When your only competition is yourself, what do you do when you have to introduce your latest and greatest CPU? Commit fratricide against your own chips? If you have the muscle and war chest of Intel, then yes.
At least, that’s what Intel’s new Sandy Bridge CPU family does to the company’s existing lineup of processors—lines them up on a cliff and pushes them off, one by one.
The stellar Core i7-870? Off you go. Core i7-975 Extreme Edition? Who needs your luxury-priced ass, anyway? Core i7-950? We’ll see you in hell!
In essence, Intel’s Sandy Bridge has rendered all previous quad-core and dual-core processors obsolete in both performance and price. Yes, the top chips in Intel’s Sandy Bridge family are that fast. And they’re pretty damn cheap, too. The fastest Sandy Bridge chip, for example, will outrun the $1,000 Core i7-975 Extreme Edition, yet it costs just three bills.
Sandy Bridge isn’t just about performance, though. It’s the first time Intel will integrate a graphics core into all of its CPUs. And perhaps in its most controversial move, Intel will also finally put a nail in the coffin of overclocking for average folks. To find out whether overclocking is really dead, how fast Sandy Bridge is, and whether graphics are now suddenly important, read on.
| 3.4GHz Core i7-2600K | 3.3GHz Core i5-2500K | 3.1GHz Core i5-2400 | 2.93GHz Core i3-2100 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turbo Speed | 3.8GHz | 3.7GHz | 3.4GHz | 2.93GHz |
| Cores / Threads | 4/8 | 4/4 | 4/4 | 2/4 |
| RAM Support | DDR3/1333 | DDR3/1333 | DDR3/1333 | DDR3/1333 |
| Graphics Clock | 3,000MHz | 3,000MHz | 2,000MHz | 2,000MHz |
| L3 Cache | 8MB | 6MB | 6MB | 3MB |
| Socket | LGA1155 | LGA1155 | LGA1155 | LGA1155 |
| TDP | 95 watts | 95 watts | 95 watts | 65 watts |
| Process | 32nm | 32nm | 32nm | 32nm |
| Die Size | 216mm2 | 216mm2 | 216mm2 | 131mm2 |
| Transistor Count | 995 | 995 | 995 | 504 |
| Bulk Price | $317 |
$216 | $184 | $117 |
If you’re not up on current events, Intel has followed a “tick-tock” cadence in its chip making these last few years. A “tock” represents the huge, sweeping changes to processor microarchitecture that we all get hot under the collar for. That’s eventually followed up with a tick, or more minor improvements to the existing microarchitecture.
One well-known tock was the original Core 2 “Conroe,” which literally saved Intel’s bacon and finally put that bad nightmare of a microarchitecture known as Netburst in its grave. Another tock was the Core i7 “Nehalem.” It was a revolutionary step for Intel wherein the memory controller got integrated into the die and the ancient front-side bus was jettisoned.
So, what’s so special about Sandy Bridge that it earns the distinction of being a tock? It’s hard for us to single out just one quality, but certainly a key feature is the fully integrated graphics core. With Sandy Bridge, Intel has completed its commingling of graphics and compute processing by moving an improved graphics core directly into the 32nm die. Intel had previously integrated a separate 45nm graphics core inside the CPU of its Clarkdale (and mobile Arrandale) chips, but it was a bit of a hack. Since the GPU is now integrated in the die, all second-generation Core i3/5/7 CPUs will include graphics—so no more of that some-chips-get-graphics-and-some-don’t hullabaloo that happened with LGA1156-based CPUs.
Sandy Bridge represents a far more elegant integration of graphics, and some would argue that Intel has beaten AMD to the Fusion punch by pushing its parts out first. Intel even designed a new ring bus that services the graphics processor and the x86 cores and L3 cache. Besides offering boatloads more bandwidth than the previous iteration, the ring bus allows the L3 cache to run at the clock speed of the CPU. Previously, the L3 cache was included in the “uncore” part of Nehalem that was clocked down. These higher clocks, obviously, increase bandwidth and reduce latency.
The x86 cores themselves are evolutionary developments of the Westmere design, so all chips now get encryption/decryption acceleration care of the AES-NI instructions. One key change is the addition of Intel’s Advanced Vector Extensions, or AVX. AVX instructions are designed to vastly improve floating-point performance across the board for the increasingly media-rich world we live in. AMD also has plans to support AVX in its upcoming Bulldozer chip, so AVX instructions are a shoe-in for support. However, as always, specialized instructions take time to flourish. At press time, we couldn’t find any AVX-enabled applications, and full OS support for AVX won’t happen until Microsoft releases Service Pack 1 for Windows 7.
You know you’re in bizarro-world when one of the most touted features of Sandy Bridge isn’t an x86 innovation, but the integration of a graphics core. While Intel once pooh-poohed GPU-accelerated encoding as pure suckage, it’s a check-off feature on Sandy Bridge that the company is quite proud of. Some folks might snicker at this, but we doubt that Nvidia and AMD are very amused, as Intel has a history of enacting 180-degree spins with a technological vengeance. Think of the original Core 2 or the Core i7. Both represented healthy portions of crow-eating by Intel, but both chips were also untouched by rivals for years.
