Ivy Bridge Thread - Page 5

TObject · 2012-05-07, 20:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Gilchrist

What are decent cases these days, power supplies, etc...

Take a look at Antec Titan 650, it is marketed as a server case but it really is a workstation case. It lacks some server features (intrusion detection) and has audio outs, a workstation feature.

Anyway, this case has plenty of room, and it comes with a decent 650W Power Supply.

Batalov · 2012-05-07, 23:49

I have recently added a BlackHawk; it is kind of a Newegg's own HAF 932 knockoff, but it works and vents well, can't complain. Depends on your demands.

Jeff Gilchrist · 2012-05-08, 00:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dubslow

That's a darned nice video -- adjustable desktop TDP for the win (not-GIMPS-withstanding

). I haven't even got to the memory part yet, but ASUS is looking pretty smart

Edit: Memory is at 28:45.

Nice video. So 4 x 4GB DIMMs at 2133 MHz is speed spot apparently with the ASUS boards. Hmmm Sabertooth Z77 or Maximus V Gene...

Brain · 2012-05-12, 12:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain

I hope that tomorrow my i5 3570K will be delivered. I will use a Corsair H100 water cooling and will post my results here. Additionally, I bought new Corsair DDR3-2000 MHz CL9 RAM as Prime95 version 27 is memory bound.

Code:

Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3570K CPU @ 3.40GHz
CPU speed: 4296.40 MHz, 4 cores
CPU features: Prefetch, SSE, SSE2, SSE4, AVX
L1 cache size: 32 KB
L2 cache size: 256 KB, L3 cache size: 6 MB
L1 cache line size: 64 bytes
L2 cache line size: 64 bytes
TLBS: 64
Prime95 64-bit version 27.7, RdtscTiming=1
Best time for 768K FFT length: 3.673 ms., avg: 3.728 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 4.458 ms., avg: 6.621 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 4.963 ms., avg: 4.997 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 6.422 ms., avg: 6.503 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 7.755 ms., avg: 7.824 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 9.254 ms., avg: 9.275 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 10.360 ms., avg: 10.781 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 13.161 ms., avg: 13.201 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 16.373 ms., avg: 16.430 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 19.694 ms., avg: 26.449 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 22.105 ms., avg: 33.370 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 28.694 ms., avg: 30.367 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 34.559 ms., avg: 34.632 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 41.648 ms., avg: 72.306 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 48.394 ms., avg: 49.078 ms.
Timing FFTs using 2 threads.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 1.957 ms., avg: 2.198 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 2.291 ms., avg: 2.330 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 2.578 ms., avg: 4.825 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 3.305 ms., avg: 5.679 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 4.023 ms., avg: 4.088 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 4.778 ms., avg: 4.890 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 5.353 ms., avg: 5.384 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 6.804 ms., avg: 7.721 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 8.424 ms., avg: 8.509 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 10.124 ms., avg: 10.195 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 11.378 ms., avg: 11.699 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 14.853 ms., avg: 15.435 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 17.758 ms., avg: 18.194 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 21.321 ms., avg: 21.479 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 24.884 ms., avg: 24.993 ms.
Timing FFTs using 3 threads.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 1.341 ms., avg: 2.218 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 1.588 ms., avg: 1.692 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 1.798 ms., avg: 1.824 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 2.315 ms., avg: 2.359 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 2.825 ms., avg: 3.133 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 3.391 ms., avg: 5.513 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 3.773 ms., avg: 3.795 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 4.842 ms., avg: 4.936 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 5.928 ms., avg: 7.048 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 7.206 ms., avg: 10.469 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 8.075 ms., avg: 8.468 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 10.483 ms., avg: 14.638 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 12.602 ms., avg: 12.688 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 14.868 ms., avg: 15.045 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 17.343 ms., avg: 18.094 ms.
Timing FFTs using 4 threads.
Best time for 768K FFT length: 1.056 ms., avg: 1.462 ms.
Best time for 896K FFT length: 1.269 ms., avg: 1.444 ms.
Best time for 1024K FFT length: 1.459 ms., avg: 2.345 ms.
Best time for 1280K FFT length: 1.936 ms., avg: 2.019 ms.
Best time for 1536K FFT length: 2.371 ms., avg: 2.569 ms.
Best time for 1792K FFT length: 2.814 ms., avg: 2.934 ms.
Best time for 2048K FFT length: 3.219 ms., avg: 3.687 ms.
Best time for 2560K FFT length: 4.120 ms., avg: 4.891 ms.
Best time for 3072K FFT length: 5.065 ms., avg: 5.304 ms.
Best time for 3584K FFT length: 6.148 ms., avg: 7.262 ms.
Best time for 4096K FFT length: 6.971 ms., avg: 7.386 ms.
Best time for 5120K FFT length: 11.012 ms., avg: 13.474 ms.
Best time for 6144K FFT length: 13.106 ms., avg: 15.480 ms.
Best time for 7168K FFT length: 15.849 ms., avg: 17.387 ms.
Best time for 8192K FFT length: 18.081 ms., avg: 19.929 ms.
Best time for 61 bit trial factors: 1.643 ms.
Best time for 62 bit trial factors: 1.675 ms.
Best time for 63 bit trial factors: 1.894 ms.
Best time for 64 bit trial factors: 1.919 ms.
Best time for 65 bit trial factors: 2.264 ms.
Best time for 66 bit trial factors: 2.633 ms.
Best time for 67 bit trial factors: 2.617 ms.
Best time for 75 bit trial factors: 2.537 ms.
Best time for 76 bit trial factors: 2.535 ms.
Best time for 77 bit trial factors: 2.536 ms.

