This is the result of the new manufacturing process. The fastest Sandy Bridge processors had a TDP of 95 watts while their Ivy Bridge counterparts, only 77 watts. The first thing we can see in the specs of the new CPUs is the reduced TDP of the top models. As a preliminary test, we compared quad-core Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge CPUs clocked at 4.0 GHz with Hyper-Threading disabled. They implement simple algorithms and allow to evaluate the performance of a CPU at different types of operations. To check out the practical benefits of these changes we ran the synthetic tests from the SiSoft Sandra benchmark. The static distribution of internal buffer resources between different instruction threads for Hyper-Threading is now replaced with dynamic distribution. The speed of data transfers between registers has been improved, too. To be specific, the Ivy Bridge is somewhat faster in terms of integer and floating-point division. The execution cores have remained largely intact in the new microarchitecture with but a few minor improvements. Clocked at the same frequency, an Ivy Bridge is only expected to be some 5% faster than a Sandy Bridge.
#INTEL TICK TOCK SANDY BRIDGE SERIES#
Unfortunately, the Ivy Bridge series can’t offer much in this respect. They want higher performance from the new CPUs as regards pure computing. The integrated graphics isn’t so important for desktop users, though. That’s why Intel expects more computers with Intel CPUs to be used without a discrete graphics card, mostly in the mobile market segment. The HD Graphics 4000 supports up to three displays while its performance has been improved by increasing the number of execution devices from 12 to 16. It complies with DirectX 11 (DirectCompute and Shader Model 5.0) and supports GPGPU via OpenCL 1.1. The HD Graphics 4000 core is up to today’s requirements and standards. That’s already enough for the Ivy Bridge to be more attractive than the Sandy Bridge series in the eyes of demanding enthusiasts. The new 22nm tech process may increase the CPU’s performance per watt and improve its frequency potential. Although the higher performance and wider functionality of the integrated graphics can hardly matter for the larger part of this consumer category, the Ivy Bridge can be interesting for them anyway. In this review we are going to take a look at the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture and CPUs from a standpoint of desktop users. There’s nothing wrong about that since their computing part hasn’t changed much since the Sandy Bridge while the new tech process can help achieve higher clock rates and related performance benefits. This explains why Intel had to introduce significant changes into the Ivy Bridge microarchitecture and break the tick-tock rule.Īlthough optimized for ultra-mobile solutions, the Ivy Bridge is declared to be versatile and such CPUs are going to be used not only in mobile but also in desktop and even server computers. And while the energy efficiency problem can be solved by introducing new manufacturing technologies, it takes some more effort to improve the graphics which has never been a strong point of Intel’s CPUs. Intel’s new CPUs can only be successful in this competition if they add a high-performance integrated graphics core and low heat dissipation to their traditionally high computing performance. The Ivy Bridge series is supposed to hit right at this mobile computer market and compete with other popular platforms such as the ARM architecture and AMD’s hybrid x86 CPUs of the Zacate, Llano and Trinity series.
#INTEL TICK TOCK SANDY BRIDGE PC#
Currently, the most perspective products are the slim and light mobile computers of the tablet PC and ultrabook classes, and it’s in this direction that Intel has been refocusing. So, the only way for Intel to keep on expanding is to reach into new markets. Basing on this fact, rather than on some abstract rules, we can easily understand the purpose of the Ivy Bridge series.īeing the leader of the CPU market, Intel’s sales volumes are many times those of its closest competitors.
Any action taken by a CPU maker is supposed to have two ultimate goals: promote its products and reduce their manufacturing cost.
0 kommentar(er)
