SB unfair in comparison reviews

[coffeejunkee]

+1. OP is off base. His logic is that just because he can OC his i5 750, the performance difference between his i5 and STOCK SB isn't as large as shown in the reviews. So what? If I buy a SB I can OC, very likely to a higher level than the i5 750, and then the performance difference will be as big or even bigger. If SB was locked down from overclocking then I'd agree with his logic, but it ain't!

I'd say it is. Except for the K models for which you pay a healthy premium. i5 750 and i7 860 were the popular Lynnfield models, in my mind they are replaced by 2500K/2600K, which are considerably more expensive.

Based on price, the i5 2300 seems to replace the i5 750, but no overclocking. So it's interesting to see how the 2300 does against an i5 750 at 3.8GHz which is a reasonable oc for that chip.

I remember a large ruckus about Turbo Boost with Lynnfield introduction and how it was not fair against cpu's without it because it 'wasn't really running at stock'. Not a comment about it this time. To be fair I want to see a comparison between Lynnfield and SB with Turbo disabled.

 

[Maximilian]

Just wondering about my old 4040 at 3.3GHz.

You overclocked a 4040 to 3.3ghz? Congrats man!

 

[Rifter]

You overclocked a 4040 to 3.3ghz? Congrats man!

you beat me to it, im impressed a 4 bit 740khz @ 3.3Ghz CPU FTW

 

[perdomot]

I should have included the link to this article because it was critical to my decision to go to Intel rather than get the X6 as a drop in replacement: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/amd-phenom-ii-x6-1055t-overclocking.html
This is what I consider a good comparison of performance.

 

[smakme7757]

i7-2600K vs i7-875K
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264638

875 has been overclocked to the same frequency as the 2600k: 3.4Ghz

 

[Markfw]

i7-2600K vs i7-875K
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=264638

875 has been overclocked to the same frequency as the 2600k: 3.4Ghz

Sure, if you speak Japanese (I think thats what it is)

 

[smakme7757]

Sure, if you speak Japanese (I think thats what it is)

Or you can watch the video and look at the results which are in plain english.

I will take a stab and say it's Brazzilian seeing as in the stub it said "In order to make for a fair comparison, the Brazilian website Criminal Cafe....."

 

[BladeVenom]

In their ASRock P67 Transformer: P67 Gets LGA 1156 Compatibility article comparing chipsets, you also get gaming benchmarks for i5-750 vs. the i5-2500k at the same clockspeeds. If you want to go straight to the gaming benchmarks, - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-transformer-lga-1155-intel-lynnfield,2815-9.html

I also thought the motherboard was interesting and posted a thread about it in the motherboard section.

 

[RussianSensation]

So you argue that his will do better . But you take it as gosphel that SB 2500k/2600K have trouble reaching 4.7GHz .

Whaaaat? Why are you extracting information that isn't there? When did I ever say 2500k/2600k have trouble reaching 4.7ghz?

I just noted to Tsavo that he may be able to extract more from his processor (and I was just implying that there is more room left in it to push it as safe voltages).. My comment had no relevance towards overclocking of SB processors whatsoever....

Sure, if you speak Japanese (I think thats what it is)

I will take a stab and say it's Brazzilian

haha you guys are both wrong. The official language in Brasil is Portuguese. Looks like clock for clock the 2600k was about 7-13% faster in all of those benchmarks. Once you consider 2600k will go to 4.7ghz+, then SB is about 30% faster than a 4.0ghz Core i7 875.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

I thought the Hardocp reviews good also

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review/1

showing x980 @ 4.4 vs 2600k @ 4.4

also an 920 @ 3.6 was pretty much equal to the 2600k stock.

Cheers Makaveli, very interesting review-

The results below are based on the range of the CPU turbo multiplier when overclocking.

Results are representative of 100 D2 CPUs that were binned and tested for stability under load; these results will most likely represent retail CPUs.

