Windows 7: Some info on Ivy Bridge

Found these few specs for those interested - more I suspect in links -

Maximum PC | Intel Confirms Ivy Bridge Specs In Online Document

I am waiting for those chips. I have some questions that may be a bit on the stupid side. But I'll ask any how.

Chips without graphics ---- Wil the circuits in the chip for the graphics be utilized if the chip is not a grapics equiped chip? Not a very well worded question but wondering if the graphics space is just unused.

Graphics ---- I have been using a GTX 570 and a GTX 460. How will those onboard Intel graphics compare to those boards?

Not sure Hammerhead as I haven't dug down into the detail yet it was just the shortened listing that caught my attention as a mate is also looking these.

I think I read somewhere that the IB's have "- e" suffixes to them that indicate (I think) something to do with graphics I am going to have a scratch around unless someone already knows of course.

I'll keep you updated. Have just found this and it looks like they do have on board graphics

http://www.pcper.com/news/Processors...-Core-i7-specs < I think it spins of that original news I picked up.

Based on this estimated layout....



...I would say that there will be a 6 core version someday - 2 cores will replace the GPU space.

Still anything over 4 cores is still generally useless.... many apps still to this day dont even support 2 properly.

Posted using the seven forums android app

Which begs the question Magu why make them more than four - seems like a daft exercise or a very clever ploy at getting us to part with our dollars

They have beefed up the graphics. That trend will prob continue.

Well in the way of site rendering i.e. render farms and video conversion/editing the professional level apps will make use of however many cores you throw at it.
It does remain questionable why a common user would want one right now.

With the intel chipset and my current i7, I can convert video pretty dang fast. Since it's not something I do very often though. I'm not building my entire machine around it. Outside of that one application I don't believe I personally use anything that would even support the 6 cores.

I'm also curious why we aren't seeing 4.3 to 4.5 ghz chips. It's quite obvious at this point they can make one. My 2600k turbos up to 4.3 all the time and could obviously run that full time stable without issue.

...and yes they will keep beefing up the graphics part of the chips, I wouldn't be surprised if they start doing so at the performance of the actual cpu itself. They are trying to drive towards this single integrated system that will do everything. They will always be third best when it comes to graphics though. You would have thought that would have become obvious to them when they dumped their dedicated project after 3 years.

Hum Magu I agree I am surprise too why the stock speeds have not kept up with the graphics.

I stupidly bought an i5 2500 on a H67 board thinking I could get as much out of it but being a bit wet behind the ears and way too impetuous now am regretting at leisure.

So am waiting on next build and try to get it right next time - just wish one didn't have to go to the lengths of over clocking to get that extra out of a processor - or anything for that matter. The technology must be there.

actually if you read down into that article it goes on about Intel hanging off the IB's to clear stocks of SB's - pretty ordinary really.

Well I do have to say this is the biggest overall performance jump a new build has brought me since I switched up to socket 478 many years ago.
(went from a single core celeron to a proper p4)
Of course the ssd has a lot to do with ...probably nearly as much as the cpu itself.