While the graphics in Sandy Bridge are certainly improved, don’t expect miracles. If you want Warcraft or Starcraft at standard resolutions without shelling out $75 for a discrete GPU, then Sandy Bridge might work for you.
Graphics aren’t just about gaming, however. The new graphics core, when combined with a chipset that supports video output ports (the H67 and Q67 chipsets), will support Blu-ray 3D output over HDMI 1.4a, more video-processing options to enhance playback, and for laptops equipped with Wireless Display, full 1080p to a WiDi adapter hooked up to your TV. Intel’s graphics-based encoding/transcoding is called Quick Sync Video. Quick Sync Video is building support, but it has the drawback of being incompatible with a discrete graphics card. The onboard graphics core is disabled with discrete graphics, becoming, essentially, a waste of transistors. Ideally, we would like to see switchable graphics on the desktop that let you turn off the power-hungry ATI or Nvidia card when you don’t need it and instead use the power-sipping Sandy Bridge chip. This is done on notebooks, so why not on desktops?
The upshot regarding the new, improved graphics in Sandy Bridge is, temper your expectations. For an HTPC not intended for gaming, it’s a great solution. For your mom’s machine, more than enough. For you? Fuhgettaboutit.
Although there are numerous sources for the performance enhancements in Sandy Bridge, Turbo Boost 2.0 deserves special mention. Intel has been refining its automatic-overclock feature for years, and Sandy Bridge shows the confidence Intel now has in its silicon and how far it can be pushed. Older versions of Turbo Boost would “turbo up” but not if all the cores were being pushed. The best results from Turbo Boost came in lightly threaded applications that hit just one or two of the cores. Turbo Boost 2.0 will throttle up even if all four cores are under load. The boost will only drop off if the chip’s power control unit senses that it’s near overheating. Desktop parts get a healthy dose of boost—the top-end 3.4GHz Core i7-2600K will clock up to 3.8GHz—but mobile gets a bigger shot. The 2.5GHz Core i7-2920XM, for example, will boost all four cores up to 3.2GHz. A single-threaded app on the same chip could see the CPU boosted up to 3.5GHz—that’s a 1GHz overclock in a notebook!
That brings us to the most controversial aspect of Sandy Bridge: the death of overclocking as we know it. At least, that’s probably what most enthusiasts will say when they hear the news that it will be extremely difficult to overclock the vast majority of Intel’s new Sandy Bridge chips.
As you know, there are two ways to overclock a Core i3/5/7 chip: increasing the Turbo Boost multipliers (which can only be done on Extreme chips and K chips) or upping the base clock, or bclock. With LGA1156 and LGA1366 CPUs, the bclock relied on the clock signal being generated by a separate clock on the motherboard. With LGA1155, Intel has integrated a clock-signaling device into the chipset itself, and now when you goose the bclock, everything runs out of spec and gets ugly fast. With Sandy Bridge, you shouldn’t expect a bclock overclock to net you more than 5 percent at best. That’s a damned shame to those of us used to taking any old Core i3/5/7 and pushing the bclock from 133MHz up past 200MHz.
Conspiracy theories are already swirling that Intel did this because too many people were overclocking cheap chips instead of buying pricier ones. The company denies this. It says the main reason it moved the clock into the chipset was to save costs. While it may seem insignificant, integrating the clock into the chipset saves a board maker $5, which is a big deal. Intel officials say they didn’t intend to put a clock block on our bclock, but it was an unfortunate casualty of engineering. Officials say it’s quite possible that future iterations could see the return of bclock overclocking.
As a peace offering, Intel says that Sandy Bridge offers a couple of concessions to overclockers. The chip lineup includes two “K” CPUs: The 3.3GHz Core i5-2500K and the 3.4GHz Core i5-2600K. Both feature unlocked Turbo Boost multipliers and unlocked memory multipliers. Even better, the price premium for the K parts over non-K equivalents is minimal. The Core i7-2600 runs $294, while the Core i7-2600K will set you back $317. The price difference between the 2500K and the 2500 is just $11. Even for enthusiasts who aren’t into overclocking, the K parts are a no-brainer. We ran ours near the 5GHz range on air with no issues. That’s unheard of with previous quad-cores without the aid of exotic cooling.
For non-K parts, Intel is also throwing you a bone by letting you overclock up to four bins which isn't too shabby for non-enthusiasts.
So, do we buy Intel’s explanation? Yes and no. Saving board makers $5 we get. But there are other aspects that make us think it ain’t just about $5. Non-K chips also feature locked memory multipliers, so the fastest they’ll run is DDR3/1333 on H series chipsets. That’s certainly not related to money. Why couldn’t Intel have unlocked all of the chips as it did with the K parts? The ultimate judge of how much backlash there will be is consumer response.
