Sandy Bridge Reviews

[gevorg]

No matter how Intel tries to cut it, Sandy Bridge is pretty much a die shirk of current i5/i7, except for decent GPU performance for 90%+ of users.

Revolutionary as Pentium or C2D? Bullshit.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Irregardless of what any of you guys think of the chip, the questions will be all answered in a week or so.

BTW for any of those that are interested, the base clocks on 2 and 4 cores for Sandy Bridge chips are roughly equal to Turbo Mode clocks for replacement parts.

Don't believe me?

i7 2600: 3.4GHz base/3.8GHz Turbo replaces i7 870: 2.93GHz base/3.20GHz 4 core/3.46GHz 2 core

For comparion, the i7 880: 3.06GHz base/3.33GHz 4 core/3.60GHz 2 core

i5 2500: 3.3GHz base/3.7GHz Turbo replaces i5 760: 2.80GHz base/2.93GHz 4 core/3.33GHz 1-2 core

i3 2120: 3.3GHz replaces i3 560: 3.33GHz
i3 2100: 3.1GHz replaces i3 540/550: 3.06/3.20GHz

The chip can go above the base clocks when thermal and power conditions are met but only briefly, up to 25 seconds exact. Because the graphics can Turbo and 95W represents upper limits in regards to thermals, in most cases it won't be able to even sustain it for 25 seconds. We might see greater real-world gains in LV and ULV mobile parts though.

 

[thedosbox]

Can we keep the bickering about whether Sandy Bridge is a huge leap or marketing hype in the other thread?

Keep this thread for the previews/reviews until the release date.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I'm sorry but I'm not buying this SB hype either.

 

[Spike]

Ok, so here I go. I'm building a new pc but I've been holding off until SB launches. Regardless of whether I "need" to replace my 3 year old e8400 or not I'm building a new one, so don't even bother telling me it's still fine .

Now that I've said that... what do I do? There is no way I'm getting a current socket (1366) as it's a dead end and not worth it. But, based on what I'm reading here SB, while it will be a great upgrade to what I have, may still not be worth it for the 1155 socket. All parts for my new build have arrived with the exception of the cpu/mobo and SSD as those prices fluctuate the most so I have been waiting. I can tide myself over for a little while as I put my new 6970 into my e8400 pc so gaming is going fine.

Here is the question... how long until the next SB socket is out? If it's more than a few months I may just go for a 2600k setup and be done with it. If it will be out by mid year or sooner then it may be an option for me to keep waiting...

Also, I have 12 GB (6x2gb) of GSkill DDR3 1600 sitting around waiting. I had heard that with the current 1156 boards you can't run the ram at 1600 if all slots are filled per intel specs. Anyone know if this is the case with SB? I would like to use at least 8GB of this ram in my new build...

Thanks!

 

[RussianSensation]

Here is the question... how long until the next SB socket is out? If it's more than a few months I may just go for a 2600k setup and be done with it. If it will be out by mid year or sooner then it may be an option for me to keep waiting...

Q3 2011. This means S1155 is your best option at this point.

Also, I have 12 GB (6x2gb) of GSkill DDR3 1600 sitting around waiting. I had heard that with the current 1156 boards you can't run the ram at 1600 if all slots are filled per intel specs. Anyone know if this is the case with SB? I would like to use at least 8GB of this ram in my new build...

I am pretty sure you can run 4 DIMMS @ 1600mhz on S1156 even now. While the chipset may not support it officially, you can overclock it to those speeds. Although, DDR3 1333 vs. DDR3 1600 mhz makes 1% difference for 99% of tasks for current i5/i7 CPUs. Despite triple-channel memory bandwidth of socket 1366, not even that much more memory bandwidth makes any real world difference. I think you will be able to use 4x 2GB sticks, but S1155 should only support 4 Dimms at most like S1156 does now.

 

[CosmicMight]

Ok, so here I go. I'm building a new pc but I've been holding off until SB launches. Regardless of whether I "need" to replace my 3 year old e8400 or not I'm building a new one, so don't even bother telling me it's still fine .

Now that I've said that... what do I do? There is no way I'm getting a current socket (1366) as it's a dead end and not worth it. But, based on what I'm reading here SB, while it will be a great upgrade to what I have, may still not be worth it for the 1155 socket. All parts for my new build have arrived with the exception of the cpu/mobo and SSD as those prices fluctuate the most so I have been waiting. I can tide myself over for a little while as I put my new 6970 into my e8400 pc so gaming is going fine.