1. Approximately 50% of CPUs can go up to 4.4~4.5 GHz

2. Approximately 40% of CPUs can go up to 4.6~4.7 GHz

3. Approximately 10% of CPUs can go up to 4.8~5 GHz (50+ multipliers are about 2% of this group)

Additionally it is recommended to keep 「C1E」and「EIST」option enabled for the best overclock scaling. This is different than previous Intel overclocking expectations where the best scaling was with disabled power states or power management options.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Just wondering about my old 4040 at 3.3GHz.

Holy crap... that has to be the mother of all overclocks!

445,945,846% overclock FTW!

 

[TonyB]

i would like to see it compared to OC'd i5 750 numbers. But then to be fair, you should also include OC'd 2600K numbers as well.

 

[coffeejunkee]

Actually the i5 2400 is the direct replacement of the i5 750 and the i5 2500 replaces the i5 760. Even the multi limited i5 2400 still overclocks to ~4GHz (max Turbo) and outpaces an i5 760 @ 4.1GHz as can be seen by the overall media score here.

However, this is pretty much a moot point. If you are going to overclock SB, you get the K model. It's as simple as that. Theres literally a $30 difference in price between an i5 2400 and 2500K, thats one hours pay for most people, maybe two if you're a junior working at KFC or McDonalds? If you can't afford the difference and the extra $30 breaks the bank you probably shouldn't be looking at buying a CPU in the first place...

I've made plenty of people happy in the past with systems based on entry-level cpu's like e4300, e5200 and e6300. Even on very basic motherboards these cpu's could be overclocked quite effortlessly resulting in a noticeable speed bump for free (except increased power consumption ofcourse).

Most of these people had regular jobs with a decent salary. That didn't mean they didn't care about the cost of the system. Most gave me a fairly tight budget. Probably because even though they had a decent income they had to pay, among others, for: rent/mortgage, food, water, electricity, insurance, fuel for their car, clothing and send two kids to school. Now I'm not saying these people couldn't spare 30 or 40, I am saying they preferred to save 30 or 40.

Now lets suppose you could oc Sandy Bridge like we used too. Most people would say: "just get the 2300, you can overclock it just as far as the more expensive models." I understand the reasons for limited bclk overclocking. I can also accept the K models are a little pricier than their non-K brothers, after all AMD BE is a little more expensive as well. What I do have a problem with is that I need to buy the 2500 to get a K version. Or in other words: where are the 2100K and 2300K cpu's?

prices over here atm (euro's):
i5 750: 170
i5 760: 172
i5 2300: 165
i5 2400: 175
i5 2500: 200
i5 2500K: 220

difference 2300/2500K: 55, difference i5 750/2500K: 50.

Obviously businesses can make money any way they see fit as long as it's not against the law, but I don't understand why you don't understand that I'm disappointed because my options have been limited.

Anyway, those numbers are informative. Alltough I don't understand how they got a 2400 at 3.99GHz turbo (3.4 + 4 turbo bins = 3.8?).

 

[IntelUser2000]

Anyway, those numbers are informative. Alltough I don't understand how they got a 2400 at 3.99GHz turbo (3.4 + 4 turbo bins = 3.8?).

Oh, I get it. They overclocked the bclk to 105MHz. 105MHz x 38 multiplier = 3.99GHz

 

[Nemesis 1]

I've made plenty of people happy in the past with systems based on entry-level cpu's like e4300, e5200 and e6300. Even on very basic motherboards these cpu's could be overclocked quite effortlessly resulting in a noticeable speed bump for free (except increased power consumption ofcourse).

Most of these people had regular jobs with a decent salary. That didn't mean they didn't care about the cost of the system. Most gave me a fairly tight budget. Probably because even though they had a decent income they had to pay, among others, for: rent/mortgage, food, water, electricity, insurance, fuel for their car, clothing and send two kids to school. Now I'm not saying these people couldn't spare 30 or 40, I am saying they preferred to save 30 or 40.

Now lets suppose you could oc Sandy Bridge like we used too. Most people would say: "just get the 2300, you can overclock it just as far as the more expensive models." I understand the reasons for limited bclk overclocking. I can also accept the K models are a little pricier than their non-K brothers, after all AMD BE is a little more expensive as well. What I do have a problem with is that I need to buy the 2500 to get a K version. Or in other words: where are the 2100K and 2300K cpu's?

prices over here atm (euro's):
i5 750: 170
i5 760: 172
i5 2300: 165
i5 2400: 175
i5 2500: 200
i5 2500K: 220

difference 2300/2500K: 55, difference i5 750/2500K: 50.

