• 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.

Sandy Bridge Reviews

N

nyker96

Diamond Member
Sandy Bridge Reviews:
Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...e-i5-2600k-i5-2500k-and-core-i3-2100-tested/2
HardOCP: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review
Tom's: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833.html
Overclockers: http://www.overclockers.com/intel-i7-2600k-sandy-bridge-review
neoseeker: http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/Intel_i7_2600K_i5_2500K
bitech: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/12
techpowerup: http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i5_2500K_GPU/
hardwarecanucks: http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...i5-2500k-core-i7-2600k-processors-review.html
techspot: http://www.techspot.com/review/353-intel-sandy-bridge-corei5-2500k-corei7-2600k
 
Last edited:
THis is interesting...

The owners of ordinary CPUs will be offered artificially limited overclocking: these CPUs will also let you increase their clock multiplier, but only by four increments tops. Note that it is all only about overclocking, as the multiplier adjustment will not affect Turbo Boost technology, which will also contribute to this manual frequency increase. Moreover, Intel won’t limit the multipliers for the graphics core and memory frequency. In other words, it will be possible to overclock memory and graphics in any Sandy Bridge based system: a regular or an enthusiast one.
Click to expand...

That makes the 2400 a bit more interesting.
 
Woah, hello Mr. 5Ghz.

i7-2600.png
 
Last edited:
Indeed, the amount of voltage these high OCs are showing is scaring me. Not that it'll change my plans, but may tone down the amount I hope to OC a bit.
 
RussianSensation said:
6mb of cache and lack of hyperthreading makes this one unappealing imo.



1.45V for 24/7 at load operation on air cooling is not what I would consider safe for 32nm process.
Click to expand...

Just last week. We had a thread going were 1.6 V was thrown around and I chimed in saying think 1.45.v . Which will be just fine for 24/7 water. As for Air I could careless . But drop back to 4.9 to get under 1.4v if 1.45 is to much . The system I just sold last week is 24/7 stable . On water with 5ghz 1.43 v .
 
Soccerman06 said:
My 920 runs at 1.41v, so it has to be fine riiiiiiight?
Click to expand...

u serious?
^_^

Rifterut said:
Your 920 is not 32nm
Click to expand...

Yeah, the 920 depending on his step is either aa C1/C0 which is like a M1 Abram tank... slow, but durable as hell, or a D0 which is a armored APC... a bit faster, but a bit more delicate...

Those however are nothing like the 32nm... trust me.. i have grave yard of 2 32nm's already.. one westmere, the other gulftown.

Why the hell does everyone on this forum think all intel cpu's are like B3 kentsfields Q6600?
Dude the Kentsfield is the only cpu i can think of, that could swim in 1.5vcore without a problem.
The next following a C1/C0 i7 965.

As things get smaller, they get more fragile...

Nemesis 1 said:
Just last week. We had a thread going were 1.6 V was thrown around and I chimed in saying think 1.45.v . Which will be just fine for 24/7 water. As for Air I could careless . But drop back to 4.9 to get under 1.4v if 1.45 is to much . The system I just sold last week is 24/7 stable . On water with 5ghz 1.43 v .
Click to expand...

Now how the hell can you speak like an expert when:

1. your on a ES and not retail
2. when electron degredation happens over a period of time which you no where near went under.
3. 1.4Vcore for full load on a 32nm is asking for a quick death.
4. The load temps for the SB is alredy so low, how is water going to help anything?
You know u can only go so low on ambient... and seeing what these guys load @ on 4.7ghz, do you honestly think water is going to extend your life any?

Really?




Dude... u guys go ahead and pump 1.4vcore + in these 32nm... you guys seriously must have a lot of balls.

Because after i lost 2 gulftowns @ 1.45vcore i swore never to exceed the 1.375 mark on 32nm for long term usage..
(long term to me means 5-6months)

Im seriously getting annoyed of all the SB fanism.
Seriously wait til retail.

And i will laugh hard if not saying the will, but could, intel pops a new stepping for retail like they did on gulftown which will invalidate all these screenies you guys are all sniffing out.

^ which is why i keep telling u guys... WAIT FOR RETAIL.
 