Will enthusiasts make a beeline for AMD? Our bet is no. Sandy Bridge’s performance and the fact that each chip overclocks itself so damn well means that people will probably be OK with it.
The upshot, folks, is that Sandy Bridge offers a truly amazing amount of performance at previously unheard-of prices.
Sandy Bridge is a vast improvement over the previous Clarkdale/Arrandale-based Core i3 and Core i5 chips. Previous Core i3 and i5 CPUs used a multichip package joined by a fast QPI connection inside the heat spreader. Every Sandy Bridge chip uses the same monolithic die that includes an elegant layout of a “processor graphics” core alongside two or four cores and a fat load of L3 cache. To join all of these together, Intel has designed a new ring bus that offers a phenomenal amount of bandwidth to all of the parts.
The bandwidth varies based on the number of cores on the ring bus and the clock speed. That’s because the L3 cache now runs at full core-clock speed. Previously, the L3 cache ran at the lower “uncore” speed. In a typical quad-core Sandy Bridge chip running at 3GHz, roughly 384GB/s of bandwidth is available from the L3 cache. As with Lynnfield and Clarkdale, an integrated memory controller and a single x16 PCI-E 2.0 is embedded in the core as well. The connection to the peripheral control hub, which we call the south bridge, comes via a single 20Gb/s Direct Media Interface connection.
We’ve been warning readers that LGA1156 was a dead man walking for months now. Well, meet its replacement: LGA1155. Yup, just one pin and your board is officially obsolete. With LGA1155, Intel is introducing four new chipsets, with only two that matter to you: H67 and P67. There’s no native USB 3.0, but SATA 6Gb/s is now supported on up to two ports of the south bridge—support on all the ports would be too costly. The key differences between the two chipsets is that H67 offers support for the internal graphics, and overclocking will only work on P67.
Above is the old LGA1156 and below is the new LGA1155.
One big question is whether LGA1155 will exist only for Sandy Bridge. There have been rumors of moving the new Xeon socket LGA2011, with its quad-channel memory, to consumers later this year, but we understand that Intel is now considering going back to a single-socket lineup. LGA1366 will be supported with updates this year, but after that, LGA1155 could be the only game in town.
Physically, the new Sandy Bridge LGA1155 processors look almost the same as the previous LGA1156 CPUs based on Clarkdale and Lynnfield. The key difference is under the heat spreader. Can you plug an LGA1155 chip into a LGA1156 board? Nope. Every time Intel does this, we wonder if the company is just trying to piss us off. And as always, Intel says no. It had to make the socket changes to meet the design needs of the new Sandy Bridge CPU. That won’t help people who just bought a brand-new LGA1156 board and CPU and feel burned yet again by another socket switch from Intel. There’s good news, though: The new socket doesn’t require a new heatsink. The mounting holes are compatible with existing LGA1156 coolers.
On the left is the new LGA1156 and on the right is the old LGA1155.
People will look for a lot of reasons to hate Sandy Bridge: Overclocking is limited to the K parts, you have to buy a new board, and the graphics core is switched off once you install a GPU. But once you get to raw, ripping performance, it’s hard not to gush over Sandy Bridge. Frankly, it’s an astounding amount of performance for
the money.
The top-end Core i7-2600K smashes every other quad-core Intel chip by healthy margins. This is aided by the new microarchitecture, the ring bus, and other magical stuff, we suppose, but we see no reason to buy any other CPU for the money. Even the once-powerful Core i7-975 Extreme Edition is flatly punched in the nose by the 2600K. While the 975 is long gone, you can extrapolate that the 2600K will outgun the Core i7-950, i7-930, and the poorly priced i7-960. Against non-Intel chips, it’s no contest. AMD’s hexa-core Phenom II X6 1090T, which was already getting beaten up by existing Hyper-Threaded Core i7 chips, also takes a serious thrashing from the Core i7-2600K.
Even the mighty Core i7-980X loses a few benchmarks to the Core i7-2600K chip. These are mostly in benchmarks that can’t exploit the six-cores of the 980X, and where the Turbo Boost 2.0 gives the Sandy Bridge part a key advantage.
Certainly, overclocking the older Intel parts and the Phenom II can help, but the 2600K, we must add, also overclocks like a champ. So, haterz, set aside your hate. If performance is what you care about (and you don’t want to shell out for a $1,000 hexa-core), Sandy Bridge, particularly the K versions, should be on your radar.
