IDF Sandybridge overclocking - 4.9Ghz

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Martimus

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2007
4,488
153
106
If an i7-2600 is going to beat an i7-980x in most benchmarks, what point is there in selling quad core 1366 Bloomfields come Q1 2011? Is there a chance that Intel will just replace all the quad core Bloomfields with similarly clocked Gulftowns?

We dont' know if this is true. The benches show the i7-980x beating the i5-2400 in 12 of 14 tests in the Anandtech review. Khon is just making an assumption that the 2600 would win in many of those tests due to a faster clock-speed.

I am still wiery, and will wait until I see real benchmarks on the 2600. Also, the SB processors may be priced to their relative performance level compaired to the 1366 Bloomfields, which would leave room for the current lineup of processors
 

MrK6

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2004
4,458
4
81
True, but if you were the kind of guy with a water setup made by the gods, why would you buy a processor that's specifically designed for mainstream users and not for enthusiasts ?
If it can do close to 6GHz, does it matter who it was designed for, especially if it's faster than current CPU's clock-for-clock (by 10%, IIRC)? If socket 2011 isn't supposed to be out until Q3 2011, it seems like these chips will be be top dog for at least 6 months.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
Sorry if this is off-topic;) and sorry about crushing your hopes about 6ghz clocks but:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3922/intels-sandy-bridge-architecture-exposed/8

100X57=5700mhz, so even with an amazing water setup made by the gods, you won't be able to clock it to 6ghz:(

Son of a biscuit! :mad:

I have this VapoLS system mothballed in my basement waiting for something worthwhile to come along.

It held my B3 stepping QX6700 at 4GHz for a full year of 24x7 100% loaded calculations (financial stuff)...I figured on Sandy I'd see upwards of 6.5 or even 7GHz on my vapoLS but you are right...5.7GHz speed limit even with LN2 D:
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
No it will be higher. Or else it would mean there's an option to clock it to 100MHz. Why would they need to do that?

The minimum speed on the current Core ix on the desktop is 9x, or 1333MHz. It should be able to do +57 bins on top of that, at least.
 
Last edited:

Martimus

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2007
4,488
153
106
No it will be higher. Or else it would mean there's an option to clock it to 100MHz. Why would they need to do that?

The minimum speed on the current Core ix on the desktop is 9x, or 1333MHz. It should be able to do +57 bins on top of that, at least.
The base clock on the SB processor is 100MHz.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
I understand that. Do you see the Sandy Bridge SKUs being clocked at 100MHz x (multiplier for Nehalem)? No, you don't. The multiplier is higher because the bclk is lower.

When one of the first unlocked EEs from Intel was out, they claimed 30-something multiplier over the top clock. This means the same thing.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
I understand that. Do you see the Sandy Bridge SKUs being clocked at 100MHz x (multiplier for Nehalem)? No, you don't. The multiplier is higher because the bclk is lower.

When one of the first unlocked EEs from Intel was out, they claimed 30-something multiplier over the top clock. This means the same thing.

I think I get what you are saying.

You are saying the top multiplier is not 57x but rather that there is a range of multipliers spanning 57 increments.

So if the lowest multiplier is say 18x (for a 1.8GHz part) then the top multiplier will be 18+56 = 74x (for a 7.4GHz clock).

Is this what you are getting at?
 

Edrick

Golden Member
Feb 18, 2010
1,939
230
106
You are saying the top multiplier is not 57x but rather that there is a range of multipliers spanning 57 increments.

So if the lowest multiplier is say 18x (for a 1.8GHz part) then the top multiplier will be 18+56 = 74x (for a 7.4GHz clock).

Seems logical.
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
Yea, that's what I mean. They have a reason that the minimum clock speeds aren't 100MHz or something. The ramp-up the CPU needs to do to reach stock clocks, plus whatever Turbo they have worsens response times.

I guess its possible the minimum multiplier when on idle can be included. But even taking 9x, that still puts the max at 6600MHz.
 
Last edited:

Haserath

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
793
1
81
Yea, that's what I mean. They have a reason that the minimum clock speeds aren't 100MHz or something. The ramp-up the CPU needs to do to reach stock clocks, plus whatever Turbo they have worsens response times.

I guess its possible the minimum multiplier when on idle can be included. But even taking 9x, that still puts the max at 6600MHz.
Well, that makes sense too. Probably won't be able to get it above a 57x multiplier without LN anyway, so it really doesn't matter if it's 57x or >57x.
 

ydnas7

Member
Jun 13, 2010
160
0
0
coolaler made a table comparing SB to lynnfield
intel_sandy_bridge_vs_lynnfield.jpg
 

Axon

Platinum Member
Sep 25, 2003
2,541
1
76
So how fast will I be able to get on Match.com to meet chicks with this thing?
 

Ares1214

Senior member
Sep 12, 2010
268
0
0
coolaler made a table comparing SB to lynnfield
intel_sandy_bridge_vs_lynnfield.jpg

Its an improvement, but its not as impressive as i had hoped. clock for clock, the arch IS better, but it isnt a massive jump, or as big a one as i had hoped. I guess we are lucky it will be clocked pretty high.
 

ilkhan

Golden Member
Jul 21, 2006
1,117
1
0
The 2400 is clocked at 3.1, the 2600 is clocked at 3.4 and turbos to 3.8. Those are stock clocks, of course. The current 760 is clocked at 2.8, the replacement sandy is the 2500 at 3.3(-3.7). Thats a decent stock improvement in clocks. Between arch and clocks, thats something like a 44% improvement for 760->2500 at the same price point.
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,318
124
106
coolaler made a table comparing SB to lynnfield
intel_sandy_bridge_vs_lynnfield.jpg

I wonder which SB he's comparing to which Lynnfield. If its i5 vs i5 the SB versions would have less cache, if it's i7 vs i7 they'd have the same amount of cache. Could make a significant difference in some benchmarks.

In any case though the improvements look pretty good. Especially when you consider that the SB models have a higher stock clock, lower power consumption and an IGP, all while staying at the same price point.
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,318
124
106
Just had a closer look at the coolaler thread, and they are indeed running an SB processor with 6MB cache against a Lynnfield processor with 8MB cache.

Also they claim it's a 4/8T processor, which along with the 6MB cache makes it a processor that doesn't exist. Probably some sort of weird engineering sample like the one the AT review was based on. Hard to tell how much, if any, difference that will make.
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,318
124
106
Last edited:

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,318
124
106
Since none of us can buy one, it doesn't really matter whether it happened or not.

Could be super-Pi 1M in under 1s for all it matters right now...

Sure it matters, now Aigo and Ruby will both have to get their hands on an i7-2600K to continue their little battle :biggrin:
 

ydnas7

Member
Jun 13, 2010
160
0
0
The 2400 is clocked at 3.1, the 2600 is clocked at 3.4 and turbos to 3.8. Those are stock clocks, of course. The current 760 is clocked at 2.8, the replacement sandy is the 2500 at 3.3(-3.7). Thats a decent stock improvement in clocks. Between arch and clocks, thats something like a 44% improvement for 760->2500 at the same price point.

factor together
arch improvements
clock improvements
SIMD improvements + AES
number of core improvements (vs clarkdales)
bonus GPU (if used)
and minor price reduction

then Sandybridge is quite compelling vs Lynnfield/Clarkdale
 
Last edited: