Sandy Bridge model numbers revealed

[bryanW1995]

I don't want a brand new naming scheme...I want to see a brand new brand name.

Sandy is supposed to be a tock...i.e. a brand new architecture. Not a tweaked junior version of an existing architecture (that is what tick's are for).

Core i3/i5/i7 was Nehalem (and westmere) architecture.

You don't release a mini-van and a pickup truck and call them the same product name (Sienna Tundra?) and give out paychecks to the marketing team for slapping an iterated number in the mix.

"If you and your 6-person family loved our 2010 mini-van, the Sienna Tundra i5 940, then you are just going to love our all new completely redesigned Sienna Tundra i5 2940 line of pickup trucks!"

Imagine if AMD elects to name Bulldozer products as Phenom II and they just tack on another number to model number scheme...brilliant!

I think amd should actually call them bulldozer. That sure sounds better than i3, core 2, or athlon.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I think amd should actually call them bulldozer. That sure sounds better than i3, core 2, or athlon.

No no no . . . Killdozer.

 

[Idontcare]

I think amd should actually call them bulldozer. That sure sounds better than i3, core 2, or athlon.

Totally agree. I thought Hammer was an awesome codename that should have been the product name as well.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Yea, it is 100MHz. Don't know the exact reason for the change.

Maybe they bumped the base clock to 200 MHz?

 

[aigomorla]

I've been assuming that it is because either (1) coolaler (a sanctioned leaker, viral marketer really) hasn't been authorized to start making such things public at this time, or (2) the platform itself (new socket, new chipset, new bioses, etc) is not really stable enough at this point to make OC'ing a worthwhile venture.

In your 2 scenarios which would you expect if you heard your friend go..
"overclocking?... puaahhahhahaha.. oh man... lets not get into that yet."

Well, think of the situation before Nehalem was released. There was a rumor that said Nehalem would be made really hard to overclock, or factory locked. How is that going 2 years after release?

wait.. you guys didnt see me overclock my X5570 ES's? :\
keep in mind i was overclocking 2qpi chips, on 1 qpi boards.

 

[Idontcare]

In your 2 scenarios which would you expect if you heard your friend go..
"overclocking?... puaahhahhahaha.. oh man... lets not get into that yet."

Scenario 2

 

[n7]

Oh Intel and all their damn sockets. D:

 

[IntelUser2000]

The chip is modular enough that we might see a no-GPU variant of the 4 core Sandy Bridge. The Core i7 2600 might be it.

 

[khon]

The chip is modular enough that we might see a no-GPU variant of the 4 core Sandy Bridge. The Core i7 2600 might be it.

Actually I think the 6/8 core Sandy Bridge-B2 processors will be the ones without an IGP.

 

[IntelUser2000]

I know, but they might do a 4 core version as well.

 

[khon]

I know, but they might do a 4 core version as well.

They might, but I doubt it would be the core i7-2600, since it seems to be the only 4 core processor with hyperthreading that they have planned currently.

Afterall it seems likely that Llano will have a faster IGP, so Intel will have to focus on their superior CPU, and thus they would want a top of the line product to show of their capabilities.

 

[Ben90]

Yea, it is 100MHz. Don't know the exact reason for the change.

Maybe they bumped the base clock to 200 MHz?

IIRC they lowered the bclock to 100Mhz to allow for more fine grained turbo modes.

I welcome the change since things being multiplied by 100 is a lot cleaner and does allow for more fine grained tuning than 133 or even 200.

My question is will current motherboards still go up to ~210 bclock? Or since they technically have to do more work per bclock will the max be lowered?

 

[IntelUser2000]

They might, but I doubt it would be the core i7-2600, since it seems to be the only 4 core processor with hyperthreading that they have planned currently.

I'll tell you my theory on why it might be. The cache size on the Core i7 is 8MB while the Core i5 is 6MB. Regardless of the specific implementation details(whether its a dedicated GPU cache or something to reduce bandwidth requirements, I doubt on the former however), the cache difference is related to the graphics. You won't need to do that for the version without graphics. Going from current 2C/4T on Clarkdale to 4C/4T seems pretty good to me. The leaked dies and previous roadmaps were all based on the 6MB, even the one by Cooaler.

Of course, the site might have got the model number wrong, but I don't remember a time when model number rumors were wrong.

People want a no-GPU version right? And the design is supposed to be super-flexible?

