Sandy Bridge Reviews

[AtenRa]

The days of a $100 OC Intel CPUs are gone. Still the Intel Core i3 540 is the best choice for an entry level Gaming system.
OC the Hell out of it and spent the $100 deference from the Core i5 2500/K for a better VGA.

I really want an i3 2100K for +$10.

Entry level Core i3 2100/2120 with only 6 EUs enabled in the GPU will have to compete against AMDs Llano Quad core + ~HD5570 equivalent onboard GPU performance graphics.
Seams to me that Intel is thinking they don't have competition in the Low End market.

I don't see the purpose of existence of the Core i5 2500 when 2500K is only +$11 more.

Clearly Intel killed 1366 platforms with Core i7 2600k. So until Q4 2011 no Intel High End platform, unless you really need an Intel 6-core 12 threads CPU.

I really don't know if this is Intel's fault or the luck of competition from AMD's part but this SandBridge release is not what i was expecting.

ps. Still waiting for the AVX

 

[Fjodor2001]

According to the "More Differentiation" table here, the 2500K and 2600K do not support VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O) and TXT (Trusted Execution Technology)? Shouldn't the top models include all features? Any ideas why Intel decided to skip that?

 

[IntelUser2000]

Entry level Core i3 2100/2120 with only 6 EUs enabled in the GPU will have to compete against AMDs Llano Quad core + ~HD5570 equivalent onboard GPU performance graphics.
Seams to me that Intel is thinking they don't have competition in the Low End market.

You are likely right for the GPU but the i3 2100 is likely competitive with Llano: http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/188?vs=289

The price range is also quite far down even for AMD.


*This is beside the point but the mobile Huron River platform is just freaking awesome. Maybe its time for me to drop desktop entirely. This level of performance and battery life gain won't be seen for another 10 years.*

 

[prtuc2]

The Sandy Bridge OC like crazy, can't wait to see what LGA2011 can do.

 

[IntelUser2000]

What? Noone noticed this?

It’s codenamed Sandy Bridge-E and it’ll debut in Q4 2011. The chips will be available in both 4 and 6 core versions with a large L3 cache (Intel isn’t being specific at this point).

 

[Castiel]

What? Noone noticed this?

Those chips will probably have 20 megs of L3

 

[thedosbox]

FYI for the Canadians among us, it seems a certain Canadian Computer store has Sandy Bridge CPU's and related motherboards in stock, but not on the website.

 

[Castiel]

FYI for the Canadians among us, it seems a certain Canadian Computer store has Sandy Bridge CPU's and related motherboards in stock, but not on the website.

Lucky Bastards

 

[IntelUser2000]

Those chips will probably have 20 megs of L3

I wonder how they'll do that on 4 and 6 core parts because they always put 2-3MB per core as optimal and it would screw with the layout. With the 8 core parts it makes some sense. Remember how Sandy Bridge 4 cores would all be "6MB"?

FYI for the Canadians among us, it seems a certain Canadian Computer store has Sandy Bridge CPU's and related motherboards in stock, but not on the website.

What the... really? Tell me where that is pleasee! I think if I sell the mobo and chip I have I should be able to get the 2600 for around $250 at most.

 

[beginner99]

According to the "More Differentiation" table here, the 2500K and 2600K do not support VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O) and TXT (Trusted Execution Technology)? Shouldn't the top models include all features? Any ideas why Intel decided to skip that?

HAd the same thought even though I have no idea what these actually do and I would probably not need them anyway.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

What? Noone noticed this?

Socket 1366 is available with 4 and 6 core versions at the minute... so unless socket 2011 chips come with oodles of cache and lots more performance it's not that interesting... now had they said 4-8 cores, that's another thing entirely.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

According to the "More Differentiation" table here, the 2500K and 2600K do not support VT-d (Virtualization Technology for Directed I/O) and TXT (Trusted Execution Technology)? Shouldn't the top models include all features? Any ideas why Intel decided to skip that?

According to this - http://www.cpu-world.com/sspec/SR/SR00C.html

The 2600k has Virtualization technology...

I guess you will have to wait till Intel puts up its processor information...

 

[IntelUser2000]

The K chips have VT-x not VT-d.

VT-x: Virtualization for x86
VT-d: Virtualization for Directed IO

Here's a good explanation of the two: http://itknowledgehub.com/developme...el-virtualization-technology-for-directed-io/

The relationship between VT and VT-d is that the former is an “umbrella” term referring to all Intel virtualization technologies and the latter is a particular solution within a suite of solutions under this umbrella.