Obviously businesses can make money any way they see fit as long as it's not against the law, but I don't understand why you don't understand that I'm disappointed because my options have been limited.

Anyway, those numbers are informative. Alltough I don't understand how they got a 2400 at 3.99GHz turbo (3.4 + 4 turbo bins = 3.8?).

On the 2400 reread. As for the rest . Why would intel unlock the full range . That be stupid. For those people who care about the $30-$40 differance . Sell them AMD processors and they will save even more. I really dislike people who go into a smorgusboard and stuff their pockets with food. Ya want more performance pay for it . Its that simple. Ot sell them AMD . None on this forum care about what people do ! Unless there paid to make people want something their pushing . Like the Song says god dam-n the pusher man.

 

[perdomot]

I've made plenty of people happy in the past with systems based on entry-level cpu's like e4300, e5200 and e6300. Even on very basic motherboards these cpu's could be overclocked quite effortlessly resulting in a noticeable speed bump for free (except increased power consumption ofcourse).

Most of these people had regular jobs with a decent salary. That didn't mean they didn't care about the cost of the system. Most gave me a fairly tight budget. Probably because even though they had a decent income they had to pay, among others, for: rent/mortgage, food, water, electricity, insurance, fuel for their car, clothing and send two kids to school. Now I'm not saying these people couldn't spare 30 or 40, I am saying they preferred to save 30 or 40.

Now lets suppose you could oc Sandy Bridge like we used too. Most people would say: "just get the 2300, you can overclock it just as far as the more expensive models." I understand the reasons for limited bclk overclocking. I can also accept the K models are a little pricier than their non-K brothers, after all AMD BE is a little more expensive as well. What I do have a problem with is that I need to buy the 2500 to get a K version. Or in other words: where are the 2100K and 2300K cpu's?

prices over here atm (euro's):
i5 750: 170
i5 760: 172
i5 2300: 165
i5 2400: 175
i5 2500: 200
i5 2500K: 220

difference 2300/2500K: 55, difference i5 750/2500K: 50.

Obviously businesses can make money any way they see fit as long as it's not against the law, but I don't understand why you don't understand that I'm disappointed because my options have been limited.

Anyway, those numbers are informative. Alltough I don't understand how they got a 2400 at 3.99GHz turbo (3.4 + 4 turbo bins = 3.8?).

I've been an AMD guy for a long while because they had good value for the money and like most people I like to watch how much I spend so I don't go overboard. Only reason I switched to Intel was because of the Black Friday blowout and the fact that the Nehalem was so much faster especially when OC'd. The SB is not sufficiently better for me to return my i5-760 cpu & mobo to go with the new stuff.

 

[Arkaign]

SB is another good incremental improvement, as pointed out earlier in the thread, there is almost never a good reason to upgrade every single step of tick/tock.

Aren't SB turbo modes also more aggressive? I think the stock v stock non-overclock users would see the most difference between lynnfield and SB, overclock users are mostly gamers, and that's gonna be GPU limited hardcore in both scenarios for now outside of low-res speedrun (can I get 600fps at 800x600 instead of 530!?!?!).

 

[Dark Shroud]

I've made plenty of people happy in the past with systems based on entry-level cpu's like e4300, e5200 and e6300. Even on very basic motherboards these cpu's could be overclocked quite effortlessly resulting in a noticeable speed bump for free (except increased power consumption ofcourse).

Most of these people had regular jobs with a decent salary. That didn't mean they didn't care about the cost of the system. Most gave me a fairly tight budget. Probably because even though they had a decent income they had to pay, among others, for: rent/mortgage, food, water, electricity, insurance, fuel for their car, clothing and send two kids to school. Now I'm not saying these people couldn't spare 30 or 40, I am saying they preferred to save 30 or 40.