 

[deimos3428]

You don't release a mini-van and a pickup truck and call them the same product name

Actually, GM did do something like this, though it was a sedan/coupe/minivan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Lumina

 

[ElFenix]

I don't want a brand new naming scheme...I want to see a brand new brand name.

Sandy is supposed to be a tock...i.e. a brand new architecture. Not a tweaked junior version of an existing architecture (that is what tick's are for).

Core i3/i5/i7 was Nehalem (and westmere) architecture.

You don't release a mini-van and a pickup truck and call them the same product name (Sienna Tundra?) and give out paychecks to the marketing team for slapping an iterated number in the mix.

"If you and your 6-person family loved our 2010 mini-van, the Sienna Tundra i5 940, then you are just going to love our all new completely redesigned Sienna Tundra i5 2940 line of pickup trucks!"

Imagine if AMD elects to name Bulldozer products as Phenom II and they just tack on another number to model number scheme...brilliant!

and yet the current F-150, despite being light years ahead of the original one 35 years or so ago, still has the same name. chevy 1500 is a chevy 1500. (ok they did tack on silverado about 12 years ago to help out yuppies)

the core ix-xxx naming scheme is ridiculous, though. i have to refer to a spec sheet to figure out how many cores i'm getting. at least i didn't need that with the c2q and c2d.

 

[khon]

I'll tell you my theory on why it might be. The cache size on the Core i7 is 8MB while the Core i5 is 6MB. Regardless of the specific implementation details(whether its a dedicated GPU cache or something to reduce bandwidth requirements, I doubt on the former however), the cache difference is related to the graphics. You won't need to do that for the version without graphics. Going from current 2C/4T on Clarkdale to 4C/4T seems pretty good to me. The leaked dies and previous roadmaps were all based on the 6MB, even the one by Cooaler.

Of course, the site might have got the model number wrong, but I don't remember a time when model number rumors were wrong.

People want a no-GPU version right? And the design is supposed to be super-flexible?

I'm not following your argument at all, and you seem to contradict yourself halfway through when you say "You won't need to do that for the version without graphics".

Perhaps you could clarify ?

 

[extra]

Core Quad XT Ultra 9000 EXTREME plus edition!

 

[taltamir]

and yet the current F-150, despite being light years ahead of the original one 35 years or so ago, still has the same name. chevy 1500 is a chevy 1500. (ok they did tack on silverado about 12 years ago to help out yuppies)

I don't know about you, but I find car names to be incredibly misleading, confusing, and pointlessly complicated.
Not only are the names so randomly stupid, they also constantly redesign it, and expect you to know which model years are which. (and they do NOT document it well and make it readily available info)

 

[Idontcare]

and yet the current F-150, despite being light years ahead of the original one 35 years or so ago, still has the same name. chevy 1500 is a chevy 1500. (ok they did tack on silverado about 12 years ago to help out yuppies)

the core ix-xxx naming scheme is ridiculous, though. i have to refer to a spec sheet to figure out how many cores i'm getting. at least i didn't need that with the c2q and c2d.

They are still pick-up trucks though and they are delineated by their model year in that industry which is why the brand name has never been required to provide any further delineation.

If you tell me you have a Ford F-150 I know you are communicating to me that you have a pickup truck, not a 4-door sedan and not a mini-van, regardless the year it was sold. The basic architecture of the vehicle is the same.

If I want further information I might ask you "what year is it?", and with that info I would understand that a 1990 F-150 is not going to have the same feature-set of a 2010 F-150...but they'd both be pickup trucks, the 2010 F-150 isn't a Hummer or an airplane or a boat (i.e a mode of transport).

And just to bring this back to my originating point, it is Intel (not us enthusiasts) that claims Sandy Bridge is a new architecture (a tock).

If instead they said it was westmere+, a mere tick-equivalent iteration of the architecture as westmere was to nehalem, then the entire purpose of my dialogue here would be irrelevant.

How silly would it be if AMD gives Bulldozer the brand name "Phenom II 2"?

To me it is just as silly to brand Sandy Bridge SKU's as "Core i7 2".

Just my opinion.

 

[taltamir]

To me it is just as silly to brand Sandy Bridge SKU's as "Core i7 2".

Just my opinion.

well, the core i3, i5, and i7 naming scheme is already brain dead stupid. not only that, it kinda screws them in terms of future naming.

