TechSpot: Intel Ivy Bridge - everything you need to know

Intel is set to roll out its latest generation of processors sometime this spring despite a minor setback affecting ultra low-voltage models -- the ones destined for super slim notebooks. By normal standards, the launch should mark a new "tick" in the company's product roadmap, but Intel is going beyond just shrinking the current 32nm Sandy Bridge processor by introducing some fundamental advancements along with its new 22nm process.

For those unfamiliar, Intel follows a "tick tock" model for its processor upgrade cycle. With every "tick" the company moves to a smaller manufacturing process, from 32nm to 22nm in this case, dramatically increasing transistor density while enhancing performance and energy efficiency of the current microarchitecture. Then, with an alternating "tock" cycle Intel introduces a new processor microarchitecture.

Ivy Bridge includes manufacturing and subsystem improvements. It is a shrink of Sandy Bridge and is also the first to us Intel's Tri-Gate transistors, which use a nonplanar architecture to cram more transistors into less space, therefore consuming less power or delivering more performance within the same power envelope.

There's been quite a bit of information on Ivy Bridge going around ever since Intel detailed the architecture late last year. We'll recap some of the major changes and practical implications, while also bringing you up to speed on the latest developments, including expected launch lineup and pricing.

Read: Intel Ivy Bridge - everything you need to know
This article is brought to you in partnership with TechSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

NVIDIA to Apple: Show us the benchmarks on the new iPad

Next Story

A look at the latest cyber surveillance bill

22 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Not sure if your getting much of an improved CPU aside from the transistors getting smaller and better graphics.

The Ivy Bridge CPU speed goes down from Sandy Bridge...so do the number of cores.

The benchmark numbers over at Anandtech for the HD 4000 in the Ivy Bridge CPU they tested sucked. They were nowhere near the numbers everyone and their mama were hyping IB to be. They fell behind the AMD Llano numbers. People overhyping the GPU power of IB?

On the chipset side, Ivy Bridge is supposed to finally support TRIM in RAID configurations. Wonder how that's going.

xpclient said,
On the chipset side, Ivy Bridge is supposed to finally support TRIM in RAID configurations. Wonder how that's going.

It is by driver, every not too old intel chipset get that support by the newest RST.

Jack@l said,

It is by driver, every not too old intel chipset get that support by the newest RST.

Yeah but there aren't RST drivers yet which do TRIM in RAID, are there?

What I still can't understand about intel...they got this top end CPU for PC's costing around $1000 and its a 6 core and I got my 8 core amd for $200 lolwat?

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
What I still can't understand about intel...they got this top end CPU for PC's costing around $1000 and its a 6 core and I got my 8 core amd for $200 lolwat?

Because the number of cores is the only thing to consider

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
What I still can't understand about intel...they got this top end CPU for PC's costing around $1000 and its a 6 core and I got my 8 core amd for $200 lolwat?

AMD Cores != Intel Cores…

BTW: Intel Hexacore == 12 Threads in parallel…

Hardcore Til I Die said,

Because the number of cores is the only thing to consider

No its not and dont start with the "benchmarks show something else". My 8150 in real life shows something else then the tomshw benchmarks

The $800 price difference, theres no logic in that as that CPU aint that mcuh more powerful.

MFH said,

AMD Cores != Intel Cores…

BTW: Intel Hexacore == 12 Threads in parallel…

Care to explain the first part? I won't even get into the Threads part.

The sad thing is people made bulldozer this "intel crusher" in their heads and when that didn't happen (remember, AMD never said that it will crush intel in any way) people started complaining.

Edited by alwaysonacoffebreak, Mar 8 2012, 7:35am :

alwaysonacoffebreak said,
What I still can't understand about intel...they got this top end CPU for PC's costing around $1000 and its a 6 core and I got my 8 core amd for $200 lolwat?

My previous build was AMD Phenom II X6 1090T on a AMD 890FX chipset. It still hauls. My new build is a Sandy Bridge LG 1155 4 Core (showing "8" with hyberthreading) on Intel Z68 chipset, it's faster. AMD's new cpu line (FX / bulldozer) only competes with Intel 1st generation core chips.