Here is the question... how long until the next SB socket is out? If it's more than a few months I may just go for a 2600k setup and be done with it. If it will be out by mid year or sooner then it may be an option for me to keep waiting...

Also, I have 12 GB (6x2gb) of GSkill DDR3 1600 sitting around waiting. I had heard that with the current 1156 boards you can't run the ram at 1600 if all slots are filled per intel specs. Anyone know if this is the case with SB? I would like to use at least 8GB of this ram in my new build...

Thanks!

If you want a decent performance boost, SB should, by all accounts, slaughter your 8400. In terms of gaming, you're right on the borderline between "could" and "needs to" upgrade (yes, I'm aware this is entirely subjective). If I had your rig, money wasn't an issue, and I wanted a galactic performance boost as opposed to simply a huge one, I'd probably wait another 6 months. Outside of SC2 at very high settings, you should be fine with 95% of todays games.

This is also assuming you realize that the hi-end parts are going to be big bucks; you didn't really say. If you have a budget in mind at all like most of us, you'd be better off upgrading with SB. You'll still get a very big performance bump. 95% of the people on this board - which is saying a lot as most here are fairly savvy techies - don't really need S2011.

The ram will be fine in some S1155 boards. Many of the basic ones, based on what I've read so far, are going to be DDR-1333. Make sure to check the board (duh) before you buy it.

 

[thedosbox]

Ok, so here I go. I'm building a new pc but I've been holding off until SB launches. Regardless of whether I "need" to replace my 3 year old e8400 or not I'm building a new one, so don't even bother telling me it's still fine .

Considering the E8400 wasn't released until early (January?) 2008, that's an interesting definition of "three years".

Regarding memory, this shouldn't be an issue, but bear in mind the CPU's to be released on January 5th only officially support DDR3 1333.

 

[andrei3333]

- We had $300 Q6600 4-cores in 2007, then $300 Core i7 920 4-cores + HT in 2008, then $300 Core i7 860 4-core + HT in 2009, and wait for it, ding ding ding, another $300 Core i7 2600k 4core + HT in 2011...Sure most people don't care about more than 4 cores, but the reality is that we have been stuck at $300 price level and still chugging at 4-cores + HT on the Intel side is still disappointing for those of us who had Q6600 @ 3.4ghz since 2007...:\ (Although I admit AMD's inability to compete on the high-end is largely to blame for Intel's complacency).

I totally agree with that, + also look at older CPU pricing,. Intel does NOT want you to upgrade your CPU on your current socket.

I am a LGA775 user and was checking out prices earlier today on newegg.ca and a Q9550 is $295,

Now all i do on my PC is games, surfing downloading, ie your general stuff, so how the hell am i supposed to jump to quad core for $300 dollars when i can get a new mobo + ram + cpu for probably $400 (lower end cpu) ????? so my hands are tied and im FORCED to wait for a more sensible upgrade when my computer needs to be retired, which is probably in another 2 years!!!

This is obviously created by the lack of competition at the high end

 

[Fjodor2001]

@andrei3333:

You're right that the performance of the Intel CPUs hasn't increased much since 2007. However there has been quite some improvement in power consumption. In 2007 you couldn't get a 4-core CPU + graphics chip comparable to the SB IGP @ 45W to 95W TDP (as you can with the SB CPUs, depending on which 4-core SB model you choose). Also, I think the idle power consumption has decreased a lot as well in later Intel CPUs.

 

[andrei3333]

Thats all fine and dandy, but as i sit here and type this, does power consumption really bother me ? my E8400 @ 3.6 GHz is perfectly fine no matter how many watts it eats, it has been since January 2008 basically 3 years now.

All im saying is that the older stuff should be a little cheaper

 

[Patrick Wolf]

new mobo + ram + cpu for probably $400 (lower end cpu) ?????

Again US pricing, the i5-2500 and 2500K (K for overclockers) are said to be $205-$216 which is certainly not low-end sandy bridge. Only thing better at launch will the 2600/2600K for $284-$317. The 2500 will spank your E8400. Hard. Especially if overclocked @ 4Ghz+.

