The Intel Ivy Bridge (Core i7 3770K) Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Ryan Smith on April 23, 2012 12:03 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- Intel
- Ivy Bridge
Die Size and Transistor Count
At IDF last year we got word of Ivy Bridge's transistor count (1.4 billion), however today we know its die size: 160mm2. That's 75% the size of a quad-core Sandy Bridge, but with 20% more transistors.
This marks the first time since 2006 that Intel is offering a high-end desktop CPU with this small of a die size. I'm excluding the 6-core parts from the discussion since that line isn't really aimed at the same market anymore. The chart is even more insane when you consider the Ivy Bridge die size includes an integrated GPU alongside four of the highest performance x86 cores Intel has ever shipped. Remove the GPU and Ivy Bridge is even smaller than Conroe. A hypothetical GPU-less Ivy Bridge would measure in at roughly 113mm^2 chip on its 22nm process, making it smaller than any high-end Intel CPU since the days of the Pentium 3.
| CPU Specification Comparison | ||||||||
| CPU | Manufacturing Process | Cores | Transistor Count | Die Size | ||||
| AMD Bulldozer 8C | 32nm | 8 | 1.2B | 315mm2 | ||||
| Intel Ivy Bridge 4C | 22nm | 4 | 1.4B | 160mm2 | ||||
| Intel Sandy Bridge E (6C) | 32nm | 6 | 2.27B | 435mm2 | ||||
| Intel Sandy Bridge E (4C) | 32nm | 4 | 1.27B | 294mm2 | ||||
| Intel Sandy Bridge 4C | 32nm | 4 | 1.16B | 216mm2 | ||||
| Intel Lynnfield 4C | 45nm | 4 | 774M | 296mm2 | ||||
| Intel Sandy Bridge 2C (GT1) | 32nm | 2 | 504M | 131mm2 | ||||
| Intel Sandy Bridge 2C (GT2) | 32nm | 2 | 624M | 149mm2 | ||||
Ivy Bridge is tiny—but what does this mean? For starters, it means the obvious—Intel has little competition in the desktop space. I'm always hard on AMD in my meetings with them because of this reason alone. A less than competitive AMD means we get a less aggressive Intel.
More importantly however, a tiny Ivy means that Intel could have given us a much bigger GPU without breaking the bank. I hinted at this possibility in our Ivy Bridge architecture article. Unfortunately at the time only Apple was interested in a hypothetical Ivy Bridge GT3 and rumor has it that Otellini wasn't willing to make a part that only one OEM would buy in large quantities. We will eventually get the GPU that Apple wanted, but it'll be next year, with Haswell GT3. And the GPU that Apple really really wanted? That'll be GT4, with Broadwell in 2014.
All of this being said however, we must keep in mind that Ivy Bridge is both faster than Sandy Bridge and no more expensive. If we look at the supply and pricing constraints that accompany TSMC's 28nm process, the fact that Intel is able to ramp up 22nm and ship the first products without any price increase is something we shouldn't take for granted.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
173 Comments
View All Comments
hechacker1 - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
VT-d is interesting if you run ESXi or a Linux based hyper visor, as they allow to utilize VT-d to directly assign hardware to the virtual machines. I think you can even share hardware with it.In Linux for example you could host Windows and assign it a real GPU and get full performance from it.
A while ago I built a machine with that idea in mind, but the software bits weren't in place just yet.
I too with for an overclockable VT-d part.
terragb - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Just to add to this, all the processors do support VT-x which is the potentially performance enhancing spec for virtualization.JimmiG - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Really annoying how Intel decides seemingly at random which parts get VT-d and which don't.Why do you get it with the $174 i5 3450, but not with the "one CPU to rule them all", everything-but-the-kitchen-sink, $313 i7 3770K?
It's also a stupid way to segment your product line, since 99% of the people buying systems with these CPUs won't even know what it does.
This means AMD also gets some of my money when I upgrade - I'll just build a cheap Bulldozer system for my virtualization needs. I can't really use my Phenom II X4 for that after upgrading - it uses too much power and it's dependent on DDR-2 RAM, which is hard to find and expensive.
dcollins - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
VT-d is required to support Intel's Trusted Execution Platform, which is used by many OEMs to provide business management tools. That's why the low end CPUs have support and the enthusiast SKUs do not. VT-d provides no benefit to Desktop users right now because desktop virtualization packages do not support it.I agree that it is frustrating having to sacrifice future-proofing for overclocking, but Intel's logic kind of makes sense. Remember, any features that can be disabled will increase yields which means lower prices (or higher margins).
JimmiG - Tuesday, April 24, 2012 - link
VirtualBox, which is one of the most popular desktop virtualization packages, does support VT-d. In fact it's required for 64-bit guests and guests with more than one CPU being virtualized.Does VT-d really use so many transistors that disabling it increases yields? AMD keep their hardware virtualization features enabled even in their lowest-end CPUs (even those where entire cores have been disabled to increase yields)
dgingeri - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
"I took the last Harry Potter Blu-ray, stripped it of its DRM and used Media Espresso to make it playable on an iPad 2 (1024 x 768 preset)."I wouldn't admit that in print, if I were you. The DMCA goblins will come and get you.
p05esto - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
They can say they're just kidding and used it as an example, because they would "never" actually do that. I think pirate cops would need more than talk to go to court. Imagine how bad this site would rip into them if they said anything, lol.XJDHDR - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Why? No-one loses money from transcode benchmarks. Besides, piracy is the real problem. If it didn't exist, there would be no DRM to strip away.dgingeri - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Sure, nobody loses any money, but the entertainment industry pushed DMCA through, and they will use it if they think they could get any profit out of it. It's one law, out of many, that isn't there to protect anyone. It's there so the MPAA and RIAA can screw people over.copyrightforreal - Monday, April 23, 2012 - link
Don't pretend you know shit about copyright law when you don't.Ripping a DVD you own is NOT illegal under the DMCA or Copyright act.
Wikipedia article that even you will be able to comprehend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Circumvention...