| 3.4GHz Core i7-2600K | 2.66GHz Core i5-750 | 2.8GHz Core i7-860 | 2.93GHz Core i7-870 | 3.33GHz Core i7-975 Extreme Edition | 3.33GHz Core i7-980X | 3.2GHz Phenom II X6 1090T | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Premiere Pro CS3 (sec) | 453 | 615 | 581 | 539 | 504 | 453 | 749 |
| Sony Vegas Pro 9.0c (sec) | 3,007 | 4,899 | 3,863 | 3,531 | 3,244 | 2,675 | 5,010 |
| HandBrake DVD to iPhone (sec) | 1,298 | 1,702 | 1,360 | 1,247 | 1,170 | 941 | 1,580 |
| MainConcept 1.6 (sec) | 2,134 | 3,092 | 2,735 | 2,486 | 2,308 | 1,827 | 2,816 |
| Cinebench 10 64-bit | 23,259 | 14,455 | 17,516 | 19,197 | 20,147 | 27,479 | 17,892 |
| Cinebench 11.5 64-bit | 6.87 | 3.83 | 5.15 | 5.54 | 5.99 | 8.92 | 5.67 |
| POV Ray 3.7 | 4,979 | 2,810 | 3,883 | 4,497 | 4,236 | 6,557 | 4,656.5 |
| Photoshop CS3 (sec) | 89 | 118 | 123 | 100 | 91 | 89 | 130 |
| Adobe Lightroom 2.6 (sec) | 394 | 603 | 469 | 422 | 418 | 419 | 426 |
| ProShow Producer 4 (sec) | 1,007 | 1,425 | 1,382 | 1,290 | 1,208 | 1,092 | 1,669 |
| Bibble 5.02 (sec) | 121 |
186 | 142 | 122 | 120 | 97.2 | 145 |
| PCMark Vantage 64-bit Overall | 11,250 |
8,504 | 8,903 | 9,120 | 9,260 | 10,470 | 7,481 |
| Fritz Chess Benchmark (KiloNodes/s) | 13,017 |
8,407 | 10,997 | 11,995 | 12,738 | 12,733 | 11,219 |
| Valve Map Compilation (sec) | 76 | 110 | 116 | 106 | 100 | 99 | 132 |
| Everest Ultimate MEM Copy (MB/s) | 16,994 | 15,445 | 15,372 | 14,693 | 17,712 | 13,086 | 11,043 |
| Everest Ultimate MEM Latency (ns) | 36 | 54.3 | 49.5 | 52.5 | 59.8 | 61.3 | 51.6 |
| SiSoft Sandra RAM Bandwidth (GB/s) | 16 | 17 | 17 | 17 | 23 | 20 | 13 |
| 3DMark Vantage CPU | 53,599 | 44,594 | 46,064 | 48,816 | 51,321 | 62,893 | 44,587 |
| Valve Particle test (fps) | 180 | 111 | 148 | 159 | 174 | 259 | 120 |
| Resident Evil 5 / low-res (fps) | 132 | 110.3 | 115.9 | 126.6 | 130.7 | 134.1 | 100.3 |
| World in Conflict / low-res (fps) | 306 | 256 | 253 | 253 | 317 | 358 | 162 |
| Dirt 2 / low-res (fps) | 162 | 155 | 94 | 153.3 | 157 | 155.7 | 121 |
| Far Cry 2 / low-res (fps) | 165 | 146.53 | 150.2 | 153.3 | 158.2 | 158.6 | 99 |
| Price | $317 | $196 | $284 | $294 | $999 | $999 | $235 |
We used 64-bit Windows 7 Professional, 4GB of RAM DDR3/1333 (for the dual-core chips) or 6GB of DDR3/1333 (for the tri-channel chips), a Western Digital Raptor 150 10,000rpm hard drive, a GeForce GTX 285, and the same graphics driver for all of our test configurations.
Correction: The original article contained an error which stated that the non K-series CPUs limited overclocking to a single core. The non K-series Sandy Bridge CPUs actually allow you to overclock four cores up to four bins. The article also failed to say that memory overclocking limits are only on H-series chipsets. Maximum PC regrets the error.
Video First Look: Gordon Checks Out Asus's New UEFI Interface using Sandy Bridge
Comments are closed on this article
DiniyaPeace
September 06, 2011 at 5:55am
This is getting a bit more subjective, but I much prefer the Zune Marketplace. The interface is colorful, has more flair, and some cool features like ‘Mixview’ that let you quickly see related albums, songs, or other users related to what you’re listening to. Clicking on one of those will center on that item, and another set of “neighbors” will come into view, allowing you to navigate around exploring by similar artists, songs, or users. Speaking of users, the Zune “Social” is also great fun, letting you find others with shared tastes and becoming friends with them. You then can listen to a playlist created based on an amalgamation of what all your friends are listening to, which is also enjoyable. Those concerned with privacy will be relieved to know you can prevent the public from seeing your personal listening habits if you so choose. Brad Pitt Workout
aarcane
January 25, 2011 at 9:51pm
I hear alot of people griping about intel replacing sockets and pin counts at every release, and while I agree that it feels alot like intel is bending us over at every turn some times, considder this:
The cost to purchase an SLI ready LGA1366 system with a high end i7 processor was upwards of $300 for motherboard and $1K for a processor.
discounting the existing pair(or more) of graphics cards, DDR3 RAM and other miscelaneous components, that will survive the upgrade process, you can expect to pay $1300 for an LGA1366 system.