Now lets suppose you could oc Sandy Bridge like we used too. Most people would say: "just get the 2300, you can overclock it just as far as the more expensive models." I understand the reasons for limited bclk overclocking. I can also accept the K models are a little pricier than their non-K brothers, after all AMD BE is a little more expensive as well. What I do have a problem with is that I need to buy the 2500 to get a K version. Or in other words: where are the 2100K and 2300K cpu's?

prices over here atm (euro's):
i5 750: 170
i5 760: 172
i5 2300: 165
i5 2400: 175
i5 2500: 200
i5 2500K: 220

difference 2300/2500K: 55, difference i5 750/2500K: 50.

Obviously businesses can make money any way they see fit as long as it's not against the law, but I don't understand why you don't understand that I'm disappointed because my options have been limited.

Anyway, those numbers are informative. Alltough I don't understand how they got a 2400 at 3.99GHz turbo (3.4 + 4 turbo bins = 3.8?).

If someone is going to be a tightwad with a new PC & I can't salvage parts from an old build to offset price I get them AMD. You get what you pay for.

The only complaint I have about the Sandy Bridge i3s is none of them have the Intel HD 3000 graphics. That combo would be perfect for average people who just do email & internet on their PCs & HTPCs.

Again when AMD gets their AM3+ plateforom with Fusion out we'll have a decent budget platform with options for cheapos & AMD fans.

 

[Arkaign]

If someone is going to be a tightwad with a new PC & I can't salvage parts from an old build to offset price I get them AMD. You get what you pay for.

The only complaint I have about the Sandy Bridge i3s is none of them have the Intel HD 3000 graphics. That combo would be perfect for average people who just do email & internet on their PCs & HTPCs.

Again when AMD gets their AM3+ plateforom with Fusion out we'll have a decent budget platform with options for cheapos & AMD fans.

???

Budget boxes from either AMD or Intel parts right now are better than ever, without needing latest/greatest gen to do it.

Intel : FoxConn G41(GMA4500) $45 + E5500 Wolfdale $70

or

AMD : FoxConn 880G(AMD4250) $70 + Athlon II 240 Regor $56

toss a cheap 1TB HDD, 4GB ram in there, and you've got something that will run Win7-64/bluray/facebook/email/etc just fine. The 4250 is even good enough for some light gaming, mostly older or simpler titles. For those that wanted something a little better a GTS450 or 5670 is a cheap way to play modern games at midrange settings pretty well (at least 30fps with settings that still look pretty good).

 

[Dark Shroud]

???

Budget boxes from either AMD or Intel parts right now are better than ever, without needing latest/greatest gen to do it.

Intel : FoxConn G41(GMA4500) $45 + E5500 Wolfdale $70

or

AMD : FoxConn 880G(AMD4250) $70 + Athlon II 240 Regor $56

toss a cheap 1TB HDD, 4GB ram in there, and you've got something that will run Win7-64/bluray/facebook/email/etc just fine. The 4250 is even good enough for some light gaming, mostly older or simpler titles. For those that wanted something a little better a GTS450 or 5670 is a cheap way to play modern games at midrange settings pretty well (at least 30fps with settings that still look pretty good).

My only problem with buying AMD's AM3 socket/chipset right now is that Bulldozer will not be backwards compatible, AM3+ only. Being able to buy a cheap Athlon II now and upgrading to a superior quad core in a year is part of the reason I love AMD for low cost systems. Getting locked out of Bulldozer isn't a good thing for the long term.

And yes the 5670 is my choice for low end video cards. No power connection required like my 4670 and it will hardware accelerate everything. They also have better cooling than the HD 5500s.

 

[Arkaign]

My only problem with buying AMD's AM3 socket/chipset right now is that Bulldozer will not be backwards compatible, AM3+ only. Being able to buy a cheap Athlon II now and upgrading to a superior quad core in a year is part of the reason I love AMD for low cost systems. Getting locked out of Bulldozer isn't a good thing for the long term.

And yes the 5670 is my choice for low end video cards. No power connection required like my 4670 and it will hardware accelerate everything. They also have better cooling than the HD 5500s.

