Ivy Bridge worth the wait, and if not what motherboard to get for 2500k?

I am looking to build a new gaming rig for my brothers and have two main concerns: 1. Is ivy bridge really worth the 3-4 month wait or are we just looking at a little less power draw? 2. I want this computer to use the sandy's/ivy's integrated gpu when he isn't gaming to cut power consumption so what motherboard under $150 will support this.... since I know many don't? Dual pcie isn't a deal breaker... but it would be a plus. Finally.... does anyone know a cheaper place than newegg (and order online..) to pick up a 2500k if I go the sandy route?

New GPUs nowadays use next to no power when idle anyways. Crossfire 7970s use only 18W on idle.

I am looking to build a new gaming rig for my brothers and have two main concerns: 1. Is ivy bridge really worth the 3-4 month wait or are we just looking at a little less power draw? 2. I want this computer to use the sandy's/ivy's integrated gpu when he isn't gaming to cut power consumption so what motherboard under $150 will support this.... since I know many don't? Dual pcie isn't a deal breaker... but it would be a plus. Finally.... does anyone know a cheaper place than newegg (and order online..) to pick up a 2500k if I go the sandy route?

yachtboy

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157271

That there's a good motherboard and it's not expensive at all. Now having seen how Intel does bussines I don't think Ivy Bridge is worth the wait, it's gonna be overpriced as hell, and I'm sure they won't drop the prices of Sandy Bridge CPUs much, eather. So eather get an i5-2300/2400 or i5-2500K with Hyper 212+ and you're set for quite a while.

[QUOTE="yachtboy"]

I am looking to build a new gaming rig for my brothers and have two main concerns: 1. Is ivy bridge really worth the 3-4 month wait or are we just looking at a little less power draw? 2. I want this computer to use the sandy's/ivy's integrated gpu when he isn't gaming to cut power consumption so what motherboard under $150 will support this.... since I know many don't? Dual pcie isn't a deal breaker... but it would be a plus. Finally.... does anyone know a cheaper place than newegg (and order online..) to pick up a 2500k if I go the sandy route?

evildead6789

bro, ivy bridge processors will be the replacements cpu's for the lga 1366 processors...if I remember correctly, the cheapest lga 1366 processor, the i7 920 cost about $300, and the cheapest motherboard cost $150. To the OP, I don't think the performance jump will be big, it will probably be +10% improvement MAX. For gaming purposes cpu's arent bottlenecked much, its usually the gpu's that are. Anyhow if you can wait then go ahead, it might be worth it.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="yachtboy"]

I am looking to build a new gaming rig for my brothers and have two main concerns: 1. Is ivy bridge really worth the 3-4 month wait or are we just looking at a little less power draw? 2. I want this computer to use the sandy's/ivy's integrated gpu when he isn't gaming to cut power consumption so what motherboard under $150 will support this.... since I know many don't? Dual pcie isn't a deal breaker... but it would be a plus. Finally.... does anyone know a cheaper place than newegg (and order online..) to pick up a 2500k if I go the sandy route?

blaznwiipspman1

bro, ivy bridge processors will be the replacements cpu's for the lga 1366 processors...if I remember correctly, the cheapest lga 1366 processor, the i7 920 cost about $300, and the cheapest motherboard cost $150. To the OP, I don't think the performance jump will be big, it will probably be +10% improvement MAX. For gaming purposes cpu's arent bottlenecked much, its usually the gpu's that are. Anyhow if you can wait then go ahead, it might be worth it.

Ivy bridge is a tweak of sandy bridge, meaning that you get a CPU that has better power usage. Overall they won't really be any stronger, except the on die GPU which will be significantly faster than sandy bridges.

If you are waiting for ivy bridge for ULTIMATE POWER FPS GAMING, give up now, you won't see any performance increase, just get a 2500k.

Ivy bridge is a tweak of sandy bridge, meaning that you get a CPU that has better power usage. Overall they won't really be any stronger, except the on die GPU which will be significantly faster than sandy bridges.

If you are waiting for ivy bridge for ULTIMATE POWER FPS GAMING, give up now, you won't see any performance increase, just get a 2500k.

NailedGR

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Ivy bridge is a tweak of sandy bridge, meaning that you get a CPU that has better power usage. Overall they won't really be any stronger, except the on die GPU which will be significantly faster than sandy bridges.