Conversely, I've just purchased an LGA1155 system with motherboard, processor, RAM, GPUs, hard drives, chassis, and all the accoutrement for only slightly more than that. ($1500 before tax and shipping)
Intel may be forcing new motherboards and processors on those of us who like to live on the bleeding edge, but at the same time, the cost of having a high end computer has just taken a MASSIVE dip for anyone who may have been even a chip behind.
jsyv
January 11, 2011 at 4:15pm
" LGA1366 will be supported with updates this year, but after that, LGA1155 could be the only game in town."
Any indication what "supported updates" you expect for LGA1366? Does this imply a more reasonably priced hexa-core chip (or, dare we hope, an octo-core)?
nealtse
January 07, 2011 at 5:07pm
Imagine how much cheaper it would be if it didn't have crappy graphics processing that none of us would use anyway.
Lhot
January 07, 2011 at 11:22am
duh...yes I know you can't run an Intel CPU on an AMD board...everyone knows this. Upon reading the same or similar article in the mag that just came today I noticed that they DID say the GPU on the Sandy Bridge was...so to speak...crap. This answers my question about the price point. As far as Sandy Bridge = death of AMD...noone knows that yet...at least until the desktop Bulldozers come out :/
My point was and still is....how does the 2600K bench w/o a discreet GPU since its being heralded as a CPU/GPU chip. Also I didnt say motherboards cost $600 i said that since you HAVE to buy a new motherboard....that makes the 2600K cost more like $600.
I KNOW the CPU part of the 2600K is awesome....that's obvious. What I want to know is just how bad the GPU portion of the 2600K actually is, and the only way to test that is bench it w/o a discreet GPU. ALL discreet GPU's since the 6800 days have aided the CPU in its tasks...that was the question I wanted answered.
As for denial...there is none...I'm will always run AMD CPU's...simply because I like the company better. But thanks for your...input??
I still want to see someone bench the 2600K w/o a discreet GPU though.
EDIT: Well I just now found the answer at Anandtech....without a discrete GPU the SB integrated GPU can't even get 50% of what a ATI 5570 can do. It's still a great CPU, no doubt...but as a CPU/GPU it's not ...ALL that :)
Lhot
January 06, 2011 at 5:11pm
...if this CPU has a GPU core....why the GTX 285 then? Or am I missing something? Is this what's giving me the bad feeling? Does the 2600K fail at GPU intensive tasks, without the the GTX285? I'd like to see the 2600K benched without ANY discrete GPU...maybe the GPU contributes to the CPU scores even AT low res? I run an AMD 955 OC'd to 3.7Ghz....when I alt+tab from this post to Diablo II (running at 800x600 res) the GPU temp goes up 5-6C, while the CPU only goes up 1C. So even at low res, very low res, the discrete GPU is working harder on D2 than on my 1280x1024 desktop?
If something doesn't make the 2600K look bad, then I can see a lot of 980x owners getting really mad at Intel.....like $600 mad ^^
I mean I have faith in MaxPC's testing....but I can't figure out why Intel would give customers a 980X ++, (which the 2600K seems to be, [when paired with the GTX285] )....for $300, especially considering the extra costs that must have been generated by the die shrink and the design-labor.
I've checked other sites as well and all the benches seem to be run with a $300 discrete GPU on a CPU that has and onboard GPU. Is this why the 2600K only costs $317, because the onboard GPU doesnt work correctly or at all?
I'm on a fixed income or I would just go buy a 1155 motherboard and a 2600K and find out for myself...but since I can't afford that...maybe MaxPC could just pull that GTX285 out and rerun the benches for us? If for no other reason than to actually SEE for sure if a discrete GPU (at any res) helps a CPU do it daily chores.
C'mon Gordon you know you want to :) It's either that or I have to start believing Intel actually has a heart after 15 years of beating the consumer to death...wallet wise...and THAT would really shake up my world view.
jagstangsrule
January 06, 2011 at 7:29pm
First off, The 285 is just a random card they used. All the CPUs were tested with the same card, so yes, it effects the results, but it effects them all the same way. A meter in England is the same as a meter in the US. Haha. The tests were ran at lo res because high res tend to emit more sporadic results for many reasons, so you're acutually getting very acurate results.
And the reason why you experience temp change when playing Diablo is DirectX9. It utilizes CPU performance to boost graphic acceleration, but not amount of objects rendered; which is why the powerful 2600K gets ridiculous FPS. And this is true for most of the tests(that they utilize the CPU), so that answers most of the questions from your post earlier. And why worry about the integrated graphics if u ALREADY have a GPU? lol. You shouldn't expect much anyways, as you're alredy getting a $1000 chip for $300. You can't complain about a $10,000 Ferrari that doesn't have navigation. lol.
Lastly, in response to your other comment earlier, SSD's would have had almost no effect on the rendering power of a CPU. So, it's pointless. And they probably didn't use Crysis because, although it is very demanding on all parts of the machine, games like Dirt 2 support DirectX11, which are more heavily focused on utilizing the CPU.
