• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Anand Sandy Bridge performance preview is up

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
edplayer said:
Did you read the words above it?
Click to expand...

did you see how many times i got flamed by the public for saying intel will screw us on time line?

^_^

and yes ive always been saying that, intel no longer has a set deadline.
Its more like they go with the wind.
 
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2935/5

The HD5570 is 2.5x-3 faster than the HD5450. With the 6 EU version performing like that, the 12 EU model with higher clocks along with vast CPU performance differences just might put it in striking range of the GPU core in the Llano.

I was estimating the possibility that Intel will likely target their weaknesses first for performance(like with Call of Duty 4 and WoW) and it seems they have done the exact thing.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
I was estimating the possibility that Intel will likely target their weaknesses first for performance(like with Call of Duty 4 and WoW) and it seems they have done the exact thing.
Click to expand...

i estimate you guys are seeing the first concept of the PS4. :biggrin:
 
OMFG yesssss...

i7 goes to 4.0ghz average.. and gets 45-50fps min in Starcraft 2

clock for clock Sandy will be 10% faster, so that is almost 60 fps.

And being 32nm, the overclocking potential is increased at least 5-10%

Starcraft scales 1 to 1 with overclocking sooo

4.0*1.05*1.1 = 4.62ghz

We HAVE a 4.62 ghz equivalent of the CURRENT i7.. Wooooooooooooo... Starcraft 2 here we gooo...

MY dream has come true... 4.5ghz + i7

I have a feeling Intel coordinated with the Starcraft 2 team, or at least hacked their way to an early copy, so that they know exactly what level of performance to target so they could release something that forces everyone to buy a new platform... FUCK ME>...
 
tp4tissue said:
OMFG yesssss...

i7 goes to 4.0ghz average.. and gets 45-50fps min in Starcraft 2

clock for clock Sandy will be 10% faster, so that is almost 60 fps.

And being 32nm, the overclocking potential is increased at least 5-10%

Starcraft scales 1 to 1 with overclocking sooo

4.0*1.05*1.1 = 4.62ghz

We HAVE a 4.62 ghz equivalent of the CURRENT i7.. Wooooooooooooo... Starcraft 2 here we gooo...

MY dream has come true... 4.5ghz + i7

I have a feeling Intel coordinated with the Starcraft 2 team, or at least hacked their way to an early copy, so that they know exactly what level of performance to target so they could release something that forces everyone to buy a new platform... FUCK ME>...
Click to expand...

Yes, but the only overclocking you will be doing on a SB is watching Youtube videos of people ocing their Nehalems.
 
Last edited:
Tsavo said:
Yes, but the only overclocking you will be doing on a SB is watching Youtube videos of people ocing their Nehalems.
Click to expand...

The tested unit was doing 3.1GHz at 0.986V, and you can get fully unlocked parts. Breaking 4GHz should be a breeze, and you might even get there with some of the partially locked parts.
 
aigomorla said:
where is the overclocking???

"While multipliers were locked, Intel left FSB overclocking open."

Im guessing anand failed lol..

Remember what i said about that FSB ocing.. LOL...
Click to expand...
"Were locked" as in past tense. In that sentence he is still talking about previous processors.

It wasn’t until the Pentium II that Intel started shipping multiplier locked CPUs. Before then you could set the multiplier on your CPU to anything that was supported by the line, and if you had a good chip and good enough cooling you just overclocked your processor. Intel’s policies changed once remarking, the process of relabeling and reselling a lower spec CPU as a higher one, started to take off.
While multipliers were locked, Intel left FSB overclocking open. That would be an end user or system integrator decision and not something that could be done when selling an individual CPU. However, ever since before the Pentium III Intel had aspirations of shipping fully locked CPUs. The power of the enthusiast community generally kept Intel from exploring such avenues, but we live in different times today.


snip


With Sandy Bridge, Intel integrated the clock generator, usually present on the motherboard, onto the 6-series chipset die. While BCLK is adjustable on current Core iX processors, with Sandy Bridge it’s mostly locked at 100MHz. There will be some wiggle room as far as I can tell, but it’s not going to be much.
Click to expand...
 
If the mobile parts actually have 12 EUs like anand predicts, that would make most mobile graphics cards obsolete.
 
Intel must love you whackheads who are thinking of upgrading your i7's to this 10% faster clock per clock, awesome integrated gpu monster chip with new mobo and disabled overclocking. Wake the fuck up you morons.

Posts like this are not allowed here. You have PM. -Admin DrPizza
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jamahl said:
Intel must love you whackheads who are thinking of upgrading your i7's to this 10% faster clock per clock, awesome integrated gpu monster chip with new mobo and disabled overclocking. Wake the fuck up you morons.
Click to expand...

...you can't afford one, eh? :hmm:
 
For this round, AMD wins the code naming contest.

Bulldozer vs Sandy Vag vag...vagrant. Yeah! That's the ticket.
 
Sandy Bridge was a bit over-hyped. The speed boost is quite marginal. The biggest improvements are in power usage and built-in non-gaming GPU.
 
Idontcare said:
what sort of integrated graphics capability are we expecting from Llano? 5450 or better?
Click to expand...
Better, maybe even much better.

