Export thread

So, the new Ivy Bridge CPUs have finally been officially announced, and maybe you are pondering putting one of them in your system or building a new system around the new chip. But should you?

I've read some of the reviews, and my opinion is that, while you won't go wrong with the new processor, there are only certain specific instances where you might want to do so right now instead of waiting for the Haswell (LGA 1150 socket) platform which will be coming in 2013. Otherwise, you might want to drop an Ivy Bridge CPU into your system...

-If you don't have a 2500k or better Sandy Bridge CPU OR if you don't have a quad-core but need one
-If you are experiencing difficulty keeping your rig cool OR if you are close to your PSU's wattage limit
-If you do a whole lot of transcoding and can make use of Intel's QuickSync
-If you are in a business where an extra 8-15% performance will make enough difference to your bottom line
-If you absolutely must have PCIe v3.0 support right now*
-If you absolutely must have DX11 support right now but can't add a discrete GPU
-If you want to add another 12-18 months of relevance to your current system

...otherwise you are really going to be much better off waiting for the Haswell chips that will be coming out in 2013. They will bring new things such as Thunderbolt connectivity, PCIe 3.0 and DX11.1, USB 3.0 on-chip, and their integrated graphics (and presumably the QuickSync transcode speed) will be almost triple that of Sandy Bridge. Basically, if you are looking at building a new system and you can afford to wait until 2013, then you probably should.

For those who remember the days of the Pentium-III, the Ivy Bridge will probably be this generation's Tualatin processor. It was the best P-III ever, but it was still no P4.

--Patrick
*Varies depending on MLB

Man, I'm in pain right now in general doing video rendering. I really could use a new Mac Pro but from what I hear, even the current Mac Pro's (which haven't been updated since... 2010 or so?) are only "ok" at rendering video so I was really hoping the Ivy Bridge might be spur a machine refresh so I could upgrade and get my work done faster.
Would I really be missing out so much if I don't wait till Haswell chips?

I'm running an i7-950 right now. I was thinking of moving to Ivy Bridge, but now I think I'll wait, especially since I'll have to buy a new mobo. If I wait until 2013 should I also hold out on upgrading my video card until then? I've got a GTX460 (768MB) right now, and was going to purchase the GTX680.

Espy said:

Would I really be missing out so much if I don't wait till Haswell chips?

Click to expand...

Yes. A Mac Pro based on Ivy Bridge would run much cooler than the current models, but the performance delta between Ivy Bridge and Haswell should be quite noticeable. Ivy Bridge design is almost the same as Sandy Bridge but built using the new, cooler technique. Haswell will be the new technique, but it will also be a new core design on top of that.

Covar said:

If I wait until 2013 should I also hold out on upgrading my video card until then? I've got a GTX460 (768MB) right now, and was going to purchase the GTX680.

Click to expand...

Make sure any GPU you buy now supports PCIe 3.0 IF you want to carry it forward to your next build. Otherwise you might want to tough it out until 2013 (or buy used) just to see what new GPUs will have come out by then. If you can't wait, then you can't wait, but any system you build RIGHT NOW OMG will have a shorter useful lifespan than one you build next year.

--Patrick

Darn you progress! Welp, I'm not holding off another year on replacing my kludge of a system, so I guess I will just have to deal.

Just so there's no confusion, I want to state that I realize next year's stuff is always better than this year's stuff. I just want to get across that the gap between Sandy/Ivy Bridge is a step, but Ivy/Haswell will be a leap.

--Patrick

GAH.

Realize my Mac Pro is a 1,1. Despite the brand new graphics cards and the 16 gigs of ram this sucker is running 2 dual core processors at 2.66 each. When I use FC they max out like no ones business. I'm starting to seriously consider doing a processor upgrade... I have heard they aren't that hard to do on the MAc Pro.... then maybe I can wait till 2013 to buy a new one...

This thread was actually extremely useful for work. As it turns out, it has actually become cheaper to build your own cluster than it is to rent the same number of nodes. Especially since no one in this city wants to rent a la carte. We've been discussing architectures. Ideally, we'd like as many cores/CPU as possible to speed up the shared memory parts of our code.

Hey, fade? Haswell will offer 8cores/socket.

--Patrick

I'm still running a dual-core

I'm still running a dual Pentium III as my main PC. With an AGP FX5800 (since my 6800 Ultra died).
I have almost finished construction of its replacement (6-core AMD 1090t), I just lack the video card before I can promote it to be my main machine.

--Patrick

A bit of an update. It looks like Ivy Bridge (at least the LGA 1155 version) does not like to be overclocked (it gets a whole lot hotter than Sandy Bridge when pushed), so if you want to go much higher than stock speeds (i.e., much past 4GHz), you would be better off sticking with Sandy Bridge for now.