 

[andrei3333]

yeah it most definitely will, screw this, im taking out my life savings (all few pennies of it) and getting my self this new Sandy Bridge just so i could get 5 FPS more in crysis

Im being sarcastic obviously but i still agree with you on the pricing, it is a good idea to wait just a little while longer and price out a mobo+ cpu+ ram upgrade at that time...

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Course that's with DDR3 so cheap right now, no guarantee it'll stay that way. And Crysis doesn't benefit from quad. But there's some games where it's certainly appreciable. But depending on what settings and which games you play, it could be totally useless to go quad.

 

[eternalone]

Question will the IGP on Sandy Bridge be faster than lets say the ATI 4830 discreet card I have or not??

 

[toyota]

Question will the IGP on Sandy Bridge be faster than lets say the ATI 4830 discreet card I have or not??

no

 

[Fjodor2001]

Thats all fine and dandy, but as i sit here and type this, does power consumption really bother me ? my E8400 @ 3.6 GHz is perfectly fine no matter how many watts it eats, it has been since January 2008 basically 3 years now.

Well, to me the power consumption matters to some degree. The main reason is that increased TDP => increased heat => noisy fans to cool it down. Remember the Pentium 4 era when a computer often sounded like jetplane? Ok, the cooling solutions are more efficient today, so they can probably handle more heat. But still, I like my computer to be silent. I also like to be able to build it physically small (especially important for e.g. HTPCs), which means there cannot be huge heatsinks or fans.

Also, for stuff that should be turned on 24/7 (like a server or HTPC) I do appreciate a low idle power consumption.

All im saying is that the older stuff should be a little cheaper

Agreed. And as you pointed out earlier I think the Intel stategy of not lowering prices for old CPUs is a clear sign that Intel knows its current CPUs are not much faster than the old ones for socket 775, so if they lowered the price of the socket 775 chips they wouldn't sell as many new CPUs & motherboards.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey I'm glad they are changing to a 1156, that means I'll be able to get a 1155 cheaper when I do upgrade from my 775.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I guess there will never be a jump again like there was from the Pentium D to the Core 2 duo? even the early Core 2 models were nearly twice as fast clock for clock.

Perhaps this is also a testament to how much the Pentium D sucked, which they did in clock for clock. When compared to the Athlon X2 the Core 2 wasn't nearly as impressive as compared to the Pentium D (note I'm not saying Core 2 wasn't impressive, because it was). If clock for clock performance is your measuring stick, we can basically use this analogy

Pentium D : Athlon X2 :: Athlon X2 : Core 2

The thing about Core 2 is that not only was it efficient per clock, but it could reach a pretty high clock speed too boot. A deadly combination. Whereas the Athlon X2s, when compared to the Pentium Ds, where efficient, but they couldn't quite get the same clockspeed advantage that Core 2 had over it. Core 2 could match Athlon X2 clockspeeds, while Athlon X2 didn't match Pentium D clockspeeds.

I put together a spreadsheet:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...ktiU05qUXFOLWxsS2FBUHc&hl=en&authkey=CIj19-wB

Clock for clock, Pentium D really sucked. However if you compare the available fastest* processors at the time, then the performance parity analogy really does hold up. With the EE 965 being 18% slower than a 6000+ and the X6800 being 18% faster than the 6000+. *The 6400+ would obviously close the gap between Core 2 an Athlon and widen the gap between Pentium and Athlon, I just found the 6000+ results more interesting due to the symmetry.

We had $300 Q6600 4-cores in 2007, then $300 Core i7 920 4-cores + HT in 2008, then $300 Core i7 860 4-core + HT in 2009, and wait for it, ding ding ding, another $300 Core i7 2600k 4core + HT in 2011...Sure most people don't care about more than 4 cores, but the reality is that we have been stuck at $300 price level and still chugging at 4-cores + HT on the Intel side is still disappointing for those of us who had Q6600 @ 3.4ghz since 2007... (Although I admit AMD's inability to compete on the high-end is largely to blame for Intel's complacency).

2600K @ 4+ GHz is going to slaughter a Q6600 @ 3.4 GHz.

- S1155 CPUs are still stuck at 8mb of cache. 2500K will only have 6mb of cache, which is even worse.

face_plain?

//i7 920 was a disaster. It only had 1MB+8MB of cache. The Q9550 had 12MB. What a huge step back. Even the ancient Q6xxx has almost as much cache, at 8MB. CRAP was the 920 the suck.