I do agree, on cpu's intel has no competition, they try and charge $$$$, however AMD has slipped and unable to compete with intel against there high end stuff. The area's they do compete, prices are nice (both Intel / Amd)

I personally like how Amd tries to minimize needing a new motherboard by not changing the cpu socket. AMD = AM2 -> AM3 -> AM3+ and my board was lucky enough to be AM3+ that had bios update that allows some of the new cpu's, however looking at testing sites... I can't justify the speed increase for the $$$ for the new AMD FX chips in my existing system at this time.

Intel cpu sockets, on the other hand, LGA 1366 -> LGA 1156 -> LGA 1155 -> LGA 2011, and no idea if I will have option to upgrade to Ivy bridge on my new intel system. That being said, at that moment in time when I did research, it was the best price / performance for the amount of money I allotted for the new system (and aware of the possibility of limited upgrade)

Everything is a snapshot in time. When you purchase equipment, take brand loyalty out of the equation and do homework so you buy the best product for the amount of money allotting to spend. be it AMD vs Intel, or ATI (AMD) vs Nvidia.

Edited by etempest, Mar 8 2012, 9:24am :

etempest said,

My previous build was AMD Phenom II X6 1090T on a AMD 890FX chipset. It still hauls. My new build is a Sandy Bridge LG 1155 4 Core (showing "8" with hyberthreading) on Intel Z68 chipset, it's faster. AMD's new cpu line (FX / bulldozer) only competes with Intel 1st generation core chips.

I do agree, on cpu's intel has no competition, they try and charge $$$$, however AMD has slipped and unable to compete with intel against there high end stuff. The area's they do compete, prices are nice (both Intel / Amd)

I personally like how Amd tries to minimize needing a new motherboard by not changing the cpu socket. AMD = AM2 -> AM3 -> AM3+ and my board was lucky enough to be AM3+ that had bios update that allows some of the new cpu's, however looking at testing sites... I can't justify the speed increase for the $$$ for the new AMD FX chips in my existing system at this time.

Intel cpu sockets, on the other hand, LGA 1366 -> LGA 1156 -> LGA 1155 -> LGA 2011, and no idea if I will have option to upgrade to Ivy bridge on my new intel system. That being said, at that moment in time when I did research, it was the best price / performance for the amount of money I allotted for the new system (and aware of the possibility of limited upgrade)

Everything is a snapshot in time. When you purchase equipment, take brand loyalty out of the equation and do homework so you buy the best product for the amount of money allotting to spend. be it AMD vs Intel, or ATI (AMD) vs Nvidia.

Err no. While I do agree that with the 1090T the FX is a lower standard at the moment I don't agree with the first gen intel comparison. What the test sites usually leave out is the CPU mark test where the 8150 actually wins 6 out of 8 (if i remember correctlu) test in CPU ONLY tests. I've seen tests so ridiculous on some sites that its not even funny anymore, fully GPU intense tests and people complain how bad the FX is because it falls behind a CPU that has a integrated graphics inside, hurr-durr. So I'd say win-win for my money and brand loyalty

alwaysonacoffebreak said,

No its not and dont start with the "benchmarks show something else". My 8150 in real life shows something else then the tomshw benchmarks

The $800 price difference, theres no logic in that as that CPU aint that mcuh more powerful.

I'm not familiar with AMD processors so I don't know which is faster, but your post only pointed out the number of cores in each processor as the basis for comparison.

That made it look like you were saying the AMD processor was better than the Intel just because it had more cores, which is a misunderstanding on your part if you did mean that.

I've never bought a tick - I've only bought the tocks and they've been epic wins; Conroe, Nahalem and Sandy Bridge.

I think the ticks give a medium improvement and then the tock comes out on the mature process and defines next generation performance.

a1ien said,
I think the ticks give a medium improvement and then the tock comes out on the mature process and defines next generation performance.

I think that's somewhat the point^^

a1ien said,
I've never bought a tick - I've only bought the tocks and they've been epic wins; Conroe, Nahalem and Sandy Bridge.

I think the ticks give a medium improvement and then the tock comes out on the mature process and defines next generation performance.

"I've never bought a tick" =D