"Redwood"-level was quoted, 5570 being the most likely candidate as a few members have mentioned. 5670-level performance has also been thrown around. While this may seem like the upper-end of Redwood and therefore perhaps not as likely, somehow it matches with last year's rumors/guesstimations around here (circa Nov-Dec 2009) that Llano's integrated graphics will somehow reach 4770 levels (because back then, Redwood did not exist / was not launched yet, so performance comparisons had to be made with older hardware).

Of course, it's one thing to pick up rumors. Whether AMD delivers or not remains to be proven by benchmarks. Personally, however, I am more confident they will hit this target (a GPU target, if you will) easier than their CPU targets, because their graphics division is so far doing great.
 
gevorg said:
Sandy Bridge was a bit over-hyped. The speed boost is quite marginal. The biggest improvements are in power usage and built-in non-gaming GPU.
Click to expand...

Yea, because 10% improvement without Turbo Boost, not even the fastest part, without any ground-breaking features like new type of SMT over the fastest CPU is clearly underwhelming.

"Redwood"-level was quoted, 5570 being the most likely candidate as a few members have mentioned. 5670-level performance has also been thrown around.
Click to expand...

The big IF for the graphics performance is how they manage memory bandwidth. If anyone remembers earlier IGPs that basically took a low-end discrete and put in a chipset, there was some loss due to the sharing required with the CPU.

There doesn't seem to be any significant feature that addresses this weakness though. The 5670 offers 64GB/s of memory bandwidth with similar shader firepower while the 5570 is nearly identical to Llano's speculative specs including memory bandwidth.
 
Those are some big boosts in the IGP department. Remember in the Intel/AMD settlement, Intel got to look at ATI's patents? I wonder if those patents taught Intel how to build a good IGP for Sandy Bridge?
 
IntelUser2000 said:
Yea, because 10% improvement without Turbo Boost, not even the fastest part, without any ground-breaking features like new type of SMT over the fastest CPU is clearly underwhelming.
Click to expand...

+1

10% IPC improvement is pretty impressive to me. (just chiming in with a vote of support to what IntelUser2000 stated)

IntelUser2000 said:
The big IF for the graphics performance is how they manage memory bandwidth. If anyone remembers earlier IGPs that basically took a low-end discrete and put in a chipset, there was some loss due to the sharing required with the CPU.

There doesn't seem to be any significant feature that addresses this weakness though. The 5670 offers 64GB/s of memory bandwidth with similar shader firepower while the 5570 is nearly identical to Llano's speculative specs including memory bandwidth.
Click to expand...

True...but look at what Intel manages to do graphics-wise with SB running on a dual-channel memory. There does appear to be opportunity for some performance synergies to come from sharing that L3$ and having good clockspeed from 32nm process.

So I wouldn't be too quick to jump on the "yeah but..." bandwagon regarding the potential flaws in Fusion. Sadly we are seeing the first proof that fusion isn't guaranteed to suck thanks to Intel.

But ima gonna tell you what is going to suck...if this whole lengthy and expensive process of AMD buying ATI 5 yrs ago just so they could set about to create Fusion ends up being just one lengthy circuitous route to getting to Q1 2011 wherein Intel shows up with their dual-core GPU running at 1350Mhz and it delivers anywhere near comparable performance to Llano.

If the best AMD could do with their vision of Fusion, $5B, and 4+ yrs of development time is be upstaged or even just put into a competitive position with Intel's GMA graphics then that is just gonna be really sad because I doubt the graphics team that designed the gpu on SB was given 4+yrs and $5B to accomplish what Anand previewed today.
 
<- has 9 patents to his name in real-life (or was it 13, I forget)

Eeqmcsq said:
Those are some big boosts in the IGP department. Remember in the Intel/AMD settlement, Intel got to look at ATI's patents? I wonder if those patents taught Intel how to build a good IGP for Sandy Bridge?
Click to expand...

huh? patents are a matter of public domain, in fact it is the very purpose of the patenting process (to get information documented and public for the greater good of society so once the patent expires the knowledge is widely usable and not lost).

Intel has been looking at ATI's patents ever since they were approved by the patent office.
 
khon said:
If you use SB with the P67 chipset, will you effectively have gotten rid of the IGP ?
Click to expand...
Yes, waste of silicon.

I hope this video transcode thing is using the CPU rather than the IGP.. would be annoying to have to choose between unlocked memory frequencies and video transcode acceleration.
 
Eeqmcsq said:
Those are some big boosts in the IGP department. Remember in the Intel/AMD settlement, Intel got to look at ATI's patents? I wonder if those patents taught Intel how to build a good IGP for Sandy Bridge?
Click to expand...
No. Intel probably got the message, with AMD integrating decent IGP in the near future, having better IGP in their chipsets now, and their sales of discrete mobile GPUs being good. Intel could have made good IGP a long time ago.

Ever since we moved to DDR and RDRAM, there has been enough bandwidth for at least acceptable IGP. nVidia offered it, ATi offered it, SiS and VIA tried (and actually didn't do so bad, TBH), but Intel did not. They have consistently either put penny-pinching before offering something good, or mismanaged it entirely (usually by way of drivers, which is a problem for gaming right now, or doing anything with GMA500). Now, they are taking its performance seriously.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top