I think the hd4000 will fine in most laptops since those ultrabook are all mostly 1366x768? res anyways and at that resolution that gpu will run almost any game at decent framerates.
I think the hd4000 will fine in most laptops since those ultrabook are all mostly 1366x768? res anyways and at that resolution that gpu will run almost any game at decent framerates.
Why ?You have highlighted the major flaw in Intel's current release cycle. Why buy an "-E" proc when you can wait 4 months and save a ton of money on something that will beat it everywhere except extremely threaded tasks.
Kinda of reminds me of people that built 1366 rigs just before SB's was launched.
I will be looking forward to the overclocking results on this and the 3570k
I love how he goes out of his way to state that this was not sanctioned by Intel, but then doesnt even say one word about overclocked performance. As if it would take more than 20 minutes to overclock the gpu and run a couple fps tests. We pretty much know the cpu is going to OC up around 5GHz, so there's no real need to get into that. But the gpu? Come on this is a big wildcard at this point. For all we know the thing could beat a llano when both are overclocked. For shame...
We're always looking for the next release to be as dramatic a performance improvement as we witnessed in going from P4 to Conroe. That was nearly a doubling of performance per clock.
Does it surprise anyone that the impressive jump in performance, power efficiency, and so on for the Intel CPUs happened at the same time as AMD was in its prime (i.e. when AMD introduced 64-bit, multicore, high power efficiency)?
If Intel was really being pushed again, what could we expect a year from now? 8 core, 5+ GHz, 2-3x IGP performance?
Does it surprise anyone that the impressive jump in performance, power efficiency, and so on for the Intel CPUs happened at the same time as AMD was in its prime (i.e. when AMD introduced 64-bit, multicore, high power efficiency)?
If Intel was really being pushed again, what could we expect a year from now? 8 core, 5+ GHz, 2-3x IGP performance?
Ivy Bridge will clock no better than Sandy Bridge, in fact, it will likely clock worse as it will not be able to handle voltages much above 1.35 without a good chance of burning up the processor. 5 to 15% IPC improvement as clock scales. You will likely have a lot better shot of pushing a SB processor across the 4.8GHz threshold and keeping it stable than you will with Ivy Bridge. However, it looks to be pretty easy clocking up to the 4.5GHz level or so many times requiring little voltage tweaks at all.
It would be nice to see Intel compelled to unleash the dogs of war. But they have no reason to, not now at least.
I know a lot of people probably don't like the sound of that, but it sounds really good to me. I buy ticks for the power efficiency and I my current i3-530 @ 4GHz is only a slight voltage increase over stock. If an IB i5 is going to get 4.5 with minimal voltage, it could end up at 50-100W less than OCed SB at load.
It's the kind of thing though that might get significantly better after a new stepping, like the way Wolfdales were so-so and had to be pushed to 3.5 GHz... until the stepping where all the e8xxx CPUs OCed to ~4 GHz.
On that note it's interesting that Ivy has already been through nine respins and is at the E1 stepping. After all this time and work I wonder if Intel would bother doing another stepping after launch. For comparison Wolfdale launched after 6 respins at C0, and Gulftown launched after just two respins at B1.
IMO Ivy Bridge is just Intel buying time for Haswell.
But will the IB->Haswell jump really be that much larger than the SB->IB jump? Aren't we looking at the same ~5-15% CPU performance increase, and perhaps 30-50% IGP performance increase, going from Ivy Bridge->Haswell?
But will the IB->Haswell jump really be that much larger than the SB->IB jump? Aren't we looking at the same ~5-15% CPU performance increase, and perhaps 30-50% IGP performance increase, going from Ivy Bridge->Haswell?