one or two hundred MHz slower. I'm going to assume the 4930X and 3570K have the same speed, clock per clock.

I expect I would need roughly 2800 MHz of dual channel memory to max out four workers at 4.6 GHz. I'm expecting 4.6 GHz to be fairly reasonable on IB-E. To max out six workers, I would then need 4200 MHz. However, the quad channel memory means doubled bandwidth so I could be back down to 2100 MHz. 1600 MHz is just not going to cut it.

Max official support is for 1866 MHz which is closer. Of course, Intel has never officially said their platforms support more than 1866 (in fact I think this may be the first time 1866 is officially supported) so that really doesn't mean anything. Still, no matter how you cut it you're going to ask the memory controller to feed 50% more data. Is it up to the task?[/QUOTE]

I don't think there would have been a huge difference above 1600 for normal applications.

If AMD keeps those "crazy guys" who made bulldozer architecture and keeps it in future processors (I read it from news that Excavator will be the same worst ever processor architecture as abudhabi), there is no way to avoid bankruptcy. Do you know by the way, who is this "crazy guys"? I will make an examples of biggest fails in semiconductor industry for my students.

[QUOTE=sanaris;351739]If AMD keeps those "crazy guys" who made bulldozer architecture and keeps it in future processors, there is no way to avoid bankruptcy. Do you know by the way, who is this "crazy guys"? I will make an examples of biggest fails in semiconductor industry for my students.[/QUOTE]

Not sure at what you are getting at. Do I detect a bit of fanboyism?

EDIT: From the guy(Me) who owns 90% intel computers

The [URL="http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131802"]Asus RIVE[/URL] supports up to DDR3 2400. Prices for DDR2133 CL9 aren't [I]too[/I] bad at newegg. I'd probably get some DDR3-2133 1.5V CL9 if I were buying memory for mine today, vs. the DDR3-1600 1.35V CL9 I bought over a year ago.

Given the motherboard, memory, and processor costs, I suspect making two or three 4770K machines will be more cost effective in work/dollar. Space and convenience suffer.

I keep thinking one of the new Ivy-Bridge Xeons with 8/10/12 cores in a dual processor machine would be great, but the processor prices completely kill my dreams (not to mention the speed difference of an overclocked 3930K/4930K vs. stock E5-26xx).

Regarding Ivy-Bridge-E, it's basically confirming Tom's July review of a sample. If building a new machine it's probably worth it, but I don't see any reason to upgrade.

[QUOTE=kracker;351740]Not sure at what you are getting at. Do I detect a bit of fanboyism?

EDIT: From the guy(Me) who owns 90% intel computers[/QUOTE]

Perhaps the poster is referring to the "AVX is slower on AMD than SSE2 is" issue with the "AVX supporting" AMD CPUs.

Rampage IV Extreme looks quite nice. 2400 MHz support looks good. But yeah, to be honest, there isn't much sense in making a build like that.

Mobo: $430
CPU: $500
RAM: $190

Already well over a thousand and all you're really looking to get out of something like this is six maxed out LL-tests. In comparison, I went and made up a cart for a budget LL-machine with Haswell.

Micro-ATX Asus Mobo: $140
CPU: $250
RAM: $90 (2x4GB 2400)

Just shy of $500.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;351766]Rampage IV Extreme looks quite nice. 2400 MHz support looks good. But yeah, to be honest, there isn't much sense in making a build like that.[/QUOTE]True for LL, but I'm quite happy with mine for other uses. :) 32-64GB of RAM raises the price. There are cheaper LGA 2011 motherboards that support fast memory -- the RIVE has all the bells and whistles for overclocking etc. and had by far the best reviews last year.

On the budget side Intel had a nice $50-off sale last week for Haswell MB+CPU combos but it looks like that ended. I suppose both need a PSU added, and overclocking would require a better cooler. Prime95 also has a nice list [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=342469&postcount=38"]here[/URL] (we could all quibble about the exact components). If you throw in all the parts for a complete workstation then the MB+CPU prices aren't so overwhelming in the system, but every part you reuse or don't need (e.g. headless server running Linux) gets them farther apart.

True, but a lot of the boards are still more expensive. Actually, it looks like each sort of core component is roughly double the price. Bells and whistles thing is definitely true. I went a bit too crazy on my Maximus V Formula. I wanted the VRM waterblock but it probably wasn't worth the cost over what would have worked just the same for me.

This reminds me of something I can never seem to phrase properly on Google. Does anyone know here if a board has to have 4-way SLI or CFX support to run four GPUs in general? If a board only supports 3-way but has four slots can you put in four GPUs for computing specifically (no SLI or anything)?

Xeon
 

a Xeon E5-1680v2 8 cores @ 3Ghz is in preparation apparently !

[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Ivy_Bridge-EP.22_.2822_nm.29_Efficient_Performance[/URL]

but i think E5-1660v2 6c @3,7Ghz or E5-1650v2 @3,5Ghz will be better for prime95