Oh yeah, I agree, it'd be even better if the AM3 would run BD, even if it had some limitations in bus speed / PCIE access / whatever. I was merely saying that for typical light users, it's better than ever before. Just a short time ago a budget system would be running some kind of single-core, and integrated graphics that were taxed or just plain incapable of running demanding flash stuff or hd content. Now a budget system is a dual-core with decent video performance for pretty much anything but 3d gaming, and it will tear through facebook/netflix/youtube hd/etc. The most important thing is that I always remind people to go ahead and get a hdd of respectable speed/size and a 4gb ram set, as the price difference is very minimal vs. a slow hdd / 2gb ram, and will make a pretty big difference. Other bonuses for cheap users is Microsoft Security Essentials and Chrome or an equally fast browser.

 

[Lee Saxon]

I care how stock SB & Lynnfield compare at similar price points.

Someone who OCs would care how reasonably OCed SB & Lynnfield compare at similar price points (although in my mind there's too much subjectivity as to what "reasonably" means, to say nothing of sample variation, to make this a totally fair test).

Who says, "I've decided to stop being an enthusiast. I'm going to move from an OCed Lynnfield to a stock SB, get a haircut, and start talking to women," besides the OP? Useless comparison.

 

[perdomot]

I care how stock SB & Lynnfield compare at similar price points.

Someone who OCs would care how reasonably OCed SB & Lynnfield compare at similar price points (although in my mind there's too much subjectivity as to what "reasonably" means, to say nothing of sample variation, to make this a totally fair test).

Who says, "I've decided to stop being an enthusiast. I'm going to move from an OCed Lynnfield to a stock SB, get a haircut, and start talking to women," besides the OP? Useless comparison.

First of all, there is no guarantee when OCing. I've seen plenty of supposedly great cpus barely get much higher with a ton of voltage so somebody planning to OC past 4Ghz might be out of luck at 3.8 while their old 760 might do 4.4 on air. Luck of the draw.

Secondly, before you trash others here, try talking to some women yourself, not the inflateable type either.

 

[Arkaign]

First of all, there is no guarantee when OCing. I've seen plenty of supposedly great cpus barely get much higher with a ton of voltage so somebody planning to OC past 4Ghz might be out of luck at 3.8 while their old 760 might do 4.4 on air. Luck of the draw.

Secondly, before you trash others here, try talking to some women yourself, not the inflateable type either.

Hah, luck of the draw indeed. I got a bum Opteron 165 back when everyone was raving about them. Stock 1.8Ghz, most people were getting at LEAST 2.4-2.6ghz with them. I bought the exact same board as a buddy (DFI Lanparty NF4-SLI), and couldn't get it over 2ghz for ANYTHING. Buddy was all like 'you don't know what you're doing', so I let him try, and he couldn't make it work either. So he dropped it in his mobo, replacing the exact same chip @ 2.6ghz, and it wouldn't boot windows or even show the splash screen, he ended up getting 2050mhz or so out of it with unwisely high voltage. I later replaced it with an Opteron 185, and hit 3ghz with the same mobo/ram/psu/gpu, go figure

Overclocking is never a guarantee, although some things are more consistent than others. I'd say for example that pretty much any PhII X4 BE will hit 3.6ghz with no trouble, and 3.4ghz for sure with stock voltage.

 

[perdomot]

Hah, luck of the draw indeed. I got a bum Opteron 165 back when everyone was raving about them. Stock 1.8Ghz, most people were getting at LEAST 2.4-2.6ghz with them. I bought the exact same board as a buddy (DFI Lanparty NF4-SLI), and couldn't get it over 2ghz for ANYTHING. Buddy was all like 'you don't know what you're doing', so I let him try, and he couldn't make it work either. So he dropped it in his mobo, replacing the exact same chip @ 2.6ghz, and it wouldn't boot windows or even show the splash screen, he ended up getting 2050mhz or so out of it with unwisely high voltage. I later replaced it with an Opteron 185, and hit 3ghz with the same mobo/ram/psu/gpu, go figure

Overclocking is never a guarantee, although some things are more consistent than others. I'd say for example that pretty much any PhII X4 BE will hit 3.6ghz with no trouble, and 3.4ghz for sure with stock voltage.

Yep, if they ran steady at 4.4Ghz, why not simply sell that at that speed. Its all a gamble.