And yeah, It sucks that you gotta get a new board, but that's not neccessarily a bad thing if you're due for an upgrade. And not many boards cost $600. lol. So yes, it's definitly still worth the price. And you said you're running a 955, hence AM3, so, sorry buddy. You can't run any intel device reguardless, so getting a new board isn't a negative in your case, it's a requirement. lol.
If you have a build that's 3+yrs old and have some spending money, it's definitly worth the buy. Just do the CPU justice and get a gtx580 or 5970 with the money you saved.
P.S. 2600k = DEATH to AMD fanboy's biggest argument over intel's price barrier. LOL XD
Great review MaxPC
Lhot
January 06, 2011 at 4:44am
1. Why this particular test bed...aka why no SSD's and why a GTX285 and why so little RAM?
2. Why is there such a disparity in the Cinebench 10 and 11 scores. Either Cinebench 10 is a no longer valid benchmark...or something is really out of whack with the results.
3. Why does this chip require just ONE extra pin...there are MANY redundant GND and B+ pins on all CPU sockets? I do NOT believe that Sandy Bridge REALLY needs one extra pin. Unless of course it was just designed that way to force a new motherboard purchase.
4. IF #3 is true then the price point becomes moot or even ficticious and makes the whole benchmark useless. Because then, the CPU doesn't REALLY cost $317 it costs more like $500++ (new mobo required)
5. Why do the Valve Map Compilation AND the Valve particle tests scores of the 2600K trounce EVERY other chips score and at the same time does Gabe Newell praise the Sandy Bridge as ardently as he seems to? Some flummery here?
6. Why are all the gaming benchmarks run at low res? Or rather, why not at BOTH high and low res? Why no Crysis benchmark? Despite w/e Direct X Version it requires.
7. Were these benchmarks run, with or without Intel supervision?
8. It seems to me like Intel is moving away from tick tock to more of a rent-a-chip model.
All in all, this seems to me like a wait and see chip rather than a rush out and buy one...today chip. My intuition is telling me that this 2600K has some serious skeletons in it's closest, that are NOT apparent at the moment. I have no idea what they may be...but these scores seem too cute by half.
It could also be the fact of the embedded DRM that is tickling my intuition...aka lets release a damn fine chip at an UNUSUALLY low price point...JUST to slip in the DRM, and then make our moneyback by re-negotiating certain media providers contracts to cover OUR (Intels) loses....which then will of course be passed on to the end users.
However I look at this seemingly awesome chip, I keep feeling that if I rush out and buy one, that within a month or so...."the other foot will fall"...AND that that 'other foot' will be much bigger than just the cost of a new motherboard. This CPU seems to me to be the 'start of something, really BAD' that we just aren't seeing yet. As the old saying goes..."If something seems too good to be true, it usually is".
NO...I have no clue as to what this 'other foot' may finally show itself to be...but I can smell it coming (pun intended). The 2600K seems like a great idea, but it sure feels like, just as I'm taking a good bead on a game enemy...I get shot in the back of the head! Maybe it's that it feels like a marketing model, like chapter at a time games sales or microtransactions...while not appreciated is at least swallowable at a $25-50$ price point...but when applied to a $300+++++ price point, becomes criminal.
SOMETHING is defintely too good to be true here. I at least am going to check my back before I go this route.
YES, I'm one of those conspiracy theorists, but one with an on paper 96.9 percentile intuition...just sayin ^^
yr
January 12, 2011 at 9:25pm
If you don't like it, don't buy it. BUT, those who have an 1156 board won't be able to run the features that make the Sandy Bridge worth its salt. Are you one of those people that still gripe that you can't play 16 bit games in Windows 7? Are you still holding socket 939?
If you want the latest and greatest, there is a price. Look at Nvidia chipsets. 680i, wouldn't run Penryn quad-cores. Why not? The chipset couldn't handle it. Then came along the 780i and 790i. AMD makes new chipsets too. Why not complain about them? Not all of their new chips work on the older chipsets. Most of the best ones require the newer socket, especially to enable all of the features. The Intel CPU's kick because they tossed out "compatibility". Maybe that is their secret...
And by the way, are you also complaining about the new GPU that Nvidia wants you to buy every year?
BTW - Asus P8P76 PRO is only $190, and you get EFI and a boat-load of new features, making the board worth its price without the "new chipset" issue.
About the benchmarks, MaxPC ALWAYS says that the lower the res the more the CPU gets pushed. Higher resolutions are stressing mainly the GPU. If you want to use the integrated GPU with these chips, don't expect much. The test above was to stress the CPU part.
Caboose
January 06, 2011 at 8:46am
3 and 4, I think most people think this about Intel at this point. They make stupid changes to force upgrades. It's planned retirement of their chips.
As for running game benchmarks at such low res, because then the CPU does the work and the GPU just sits and doesn't do much
JohnP
January 04, 2011 at 12:04pm
What I like about the i7 chips is that they do well with 6GB, my optimal amount of memory for Win7 64bit. I have tried 4GB and with the 1156 mobo and noticed that clock for clock, it SEEMED slower. 12GB seemed to make no difference at all. I guess 8GB would be fine too but 6 is the magical number for me.