If you are waiting for ivy bridge for ULTIMATE POWER FPS GAMING, give up now, you won't see any performance increase, just get a 2500k.

evildead6789

Nope, get your facts straight please. the 20% number they throw out is graphics.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Ivy bridge is a tweak of sandy bridge, meaning that you get a CPU that has better power usage. Overall they won't really be any stronger, except the on die GPU which will be significantly faster than sandy bridges.

If you are waiting for ivy bridge for ULTIMATE POWER FPS GAMING, give up now, you won't see any performance increase, just get a 2500k.

NailedGR

Nope, get your facts straight please. the 20% number they throw out is graphics.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] That's not exactly true. Ivy bridge will have eight core cpu and the performance increase with the same amount of cores will be close to 20 percent.evildead6789

Nope, get your facts straight please. the 20% number they throw out is graphics.

Haha are you a drop-out or something? Those benchmarks are about as helpful as a hammer to the dome.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] That's not exactly true. Ivy bridge will have eight core cpu and the performance increase with the same amount of cores will be close to 20 percent.evildead6789

Nope, get your facts straight please. the 20% number they throw out is graphics.

Sandy bridge was released in January 2011, and the improvement over nehalem (which released 2 years prior) clock for clock was about 20%. You think Intel will be able to recreate that level of improvement with ivy bridge when its only been 1 year since sandy bridge released? Maybe its possible, but im not too sure.

EDIT: Just checked toms hardware on the single core clock for clock improvement of sandy bridge over nehalem, and its seriously pathetic, b/w 5%-10%. Heres the link to toms hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/x86-core-performance-comparison/benchmarks,128.html

Also a forum poster on hardforum did his own test on a core i5 760 compared to a core i5 2500k for gaming max oc vs max oc, and here were the results:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1614809&highlight=lynnfield+sandy

So basically the biggest improvement of architecture was going from the pentium 4 back in 2005 to conroe in 2007, the improvement was MASSIVE. After that the improvement was minimal at best and the performance gains have been pretty much flat. Of course the crazy overclocking potential with sandy bridge is there, but i don't think ivy bridge can improve on that any further...

It is my understanding that ivy bridge will be at most quad core and be 20% faster cpu wise and 30% faster on the gpu side. But I think I will just get them a 2500k since they are still using a c2d. I will think out some of those motherboards though and see what I can come up with. What do you think about pairing it was 2133mhz ram and a 560ti gpu?yachtboy

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Nope, get your facts straight please. the 20% number they throw out is graphics.

GummiRaccoon

Haha are you a drop-out or something? Those benchmarks are about as helpful as a hammer to the dome.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="NailedGR"]

Nope, get your facts straight please. the 20% number they throw out is graphics.

blaznwiipspman1

Sandy bridge was released in January 2011, and the improvement over nehalem (which released 2 years prior) clock for clock was about 20%. You think Intel will be able to recreate that level of improvement with ivy bridge when its only been 1 year since sandy bridge released? Maybe its possible, but im not too sure.

EDIT: Just checked toms hardware on the single core clock for clock improvement of sandy bridge over nehalem, and its seriously pathetic, b/w 5%-10%. Heres the link to toms hardware:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/x86-core-performance-comparison/benchmarks,128.html

Also a forum poster on hardforum did his own test on a core i5 760 compared to a core i5 2500k for gaming max oc vs max oc, and here were the results:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1614809&highlight=lynnfield+sandy

So basically the biggest improvement of architecture was going from the pentium 4 back in 2005 to conroe in 2007, the improvement was MASSIVE. After that the improvement was minimal at best and the performance gains have been pretty much flat. Of course the crazy overclocking potential with sandy bridge is there, but i don't think ivy bridge can improve on that any further...

lol what is this, For starters the nehalem was already a big improvement over core 2 duo and core 2 quad. Apart from that, the sandy bridge can manage much higher clock speeds than the nehalem. And it's quad core, what's the point in only comparing one core and at the same speed while the i5-760 runs at 2.8 ghz and the i5-2500 at 3.3 ghz. Ok then you actually post something where the cpu's are at max speeds (allthough that overclock wasn't necessary) but then those benchmark are just games, cpu's are more than games Buy hey, even for games cpu speed is very important to not have a bottleneck. The bottleneck will be much lower with the sandy bridge . Off course you can't speak of much of a bottleneck here because they use only two hd 6950's , which won't bottleneck an i5-750 at all, especially not when it's overclocked. I don't know what you're trying to do, but what's you're implying is far from reality.evildead6789

Nehalem wasn't a big improvement, if it was, then why did people stay with the 775 chipset?