 

[Chiropteran]

How silly would it be if AMD gives Bulldozer the brand name "Phenom II 2"?

Sledgehammer got the brand name "Athlon 64".

The only thing silly about your statement is the 2 twos, I could easily see AMD release bulldozer as "Phenom 3" or something along those lines.

 

[taltamir]

Sledgehammer got the brand name "Athlon 64".

The only thing silly about your statement is the 2 twos, I could easily see AMD release bulldozer as "Phenom 3" or something along those lines.

Phenom II 2 is not comparable to Phenom 3... I don't think he would complain if bulldozer is called Phenom 3... in fact I believe that is exactly what he said he wanted to see...

And the Athlon 64 was a fine name, and after it came Athlon II, rather then Athlon 64 2

 

[Idontcare]

Phenom II 2 is not comparable to Phenom 3... I don't think he would complain if bulldozer is called Phenom 3... in fact I believe that is exactly what he said he wanted to see...

And the Athlon 64 was a fine name, and after it came Athlon II, rather then Athlon 64 2

This.

But I must say I doubt AMD will use Phenom III as their brand name for consumer bulldozer-based SKU's because of the existence of Llano.

I see AMD's 32nm product lineup having parallels to Intel's 65nm product lineup when they iterated and still released netburst-based chips (cedarmill) and very shortly thereafter (<6 months) released Core 2 Duo (different architecture, different brand).

I see logic in AMD branding Llano derivatives as Phenom III and creating a new brand altogether for consumer Bulldozer SKU's.

Back on-topic, the parallels for Intel here would be that they are trending towards using their server/enterprise branding scheme with their consumer products. In enterprise everything have pretty much been XEON xxxx for a while, and you need your decoder ring to decipher which specific architecture is under the hood (usually delineated by the first number in the series).

This means we could be looking at another decade plus of Core i3 xxxx, Core i5 xxxx, and Core i7 xxxx products. All in the name of product obfuscation at the retail level - marketing 101 stuff.

 

[ElFenix]

They are still pick-up trucks though and they are delineated by their model year in that industry which is why the brand name has never been required to provide any further delineation.

If you tell me you have a Ford F-150 I know you are communicating to me that you have a pickup truck, not a 4-door sedan and not a mini-van, regardless the year it was sold. The basic architecture of the vehicle is the same.

If I want further information I might ask you "what year is it?", and with that info I would understand that a 1990 F-150 is not going to have the same feature-set of a 2010 F-150...but they'd both be pickup trucks, the 2010 F-150 isn't a Hummer or an airplane or a boat (i.e a mode of transport).

And just to bring this back to my originating point, it is Intel (not us enthusiasts) that claims Sandy Bridge is a new architecture (a tock).

If instead they said it was westmere+, a mere tick-equivalent iteration of the architecture as westmere was to nehalem, then the entire purpose of my dialogue here would be irrelevant.

How silly would it be if AMD gives Bulldozer the brand name "Phenom II 2"?

To me it is just as silly to brand Sandy Bridge SKU's as "Core i7 2".

Just my opinion.

and these are still processors and if i really cared i'd ask what you've got. i'd then need a spec sheet to decode what that means if you told me the model. the way intel goes about their naming it'd be like me telling you what my F-150's equipment is by telling you the order code number. but no dealer advertises that way, they say F-150 V8, 4x4, tow package. but all computer makers give you the model number as if that means anything.

to continue the car analogies, nehalem is an engine with the same block and pistons as c2, but with higher flowing intake, better exhaust, and a more aggressive cam. sandybridge really sounds like the same thing but with a better transmission or maybe a blower. and cruddy integrated graphics (maybe like the chevy silverado 'hybrid'). i don't think they're changing the execution core itself that much (though i could be wrong).

all nehalem and derivatives should have been core3, with sandybridge being core4. i hardly know what i3, i5, and i7 are supposed to mean, and i sorta pay attention to this stuff.

intel's advertising has picked up on this as they refer to the 'intel 2010 core processors.' too bad they didn't hire the same people to pick the model names.



as for amd i would continue using the athlon and phenom names to indicate a difference between the consumeriffic and higher end parts. brand names are expensive to develop (which is why pentium is still with us)

 

[khon]

At least its not intels worst naming yet.

For example how would anyone guess that the i7-970 is a newer and faster processor than the i7-975 Extreme Edition ?