--Patrick

I'm still fairly happy with my 2500 that you recommended me, but I could always cut down more on my render times. I recently did freelance work to animate a logo for a guy's website, I'm waiting to hear feedback on the current revision, but my final render settings for high quality looks to be about 3-4 hours for 300 frames, while it took me around half an hour for each low-quality preview version. If this project pans out and I get paid I'll consider an upgrade, but will probably end up waiting for the Haswell.

Actually... I never did play around too much with the turboboost options. I'm thinking of turning it up to max and seeing how much speed difference it makes on the render time. Would I be at an overheating risk at the maximum pre-built software boost with standard cooling fans?

Yeah, the 2500k has been such a joy of a processor that unless Ivy is significantly better I don't really care.

I did some further research and passed the word on at our last HPC meeting. Thanks for the heads up Patrick.

Did some research, upgrading the Mac Pro 1,1 processor is apparently a completely horrible process if you can even find something to upgrade it with, and even then you usually run into issues so... I might just go with Ivy Bridge if Apple updates the Mac Pro. I just don't know if I can wait another year.

It's fairly straightforward to replace the dual-core stock CPUs with quad-core replacements, the only troubles are if you're unfamiliar with Mac anatomy and then there's the difficulty of obtaining the (relatively ancient) CPUs themselves.

And in case I confused anyone with whether Ivy Bridge is hot/cold...it's cooler at stock speeds than Sandy Bridge, but gets hotter faster when pushed.

Also, some real-life performance reviews are trickling in, if you want to see how a system based on the chip actually performs.

--Patrick

Yeah, I've read a bunch of the forum posts around the web about replacing them and a) it seems to be very hard to even find replacements and b) possibly more work/harder than I really want to go for, not to mention lots of talk about problems post-replacement so... yeah. I dunno, I really need to beef up my render times and at this point anything newer would be a real improvement. Guess we will see if new Mac Pro's are introduced at WWDC or around that time. Lets hope so, I'm not the only video editor who is dying for a refresh.

Espy said:

I'm not the only video editor who is dying for a refresh.

Click to expand...

Actually, to give you some idea of how far things have come, if you are still using ye olde 1,1 Pro, you could theoretically almost double your performance for about $1000 by getting a Mac Mini server. Here's a comparison of their respective CPUs' performance (helpfully provided by PassMark):



This wouldn't solve certain other issues (such as if you need a better graphics card or lots more storage space...more on that later), but it would certainly speed up your renders. I don't know what program(s) you're using, but if you use anything that supports distributed rendering, you could do your work in the comfortable environs of your Pro and then send the finished job over to the Mini for final rendering, or have them both share the load to potentially cut 60%(!) off your total render time. FWIW, I've been using a 2007 Mini to send my FCP jobs to from my G4 since it gets done in something like 25% the time.

I know the Mini isn't much to look at compared to the Pro (obvious lack of internal expansion, for one), but the new Thunderbolt port has the potential to make a lot of this somewhat moot (compared to a Mac Pro 1,1 at least). With an external GPU and a decent FW800 enclosure, a suitably equipped Mini could lay waste to a Mac Pro 1,1 in pretty much every way that doesn't hinge on its missing CD/DVD drive. Not to mention the huge power savings.

It might sound like it, but I'm not telling you to run out there and buy yourself a Mini. I just want to show that the solution to "My Mac Pro is too slow" is not necessarily "Now I have to wait for the new Mac Pro." A new Mac Pro would be faster, obviously, but if you do any sort of distributable job, building a farm out of Minis is looking more and more appealing.

--Patrick

I honestly never even think about what CPUs are out there until my current one goes kablooey.

PatrThom said:

Actually, to give you some idea of how far things have come, if you are still using ye olde 1,1 Pro, you could theoretically almost double your performance for about $1000 by getting a Mac Mini server. Here's a comparison of their respective CPUs' performance (helpfully provided by PassMark):

View attachment 5750

This wouldn't solve certain other issues (such as if you need a better graphics card or lots more storage space...more on that later), but it would certainly speed up your renders. I don't know what program(s) you're using, but if you use anything that supports distributed rendering, you could do your work in the comfortable environs of your Pro and then send the finished job over to the Mini for final rendering, or have them both share the load to potentially cut 60%(!) off your total render time. FWIW, I've been using a 2007 Mini to send my FCP jobs to from my G4 since it gets done in something like 25% the time.

I know the Mini isn't much to look at compared to the Pro (obvious lack of internal expansion, for one), but the new Thunderbolt port has the potential to make a lot of this somewhat moot (compared to a Mac Pro 1,1 at least). With an external GPU and a decent FW800 enclosure, a suitably equipped Mini could lay waste to a Mac Pro 1,1 in pretty much every way that doesn't hinge on its missing CD/DVD drive. Not to mention the huge power savings.

