Intel Core i7 3770K Ivy Bridge Linux Performance

[allquixotic]

Is it only me who cares about "DRM inside" "feature" of Ivy Bridge?
Intel calls it "Intel Insider", but it is no more than marketing cover.

I don't like it, but it isn't going to stop me from buying Ivy Bridge. As the article you linked says,

Intel Insider does not restrict anything you do today (or will do tomorrow) on your PC, it doesn’t touch your content, it doesn’t interfere with playback, no matter what the source, with the single exception of Intel Insider supported services. All it does it add access to these new services.

So basically, unless you specifically go out and try to access these DRM protected services, this functionality sits idle. It's a sad waste of CPU space either way, but I don't REALLY care as long as they don't start enforcing it all over the place.

My solution to avoiding this anti-feature is simple: don't use any software that takes advantage of it, and actively boycott any services that try to make you use it. So if Netflix turns this on, or Amazon, or whoever, you can count me out. They won't get money from me for this travesty. I'm paying for the CPU to do computation, not prevent me from doing things that might cost Hollywood money. It's going to end up costing them even more money in the long run, because I refuse to give money to a corrupt culture that strong-arms the technology companies to service their fascist agenda. I am still in control of the software that runs on my machine, and believe you me, I will not let anything run that uses this defective by design functionality.

After all, it only adds probably $5 to the price of the chip. If Hollywood wants half of that $5 from Intel for every chip they sell, whatever, go ahead and take it. You're gonna need it, you greedy sons of...; you won't get any more from me.

[Kano]

I dont get the point why 3 modules should have got twice the price of 2? Just add the same dimm you have got and it will be fine. For quad channel you need 4 modules, simple logic or? SNB-E already supports PCI-E 3.0 but only unofficially (because it was released before any gfx card was sold that supported pci-e 3.0). When you read the ivb reviews on other sites you will notice that snb generally oc more easy as it gets not that hot. ivb gets hotter, i think because the heatspreader does not work optimal and the heat is concentrated on a smaller area. haswell will get more interesting features, the main improvement from snb->ivb is definitely the hd 4000 gfx part. not really needed for desktop systems but the upcoming laptop gfx solutions will be much faster. If you gain 5% more speed with IVB-E it would be much. Would be simpler to oc than to wait

[jrch2k8]

don't worry about intel insider, i bet it would be hacked before can do any evil like all other MAFIA useless techs.

and since MAIFA hate linux and FOSS i doubt intel will enable this on linux BTW

[curaga]

It's existence on the cpu is enough to consider not paying Intel and MAFIAA the 5$ or whatever that DRM part costs, IOW not buying Ivy.

[devius]

TELL ME THE ANSWER TO THIS TERRIBLE CONUNDRUM.

SSD + 8GB DIMM (to finally fill the 3rd channel in your mobo; assuming the other two have 8GB DIMMs in them as well).

[Fenrin]

the new Intel processors runs at considerable higher temperatures than the previous generation. It is said here: http://www.overclockers.com/ivy-bridge-temperatures

it makes much sense to not overclock it (if lifetime of several years is important ).

[darkbasic]

it makes much sense to not overclock it

It makes sense to use a better cooling

[Kano]

Do you know better solutions for ivb? I think the die is just a bit small compared to the headspreader. So using the same cooling solutions does not work well. Maybe water cooling could help, no idea.

[Fenrin]

Do you know better solutions for ivb? I think the die is just a bit small compared to the headspreader. So using the same cooling solutions does not work well. [...]

[...]Most importantly here, if Intel is using TIM paste between the IHS and CPU die, the IHS effectively becomes a heat barrier rather than a heat spreader. Here is a rough diagram of the current heat transfer on Ivy Bridge:
CPU Die -> 5 W/mK TIM -> IHS -> 5 W/mK TIM -> Heatsink

It would be far more beneficial for temperatures to take a more direct route such as:
CPU Die -> 5 W/mK TIM -> Heatsink[...]

from the link above. I think it is logical that a layer less between Heatsink and CPU die would be benefical for the temperature of ivb. But I didn't say and claim that I know a better solution.

It seems their previous cooling solution was superior in terms of cooling. Maybe it was to expensive for Intel. Or they wanted to produce processors which brake after 2-4 years of normal use (without overclocking) . Previous sentence is rather meant as joke.