Last edited:
Well first of all I have Never ever lost a CPU . Not foolish. Second your understanding of electrical mechanical force is lacking badly,

electron degredation is infact a problem un cpus. But if the cpu can run on air at 5 ghz. That tells me that intel has a good handle on electron degredation with Sb . asa leakage is pretty well undercontrol and yes I understand that @32 the walls are thinner. So what??

This isn't the first 32nm intel chip. Ya I heard of a few people burning those up . Above 1.5v /

Last but not least ever person here knows you been downplaying SB 1155 since day one. So whats 100mgz . Run the dam things at 4.9 . Thats under 1.4 v .

For the record some of the recent reviews have been on retail cpus . The dam things are easy to get.
 
Last edited:
Aigo I think some of us get impressed by the 5ghz @ 1.45v, because that means we should be able to get a little under that at an "acceptable" voltage level.

Of course, I am going to let the early adopters and ES-ers be the canary on just what "acceptable" voltages are on these 32nm chips. 🙂
 
It's not the 5Ghz at 1.45 that impresses me. It's the 4.7 at 1.34 that does.

It means I should be able to do a moderate overclock to say 4.4 at quite a low voltage. I'm not interested in 5 or even 4.7.
 
Nemesis 1 said:
This isn't the first 32nm intel chip. Ya I heard of a few people burning those up . Above 1.5v /

Last but not least ever person here knows you been downplaying SB 1155 since day one. So whats 100mgz . Run the dam things at 4.9 . Thats under 1.4 v .

For the record some of the recent reviews have been on retail cpus . The dam things are easy to get.
Click to expand...

so wait you get sandy bridge and u know more about 32nm arch then i do?

did u guys not see me blow up a gulftown during my gulftown preview?

And lets not even talk about the other westmere-ep.


As i said go ahead and roll 1.4Vcore+ on these guys.
You think the IMC is any better then the gulftowns which was the main reason why these 32nm chips died an earily death?

You wanna bash heads on intel cpu's with me?

And yes ive been on the fall out wagon of lga1155.
Why? Because its absolute BS.

Did we really need a 1155 for desktops?

To us guys who know whats up, 1155 is a road stop for 2011, and intel will base its 2011 release schedules on 1155, so yes im not too happy with 1155.


Give me a real man cpu... 20meg cache.. 8 core + madness. aKa LGA2011
Then i'll call that an upgrade.

:\
 
Last edited:
I would keep it under what Intel recommends. If that is 1.375V, then so be it

Just because some doods on the internets sez "I ran mine at 1.43V for one week! That means its stable forever." doesn't mean crap to me. Even if they claim to understand electron "degredation"
 
edplayer said:
I would keep it under what Intel recommends. If that is 1.375V, then so be it

Just because some doods on the internets sez "I ran mine at 1.43V for one week! That means its stable forever." doesn't mean crap to me. Even if they claim to understand electron "degredation"
Click to expand...

+1

the funny thing is ive went to enough overclocking competitions sponsored by companies to know what electron degredation is.

The cpu's these contestants usually get are recycled.
There not brand new from factory.

And on few occassions, there so worn out from just the 1 day prior benching they lose about 15% of its potential, and makes finding the cherry core out of the 6 even more difficult when they run benchmarks.
 
aigomorla said:
And yes ive been on the fall out wagon of lga1155.
Why? Because its absolute BS.

Did we really need a 1155 for desktops?

To us guys who know whats up, 1155 is a road stop for 2011, and intel will base its 2011 release schedules on 1155, so yes im not too happy with 1155.


Give me a real man cpu... 20meg cache.. 8 core + madness. aKa LGA2011
Then i'll call that an upgrade.

:\
Click to expand...


A lot of people are going to be dismissing what you say because you are not careful choosing your words.

You call the SB absolute bullshit. Why?

Are the claimed improvements we see in the previews not really there? Are they so fragile that Intel is going to reduce the warranty? You don't call it a minor improvement, not even on par with current choices. You choose to call it absolute bullshit as if its the worst possible choice someone buying a computer could ever make.

Not everyone has a six core cpu running at 4GHz. Consider that. Most people are still on S775 or P4s, Athlon 2 or even original Athlon and PIIIs.

and what is with the "real man" cpu? Is Sandy Bridge only for gays?
 
If you guys don't think 4.7 at 1.34 is impressive then you are hard to please 😛

Those 20meg cache 8-core cpus sound amazing but I bet they cost a bomb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top