Caboose
January 04, 2011 at 9:22am
I'm still trying to figure out why it is that Intel insists on a new socket for pretty much EVERY single CPU they release. They can't seem to settle on one socket for more than a few months before a new one comes along. And the old ones are only around for a year, sometimes even less.
What still boggles the mind, is that people will continue to flock to them even through they get screwed over. Intel is turning in to the Apple of PC Hardware...
SuperiorBeing
January 04, 2011 at 7:46pm
Because that way they can ensure every part of the motherboard is bleeding edge at all times, and supports all the features of the processors.
Caboose
January 05, 2011 at 11:34am
Thats a pretty bad excuse to screw over their customer base!
"Hey! Here's the best thing from Camp Intel!" *snicker* Watch this, they'll all gobble it up, then we'll end the line in 8mo and release something better, AND use a new socket too! *snicker* "Oh! We won't change ANYTHING! Honest!" *crosses fingers behind back*
ShyLinuxGuy
January 04, 2011 at 6:54am
What should be pissing a lot of people off is that Intel is creating a technology where certain video formats cannot be played on a CPU that doesn't have it's proprietary DRM integrated into the CPU. Sandy Bridge is part of the chips that will use this technology. So, in other words, if you are an AMD user (which I am and many other advanced users are) OR if you have an older Core series chip (or any older Intel CPU for that matter), you're screwed. Intel is getting really cheesy with their business practices lately. I mean, for example, selling a scratch card to unlock potential a CPU already has? Come on. That move alone was desperate.
Intel is overpriced and overrated--I can get an Athlon II or maybe even a Phenom for the price of their Celeron! Imagine what I could get for the price of a midrange Core i3 or i5???
The benchmarks, undeniably, are great. What's behind the benchmarks, the company that produces the processor to obtain those benchmarks, isn't too great.
praetor_alpha
January 04, 2011 at 8:15am
Sounds incredibly retarded. How on Earth will an average joe know (or care) if he has a sandy bridge CPU when X service says that it's required? If Netflix (or anyone) does this, they will loose at least 50% of their business.
But as long as we can all watch our pirated movies, everyone will be OK.
praetor_alpha
January 04, 2011 at 6:24am
Is anyone else a little pissed that the 2600K does not support hardware virtualization extensions (vt-d)? I'm going to be picking up a 2600 or K immediately when they hit, because ever since my system could not boot with a graphics card, I have been itching to upgrade from my Q9300.
Then with overclocking and the graphics features that are completely disabled depending on the chipset/motherboard you choose... gosh, it's like playing feature whack-a-mole.
nsvander
January 03, 2011 at 11:04pm
Anyone else notice the writing on the socket covers both say LGA1156?
Marsel
January 03, 2011 at 10:27pm
TYPO
"On the left is the new LGA1156 and on the right is the old LGA1155."
last time i checked 1155 is new, not old.
triclops41
January 03, 2011 at 9:54pm
"Core i7-950? We’ll see you in hell!
That line probably struck most of you as stupid or silly, but I couldn't stop laughing when I read that.
chipmunkofdoom2
January 03, 2011 at 9:21pm
Just added and compared all the scores. On average, the Phenom II X6 scored 27.1% lower than the 3.4GHz Core i7-2600K in every test. The cost for the X6 over the Sandy Bridge is 25.9% less. So, as is always the case with AMD, you get EXACTLY what you pay for.
No lie, I like AMD processors (wouldn't call myself a fan boy), but I can accept reality. intel has AMD beat for now, hands down.
kiaghi7
January 03, 2011 at 8:11pm
Then Sandybridge is for you... It's a fine CPU and will work admirably in that capacity...
However, if you are awaiting an enthusiast (i.e. Gamer) processor like the successor to LGA1366 processors, well then that's the forthcoming LGA2011 chips, which will obliterate the Sandybridge line as badly as i7's eclipse i3's.
The two will exist side by side, just like LGA1156 and LGA1366 do now (or did before Sandybridge became the official successor in that line).
If you need a very good chip, but have no real expectation of using it for enthusiast type purposes, then the LGA1155 is a perfect fit. It's not bad in any way what so ever, and in fact will be the big kid on the block until (presumably) late 2011...
If you need a gamer's PC in the short-term however, LGA1366 chips will -HOPEFULLY- recieve a little bump downward in price, as well as their motherboards (again -hopefully-). Best of all, you can overclock current i7's to the hilt even beyond what a sandybridge can do, and the hardware (cooling solutions) are already established for LGA1366 plus an extensive line of enthusiast motherboards are already in place.
Much of the motherboard stock I've seen for LGA1155 is disappointing at best, and some of it is even reason to question if the manufacturer is even really trying.
triclops41
January 03, 2011 at 9:59pm
Actually, the K versions of Sandy Bridge will overclock far beyond what 1366 can do.
The sites overclocking Sandy Bridge are getting around 4.4-4.5 ghz on stock Intel coolers.