I think they omit VT-d on what they consider "non-Business" SKUs. The i5-661 that has the enhanced graphics core didn't have VT-D while the other SKUs did.

 

[thedosbox]

What the... really? Tell me where that is pleasee! I think if I sell the mobo and chip I have I should be able to get the 2600 for around $250 at most.

It was mentioned on ars, so I assume it's OK to name them here - Canada Computers. I know that both the Mississauga and downtown Toronto stores have them. Again, they're not up on the website - you have to ask in-store.

 

[ilkhan]

I thought the "only 4 more EUs for Ivy Bridge" nugget was interesting in the anandtech review, myself.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Sigh, that won't work for me. I live on west coast. Hopefully someone will sell the exact mobo I want on craigslist again.

Yes the 4 more EUs are interesting as well. Oh well, they always increased amount of EUs by 20-25% with a much bigger gain in performance. 8-10-12-12-16.

 

[Gillbot]

Socket 1366 is available with 4 and 6 core versions at the minute... so unless socket 2011 chips come with oodles of cache and lots more performance it's not that interesting... now had they said 4-8 cores, that's another thing entirely.

That's the rumor I believe, LGA2011 gets 8 core 16 thread chips and possible dual socket.

 

[Genx87]

The 2500K looks very tempting as a replacement for my 2.5 years old E8400@3.6Ghz

 

[CKTurbo128]

Sandy Bridge is looking pretty impressive. I'm very tempted to making the jump over to the i7 2500K from my current setup (OCed C2 Q9650 @ 3.6 GHz).

 

[Edrick]

That's the rumor I believe, LGA2011 gets 8 core 16 thread chips and possible dual socket.

It makes sense that 8 core CPUs would wait until IB @ 22nm. I do not see how an 8 core chip with 20MB L3 can fit into the 130W envelope (unless it is clocked slow).

 

[IntelUser2000]

Westmere-EX has 10 cores, 24MB+ L3 and is clocked at 2.66GHz. It should be possible to get the 8 core at above 3GHz and 130W.

 

[Edrick]

Westmere-EX has 10 cores, 24MB+ L3 and is clocked at 2.66GHz. It should be possible to get the 8 core at above 3GHz and 130W.

Westmere-EX has been released? I was not aware.

Also, does the Westmere-EX have the on-die PCIe controller like SB-E will? And SB-E (according to rumors) will have a quad mem controller as well. So there may be a power difference there.

I do not see an (8 core) @ 2.66-3.0GHz being competitive while LGA1155 is pushing 3.8 stock and the high 4's overclocked. I would much rather see an 3.8GHz to 4.0GHz 6 core SB-E chip. But that is just my opinion.

*Edit*
After reading more on Beckton and Westmere-EX, I suppose it would be possible to get an 8-core SB chip to the low 3's in GHz. But I still think a fast 6 core would be a better fit for most users rather than a slower 8 core. 22nm should introduce really fast 8 core CPUs.

 

[IntelUser2000]

Well, no its not released yet. It should release middle of this year.

Both Nehalem and Westmere EX chips have a router circuitry that is far more complex than the ones in lower end chips and both EX chips have 4 channel memory support. They are both socket compatible and have 4 QPI links.

If the RAS-full, 10 core chip like the EX can do 2.66GHz with 10 cores, the lower-end server chip with 8 cores that largely resembles consumer products should easily go above 3GHz. The latter will also be on a much more power efficient architecture which will help with clocks.

You could also look up for IBM's next supercomputer project with Linpack rating of 3 PetaFlops. It does that without using any GPUs and it uses Intel's next-generation CPUs. 3 PetaFlops with 14,000 CPUs = 8 DP Flops/core x 8 cores/socket x ??GHz

 

[Edrick]

Plus the most important aspect to consider is marketing.

If Intel can still ask $800-$999 for 6 core CPUs today, and most likely be asking $600-$800 for 6 core SB-E CPUs later this year, why would they release 8 core CPUs before IB? Unless they bring them in at the $999-$1199 price range.

 

[Edrick]

You could also look up for IBM's next supercomputer project with Linpack rating of 3 PetaFlops. It does that without using any GPUs and it uses Intel's next-generation CPUs. 3 PetaFlops with 14,000 CPUs = 8 DP Flops/core x 8 cores/socket x ??GHz

That is interesting, especially since IBM has its own architectures (Power7 and z196).