It might sound like it, but I'm not telling you to run out there and buy yourself a Mini. I just want to show that the solution to "My Mac Pro is too slow" is not necessarily "Now I have to wait for the new Mac Pro." A new Mac Pro would be faster, obviously, but if you do any sort of distributable job, building a farm out of Minis is looking more and more appealing.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

Which all sounds great in theory right? Well the real problem here isn't the Mac Pro, it's the new Final Cut. Not only is just using it crunching both my Mac Pro and my 2009 Macbook Pro but it performs rending while you work, in the program, so when we get to the ACTUAL rendering of a video file thats pretty fast. Does that make sense? The actual, for reals rendering is fast, because the program just spent 6 hours doing in program rendering of the files.
So I need a computer that can handle what Final Cut is actually throwing at it, so you can do background rendering while working, which requires a hell of a lot more horsepower on all fronts than either a Mac Mini, iMac or my old Mac Pro can handle unfortunately.

Yep. FCPX supports "on-the-fly" rendering, which is supposed to make everything easier for you by making your workflow prettier/more accurate, and also doing some of the end work while you're "not doing anything important." The big question is whether or not the new, improved processor in a Mini server would make up enough for the lack of a discrete grapics card to justify the cost of buying one. I dug around a bit, but I couldn't find anyone testing FCPX on the 4-core 2.0GHz Mini, only on the 2-core 2.7GHz model (which didn't do so well). The 2.3MBP seems to perform about 10-15% faster than the 2.0Mini in those graphs (not surprising since it is clocked 15% higher). That would be faster than a 4-core 2006 Pro, but I don't know have any proof of exactly how much faster, and whether it would be enough of a difference to make up for the cost of buying one.

That graph makes it look like the best FCPX machines right now are either the iMac 27 3.4 ($2200) or the Mac Pro dual proc ($3500 and up). Honestly, with Ivy Bridge and/or WWDC right around the corner, I wouldn't consider replacing either of your machines with anything brand new until after they've had the chance to wow us with something new. Ask me again in 3 months.

--Patrick

Yeah, I figure I have a good 5 months or so before I can save up enough to buy something new and nice so that leaves plenty of time for new Mac Pro's to come out and wow me.

In case anyone is still debating, head-to-head comparisons are in, and it looks like Ivy Bridge (3770k) is only about 5% faster on average than Sandy Bridge (2600k/2700k) when both are run at the same clock speed. So, to reiterate, the conditions that might push you into getting an Ivy Bridge chip right now (2012) are:

-you will NOT overclock or will only overclock very little (this might change if Intel revises their thermal paste or you use exotic cooling solutions)
-you want to save about 20W of power/heat per socket
-you are NOT currently using a 2500k/2600k/2700k (or other Sandy Bridge running 3.2GHz or higher)
-you transcode using Quick Sync All. The. Time.
-your GPU can make full use of PCIe 3.0* (NVIDIA GTX 6xx/AMD Radeon 7xxx or newer)

Otherwise you will be better off waiting for next year. So much better off, in fact, that it will be worth weathering the impatience until then.

--Patrick
*Assuming your MLB supports it, but you probably don't care unless you are doing GPGPU stuff like seismic analyzation or BitCoin mining.

Yeah, like I thought. 2500K is fine for now.

Huh. Interesting. Well I guess we will see what apple does and how much it will cost me.

There's some hope, Espy. The current Mac Pros are still only running Westmere, which is pre-Sandy Bridge. The E5 Sandy/Ivy Bridge-based Xeon* series (which Intel may officially release as early as tomorrow) can be about 35-50% faster than their Westmere equivalents (depending on threads, clock, etc).

--Patrick
*Apple traditionally uses Xeons in their Mac Pro line.

Yeah, I agree with Frank -- love my 2500k. My rig can wait another year for the upgrade.

*sigh* I'm still using my laptop as a primary gaming platform. I want to replace it with a desktop again... People told me to wait for Ivy Bridge. Now they're telling me to wait for Win8. And before that has even arrived, you're now telling me to hold off 'till 2013 for Haswell. I'll never play new games again at this rate

To be fare, if you were to get an i7 right now, it would probably last you a few good years worth of games. I'm running by just fine on an i5.

What David says. If you build a Sandy Bridge system right now, it will work just fine. Heck, I got no problem giving recommendations, either. It's just that it will go obsolete more than one year sooner than one built on Haswell, so waiting 9 months until next year to build new would get you more than nine extra months of gaming.

The next big innovation that has been announced is probably going to be either PCIe v4.0 or Thunderbolt rev 2 (or maybe Claremont), but those probably won't hit until early 2015, so there will be that window from 2013-2015 where they should at least keep the same socket for a while. I hope.

--Patrick

Makes me think now-ish may be a good time to build a Sandy Bridge gaming machine on the cheap. I'd be tempted to wait, but my 7 year-old Pentium-D machine has finally become a tad too...insufficient.

Want to trade with my Core 2 Duo T6400? :-P

A bit of a shame, really: my graphics card is fine (Nvidia GT130M - it's a mobile card obviously, but still performs very nicely) and 4 GB of RAM was great for its day and still is for a laptop...The processor's really the only thing that can't hold up here.
If this was a ddesktop, I'd just replace the processor, but no can do on a lappy :-P