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] lol what is this, For starters the nehalem was already a big improvement over core 2 duo and core 2 quad. Apart from that, the sandy bridge can manage much higher clock speeds than the nehalem. And it's quad core, what's the point in only comparing one core and at the same speed while the i5-760 runs at 2.8 ghz and the i5-2500 at 3.3 ghz. Ok then you actually post something where the cpu's are at max speeds (allthough that overclock wasn't necessary) but then those benchmark are just games, cpu's are more than games Buy hey, even for games cpu speed is very important to not have a bottleneck. The bottleneck will be much lower with the sandy bridge . Off course you can't speak of much of a bottleneck here because they use only two hd 6950's , which won't bottleneck an i5-750 at all, especially not when it's overclocked. I don't know what you're trying to do, but what's you're implying is far from reality.GTR12

Nehalem wasn't a big improvement, if it was, then why did people stay with the 775 chipset?

Anandtech says a 4-6% IPC boost. Ivy Bridge is focused more on energy efficiency than raw performance (hence the 77w chips). If you're a gamer wait for ivy Bridge then buy a cheap 2500k.

Anandtech says a 4-6% IPC boost. Ivy Bridge is focused more on energy efficiency than raw performance (hence the 77w chips). If you're a gamer wait for ivy Bridge then buy a cheap 2500k.

red12355

Hey now, stop saying correct things.

Anandtech says a 4-6% IPC boost. Ivy Bridge is focused more on energy efficiency than raw performance (hence the 77w chips). If you're a gamer wait for ivy Bridge then buy a cheap 2500k.

red12355

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] lol what is this, For starters the nehalem was already a big improvement over core 2 duo and core 2 quad. Apart from that, the sandy bridge can manage much higher clock speeds than the nehalem. And it's quad core, what's the point in only comparing one core and at the same speed while the i5-760 runs at 2.8 ghz and the i5-2500 at 3.3 ghz. Ok then you actually post something where the cpu's are at max speeds (allthough that overclock wasn't necessary) but then those benchmark are just games, cpu's are more than games Buy hey, even for games cpu speed is very important to not have a bottleneck. The bottleneck will be much lower with the sandy bridge . Off course you can't speak of much of a bottleneck here because they use only two hd 6950's , which won't bottleneck an i5-750 at all, especially not when it's overclocked. I don't know what you're trying to do, but what's you're implying is far from reality.evildead6789

Nehalem wasn't a big improvement, if it was, then why did people stay with the 775 chipset?

So it wasn't a big improvement, you cant just go back on what you said before.

And the q6600 cant max out games, I play at 1200p, also used 1080p, it wont max anything (I define max as 1080p, 45fps minimum, max aa/af, max everything else without mods), I cant use aa/af at all. And if your wondering, the GPU is fine, the CPU just cant keep up with the instructions given.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="GTR12"]

Nehalem wasn't a big improvement, if it was, then why did people stay with the 775 chipset?

GTR12

So it wasn't a big improvement, you cant just go back on what you said before.

And the q6600 cant max out games, I play at 1200p, also used 1080p, it wont max anything (I define max as 1080p, 45fps minimum, max aa/af, max everything else without mods), I cant use aa/af at all. And if your wondering, the GPU is fine, the CPU just cant keep up with the instructions given.

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]Those s775 quad cores from the q6600 and up really show a good value for all this years. After all, it's a 5 year old cpu and can still compete with high end systems for games. Still a sandy bridge cpu like the i5-2500 is way faster but if you have a decent gpu setup an overclocked q6600 still maxes out any game on 1080p. So yeah why would you upgrade if you already have a decent quad core, well for gaming there isn't really a reason or it's you want to play on three screens and crazy resolutions. Games don't need the hardware that's available now, so the reason is not the speed difference between the nehalem and core 2 quad but money, why buy a new cpu if you don't really need one. Unless you're a hardcore enthousiast or at least enthousiast you simply won't buy that new cpu. Spike1988

So it wasn't a big improvement, you cant just go back on what you said before.

And the q6600 cant max out games, I play at 1200p, also used 1080p, it wont max anything (I define max as 1080p, 45fps minimum, max aa/af, max everything else without mods), I cant use aa/af at all. And if your wondering, the GPU is fine, the CPU just cant keep up with the instructions given.