Makes my 875K look silly in comparison, but oh well...
kiaghi7
January 04, 2011 at 4:33pm
What you forget is that a hypothetical clock of 4.4-4.5Ghz on an LGA1155 can quite easily be done on an i950 right now (LGA1366), with air cooling mind you, and I've seen 4.6+ on air... (In fact I'm an ardent advocate of air cooling since it effectively can't fail so long as there is an atmosphere)
Seeing that both current i7's and the LGA1155 i7's are capable of the same results, I'm less than impressed if you're trying to tout the K series as an enthusiat chip, but you're missing a lot more than clock speeds as well...
First off, all the specifications I see are for dual channel memory, i.e. you top out at what 4 dimms can provide, and those 4 dimms are going to have less capability than the triple-channel alternatives that other i7's currently enjoy. That is in no small part a major separation in their function and benefits.
Right off the top is the capacity disparity, presuming 4GB per dimm, you're topping out at 16GB with LGA1155 versus 24GB on an LGA1366 (I don't recall seeing any boards that support more than 24GB at the moment for a single processor board, but if they do, so much the better). Half-again the RAM is a heck of a benefit, and any enthusiast is going to cram their machine full and still be wishing they had more. Some will say "you'll never use 24GB of RAM", and I always respond "wait till next year", because just like so many other times in the past, when some seemingly incredible amount of RAM is considered extreme, it becomes the standard or even the bare minimum in no significant time at all.
It was not very long ago when a 16 megabyte graphics card was GODLY and 64MB of RAM was more than enough muscle for any game on the market! Now you might not even boot up the computer with that.
If I want enthusiast capability, I not only want the CPU to be as capable as possible, but I also want the memory which is actually holding that processed work, to not be a bottle-neck.
The two chip lines have comparable memory clock capabilites, so -IF- enthusiast level LGA1155 boards come out, they will likely get the clock speeds identical to that of LGA1366, but with dual channel, the speed may wash out, but the actual effectiveness of the memory is actually quite disparate.
silence
January 03, 2011 at 9:54pm
I'm pretty confused, so perhaps someone can help clarify something for me.
Right now i'm sporting a core i7 930 OC'd to 3.8 GHZ, and the whole 9 yards with a gtx 580 etc etc.. I've always wanted to aim for the fasted possible processor I could get, but the extreme at 1,000 usd was just absurd.
This is what is confusing:
"The top-end Core i7-2600K smashes every other quad-core Intel chip by healthy margins. This is aided by the new microarchitecture, the ring bus, and other magical stuff, we suppose, but we see no reason to buy any other CPU for the money. Even the once-powerful Core i7-975 Extreme Edition is flatly punched in the nose by the 2600K. While the 975 is long gone, you can extrapolate that the 2600K will outgun the Core i7-950, i7-930, and the poorly priced i7-960"
So, if the i7-2600k smacks the pants off the other parts by "healthy margins, punches the 975 flatly in the nose, and out-guns the 950, 930, and 960" all at a price of 300.00 usd, why wouldn't I want to get it?
In the video, the new BIOS seems pretty awesome. They overclocked a proc to 4.8, which they state you can "easily acheive", and even max pc states you can get 5GHZ without exotic cooling - which I gather you can hit on air? Regardless of how you hit that mark... doesn't this make it a chip that i'd want?
Sure... I'd have to get a new motherboard. But acheiving performance better than a 975 extreme at half the price seems worth it to me.
So... could someone help me see this in a different light?
triclops41
January 03, 2011 at 10:05pm
the only reason not to get one is that intel will have even better stuff by the end of the year. same dilemma as always, really.
whathuhitwasntme
January 03, 2011 at 8:09pm
there is more involved in "supporting" more ports
you have to phsyically connect them to the cpu which means more connections to the chip which means more cost to the maker of the board etc etc etc the price just goes up as you add connections
its the same reason why PCI E 16x is typically just the first slot an the rest are usually half at 8x unless you pony up for a enthusiast board
yr
January 12, 2011 at 9:32pm
There's also not enough bandwidth to run 2 at 16x and still have other connectors. See each board's specs and you'll see it. Sata6 and USB3 also need bandwidth and at least the 1155 has enough for that.
wolf17
January 04, 2011 at 1:58am
Ah, okay thanks for the response. I just figured out why I was so confused... the sata statement was about the motherboards, not that a 1155 cpu would somehow only support 2 sata 6 ports :p that'll teach me for skimming that part!!
JE_Delta
January 03, 2011 at 7:23pm
Very nice review! It was well thought out, and it explained everything clearly.
Thanks MaximumPC!
wolf17
January 03, 2011 at 7:22pm
I'm confused about the Sata 6gb/s statement. What do you mean by support for all ports would be too costly? Sata 6 is backwards compatible right? So how is it more costly to have one Sata 6 controller for 6 ports than it is to have two different Sata controllers on the motherboard? Or is the Sata 6 controller integrated into the cpu? Thanks in advance!
Print