Stable for 24h now (fresh..., in-place large ffts)
+50mV core voltage
43x101 MHz
Dual channel 2000MHz-XMP-CL9-RAM @ 1818MHz
No IGFX used
Hottest core @82°C with Corsair H100 water cooling and ambient 20°C
Blue screens start at multi >= 44 with "In-place large" ffts, not with "Blend"

Blue screens / errors / warning and temps > 85°C are "No Gos" for me. Will continue testing.

Reason for average value timing peaks is likely to be an IO process I ran.

Dubslow · 2012-05-12, 16:12

Wow... that's a pretty low clock for such an excellent cooler. It's too bad IB is crap at over clocking, despite the lower TDP.

Those numbers do look pretty darn good though.

henryzz · 2012-05-12, 20:45

Anyone know how good westmere was at overclocking? Was it as good as nehalem?

I have a suspicion that we might be in for a run of:
- on tick, new architecture same process reasonable improvement. Overclocks well
- on tock, new process minor improvements. Lower power suited for laptops. Doesn't overclock well.

I wouldn't be surprised if haswell(the next tick) overclocks just as well as sandy bridge.

nucleon · 2012-05-12, 23:15

From the Ivy Bridge wiki page, the reason for the high OC temps:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Bri...rchitecture%29

Quote:

Ivy Bridge's temperatures are reportedly 20°C higher compared to Sandy Bridge when overclocked. Overclockers[who?] speculate that this occurs because instead of using fluxless solder to transfer heat from the die to the Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS), Intel used Thermal Interface Materials (TIM) to cut cost. The thermal paste has much lower thermal conductivity, causing heat to build up on the die.[20][21][22] Impress PC Watch has proven that this is in fact true.[23]

Maybe the immersive cooling techs (liquid nitrogen) might reach higher speeds than sandy bridge OCs.

-- Craig

Dubslow · 2012-05-13, 03:11

Lame. Cheapass Intel. I'd rather pay the same price and get the same OC performance rather than have them be $20 cheaper. (To be fair, on the whole, this is probably a win for Intel, as most people don't give a hoot about OC.)

Brain · 2012-05-15, 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brain

Will continue testing.

I regarded my high temps with suspicion. I didn't mention before that one of my four cores was >= 5°C hotter than the others. This made me wonder that the cooler wasn't fully functional.
I reinstalled the cooler with new heat paste. All temps went down about 10 to 15 degree.

Now the hottest core shows 72°C instead of 86°C when both GPUs are heated up.
Never trust the pre-glued atomar-thin heat paste. I noticed that 15% of the core area hadn't had any direct contact before... arg.

PageFault · 2012-05-16, 04:37

Rewind to 2000, the Age of AMD ... I hope I can find my old lapping plate ...

kladner · 2012-05-16, 16:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by PageFault

Rewind to 2000, the Age of AMD ... I hope I can find my old lapping plate ...

A piece of glass worked pretty well for me in those days. What were you using?

2012-05-12, 16:12	#49
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 3·29·83 Posts	Wow... that's a pretty low clock for such an excellent cooler. It's too bad IB is crap at over clocking, despite the lower TDP. Those numbers do look pretty darn good though. Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2012-05-12 at 16:13

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Ivy Bridge-E out	kracker	Hardware	18	2013-09-26 00:13
Cargo Bridge?	Xyzzy	Lounge	19	2012-12-29 17:08
Ivy Bridge integrated GPU?	Dubslow	GPU Computing	7	2011-11-18 23:36
The Bridge to Nowhere- The Sequel	Spherical Cow	Lounge	9	2009-09-19 04:47
Pontoon --- a bridge too far.	Prime95	Hobbies	43	2009-02-10 14:38

2012-05-07, 23:49	#46
Batalov "Serge" Mar 2008 Phi(4,2^7658614+1)/2 2·47·101 Posts	I have recently added a BlackHawk; it is kind of a Newegg's own HAF 932 knockoff, but it works and vents well, can't complain. Depends on your demands.

2012-05-12, 20:45	#50
henryzz Just call me Henry "David" Sep 2007 Cambridge (GMT/BST) 1011011111110₂ Posts	Anyone know how good westmere was at overclocking? Was it as good as nehalem? I have a suspicion that we might be in for a run of: - on tick, new architecture same process reasonable improvement. Overclocks well - on tock, new process minor improvements. Lower power suited for laptops. Doesn't overclock well. I wouldn't be surprised if haswell(the next tick) overclocks just as well as sandy bridge.

2012-05-13, 03:11	#52
Dubslow Basketry That Evening! "Bunslow the Bold" Jun 2011 40<A<43 -89<O<-88 1C35₁₆ Posts	Lame. Cheapass Intel. I'd rather pay the same price and get the same OC performance rather than have them be $20 cheaper. (To be fair, on the whole, this is probably a win for Intel, as most people don't give a hoot about OC.)

2012-05-16, 04:37	#54
PageFault Aug 2002 Dawn of the Dead 353₈ Posts	Rewind to 2000, the Age of AMD ... I hope I can find my old lapping plate ...