[QUOTE="red12355"]

Anandtech says a 4-6% IPC boost. Ivy Bridge is focused more on energy efficiency than raw performance (hence the 77w chips). If you're a gamer wait for ivy Bridge then buy a cheap 2500k.

mitu123

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="red12355"]

Anandtech says a 4-6% IPC boost. Ivy Bridge is focused more on energy efficiency than raw performance (hence the 77w chips). If you're a gamer wait for ivy Bridge then buy a cheap 2500k.

red12355

[QUOTE="red12355"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Link to that?

mitu123

You should treat them like the 45nm Core 2 processors; they're a reasonable improvement in some aspects, but arguably not worth upgrading to if you've already got a SB processor.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="red12355"] Second sentence.GS550L

You should treat them like the 45nm Core 2 processors; they're a reasonable improvement in some aspects, but arguably not worth upgrading to if you've already got a SB processor.

the 3960 is that still under sandy bridge

the 3960 is that still under sandy bridge

fred1266

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="red12355"]

Anandtech says a 4-6% IPC boost. Ivy Bridge is focused more on energy efficiency than raw performance (hence the 77w chips). If you're a gamer wait for ivy Bridge then buy a cheap 2500k.

red12355

Thanks so much, I couldn't find that link. But, like I've been saying in every thread, ivy bridge is not going to be that much faster than sandy bridge.

On man April is going to be a fun month.

[QUOTE="red12355"][QUOTE="mitu123"] Link to that?

NailedGR

Thanks so much, I couldn't find that link. But, like I've been saying in every thread, ivy bridge is not going to be that much faster than sandy bridge.

'4-6 percent clock for clock'. That means: A 3 ghz ivy bridge will be 4-6 percent faster than a 3ghz sandy bridge.

BUT the ivy bridge will reach higher clock speeds than the sandy bridge

AND top end ivy bridge will have more cores, more cores is more cpu power.

[QUOTE="NailedGR"]

[QUOTE="red12355"] Second sentence.evildead6789

Thanks so much, I couldn't find that link. But, like I've been saying in every thread, ivy bridge is not going to be that much faster than sandy bridge.

'4-6 percent clock for clock'. That means: A 3 ghz ivy bridge will be 4-6 percent faster than a 3ghz sandy bridge.

BUT the ivy bridge will reach higher clock speeds than the sandy bridge

AND top end ivy bridge will have more cores, more cores is more cpu power.

Most ivy bridges will be quad cores.

Did you notice Ivy bridges drop in power usage? That is what they are doing with the die shrink, not cranking up the megahertz, using less watts, ivy bridges will be clocked similarly to sandy bridge but use less power.

You don't overclock properly anyway so you are not allowed to bring that up as an arguement.

There's no reason to wait, I doubt Intel are going to drop the price of the SandyBridge that far. I would just buy a i5 now and be done with it.

What's your point i don't overclock properly, lol , you don't even know me.

cool

What's your point i don't overclock properly, lol , you don't even know me.

evildead6789

Turbo boost is not even considered overclocking, thats what he meant.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

What's your point i don't overclock properly, lol , you don't even know me.

GTR12

Turbo boost is not even considered overclocking, thats what he meant.

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

What's your point i don't overclock properly, lol , you don't even know me.

evildead6789

Turbo boost is not even considered overclocking, thats what he meant.

Because its what "experts" do ;)

[QUOTE="GTR12"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"]

What's your point i don't overclock properly, lol , you don't even know me.

evildead6789

Turbo boost is not even considered overclocking, thats what he meant.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="GTR12"]

Turbo boost is not even considered overclocking, thats what he meant.

Spike1988

Five star response

[QUOTE="Spike1988"][QUOTE="evildead6789"]

Turbo boost is not even considered overclocking, thats what he meant.

GummiRaccoon

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="Spike1988"] Why would i need to overclock when i don't need too.evildead6789

By that logic you also don't need your computer.

[QUOTE="evildead6789"][QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"] Haha funny sentence. I think you mean: Why would i WANT to overclock when I don't need to.GummiRaccoon

By that logic you also don't need your computer.

[QUOTE="GummiRaccoon"]

[QUOTE="evildead6789"] no i meant i what i typed. I simply don't need to overclock, i mean if i overclock i will get a couple of frames more. The noise or an extra cooler is simply not worth it. My pc unrars/unzips 1 gb in 12 seconds. While gaming i has 35 degrees celcius, in idle 19. It's near silent The only thing that i might overclock is my videocard, but i do prefer less noise above one level of aa more.evildead6789

By that logic you also don't need your computer.