That's true. 2600k is a $300 processor though. Therefore, it will be subject to the same stringent criteria under which we judge all high-end CPUs or GPUs for that matter. There is really no reason why we should be paying $300 for yet another 4-core CPU in 2011 that can barely outperform a Core i7 920 from 2008. Talk about stagnation in the CPU market.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/8

Here we have the i5 2400 HT-ON (slower than the 2600K) easily besting the i7 880 (faster than the i7 920). 920 to 2600K will be more than just "barely" an improvement. It will be more efficient too, which is something to consider.

 

[thedosbox]

LOL @ the $300 "high-end" CPU comment. Especially when Intel offer six CPU's at or above that price.

 

[RussianSensation]

2600K @ 4+ GHz is going to slaughter a Q6600 @ 3.4 GHz.

I would hope so considering Q6600 was $300 in 2007. The bottom line is in 2011 a CPU should be 2-3x faster than a $300 CPU in 2007, which SB will be nowhere near. More so, compared to i7 920 from 2008, 4-core SB is hardly an improvement. Most of the improvement is coming directly from a mature 32nm process which allowed Intel to increase clock speeds. Put Core i7 920 on 32nm and see how far that overclocks...

i7 920 was a disaster. It only had 1MB+8MB of cache. The Q9550 had 12MB. What a huge step back. Even the ancient Q6xxx has almost as much cache, at 8MB. CRAP was the 920 the suck.

You are joking right? i7 920 is one of the best CPUs ever made. So what that Q9550 had 12mb of cache? It used obsolete FSB architecture vs. QPI with integrated memory controller for Nehalem. You can't just compare cache between 2 separate architectures and conclude based on that alone that the 920 was "crap". In fact, AMD still has no processor that can beat the 920 overclocked to 4.0ghz outside of video encoding work on X6s....AMD will be lucky if their Bulldozer code can match a 4.0ghz Core i7 from 2008.

Even the ancient Q6xxx has almost as much cache, at 8MB.

Q6xxx series doesn't have the ability to share its cache. Therefore, each core can only use 4MB. The shortcomings of this approach are clearly evident in Starcraft 2.

 

[RussianSensation]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/8

Here we have the i5 2400 HT-ON (slower than the 2600K) easily besting the i7 880 (faster than the i7 920). 920 to 2600K will be more than just "barely" an improvement. It will be more efficient too, which is something to consider.

Wow big deal!! 3 seconds faster in Photoshop? Outside of encoding, SB is only 10% faster per clock from those preliminary benches. I have no doubt its saving grace will be 32nm overclocking.

Did you bother checking Nehalem vs. C2Q? Now compare Core i7 920 @ 2.66 vs. Q9450 @ 2.66ghz - http://www.anandtech.com/show/2658/17

SB is nowhere near the improvement per clock that Nehalem was over C2Q in 2008, or C2D was over Pentium D. Perhaps SB on 2011 will be a bigger improvement.

 

[Castiel]

//i7 920 was a disaster. It only had 1MB+8MB of cache. The Q9550 had 12MB. What a huge step back. Even the ancient Q6xxx has almost as much cache, at 8MB. CRAP was the 920 the suck.

Cache alone doesn't determine how amazing the processor is going to be. Look at Westmere. It has 12mb of L3 and wasn't any faster then a bloomfield with 8mb L3

 

[Spike]

Considering the E8400 wasn't released until early (January?) 2008, that's an interesting definition of "three years".

Regarding memory, this shouldn't be an issue, but bear in mind the CPU's to be released on January 5th only officially support DDR3 1333.

I bought the e8400 at launch so while I did round up I did it only by a month.

Thanks for all the info guys. Now I'm really torn. I'm not too worried about the ram as it will handle 1333 fine by all accounts (and I can oc it I believe, can't remember the changes to sb overclocking off the to of my head) so I should be ok, though it would have been nice to use all 12gb. As for the leap in performance I really want the next socket but my budget is limited. I'm aiming for $500 for cpu/mobo so 1155 sounds like it may be the way to go.

Any idea on the current rumored prices of the next (post 1155) socket?

 

[edplayer]

The bottom line is in 2011 a CPU should be 2-3x faster than a $300 CPU in 2007, which SB will be nowhere near.

Why? Because you said so?

Are you a cpu engineer? Why don't you ask Idon'tcare what he thinks about the possibility of $300 x86 cpus being 2~3X faster on average in 2015.