Sandy Bridge Reviews Released!

nutzo said:
Disagree.
A cheap i3 530/540 for $99, a cheap <$99 motherboard, 4GB DDR3, and a simple overclock to 3.5+Ghz, makes for a pretty nice and cheap basic system.

With SB removing the ability to overclock the i3 CPU's, your stuck at 2.93, or spend a little more for 3.3Ghz which is still slower. Even the i5-2300 at almost 2x the price, while faster in multithreaded apps since it's a quad core, would still be slower on older single threaded apps. I'd have to go with the i5 2400 @$184 with the 3.4Ghz turbo mode to get close to the same perfomance on single/dual threaded apps.
Click to expand...

Lol you missed my follow-up post didn't you? I said the i3's were priced fairly. It's the i5 Clarkdales I had a problem with. And yeah, for $50 more, I'd take the 750 at $149 every time.
 
Filter said:
to me thats not worth going from a 1366 to 1155 with socket 2011 due out later this year.

according to intel 1366 is still the extremist part till socket 2011
Click to expand...

50%+ single-threaded performance without factoring in increased overclockability isn't worth it to you? That's a subjective opinion... mine is that 50% constitutes a trouncing and is a worthy upgrade. Let alone the 30%+ gains in multi-threading...
 
AMD_Gamer said:
So why is amd stock way up and intel down today? People hear that bulldozer coming.
Click to expand...

Who cares about the stock prices? I don't personally, I'm more interested in the performance. I'm going out on a limb and saying that bulldozer will be a decent upgrade for AMD but that the performance won't even be as good as SB 6+ months later.

Wait and see. I'm glad your stock is doing good though :)
 
If I was a gambling man I would short AMD at the current price being that I would bet they will take a loss in Q1. Then buy it around $6.
 
Keep in mind that even the i3 sandy bridge chips support 'limited unlocked' multipliers that lets you take it 400mhz over the highest turbo frequency. If you are able to get 103 on the blk then this should mean you can take an i3 2100 about 500mhz over max turbo, that will be a potent little budget box and should trounce any of the clarksdales that were overclocking unlocked.

Its win win all around
 
GoldenTiger said:
50%+ single-threaded performance without factoring in increased overclockability isn't worth it to you? That's a subjective opinion... mine is that 50% constitutes a trouncing and is a worthy upgrade. Let alone the 30%+ gains in multi-threading...
Click to expand...

LOL what reviews are you reading. Havent seen any thing where it was 50% or more in a single thread.over an i7
 
They would be 50% faster at max oc for sure.

This section from the Bit-Tech review sums it up pretty well:

However, by using a CPU multiplier of 48x without touching the Base Clock, we could wrench 4.8GHz from it. For this, we used the same voltages and settings as we used with the i5-2500K. See How to Overclock an LGA1155 CPU for more details on how we overclocked all the CPUs on test.

At 4.8GHz, the i7-2600K ripped through our Media Benchmarks, making us wince as it sailed past even a 4.4GHz i7-980X in our video encoding test (if only by 21 points). However, the extra frequency of the i5-2500K overclock gave it the lead in the image editing test, while the extra system bandwidth of its Base Clock-assisted overclock helped it to claim the top spot in the multi-tasking test.

When both K-series CPUs were overclocked, only a few points separated them, although both were 100 points faster than the 4.4GHz i7-980X, which was considerably faster than the previous-generation quad-cores and AMD&#8217;s latest 6-core CPU.

The extra frequency of the i5-2500K overclock helped it to be the fastest K-series CPU in Crysis with a minimum of 37fps rather than 42fps, but the i7-980X saved face by claiming the fastest minimum of 43fps.

The i7-2600K managed to wrestle its way to top place in X3, where its minimum of 79fps was 9fps faster than the 4.9GHz i5-2500K and 15fps faster than the i7-980X. We were again blown away by how little power the i7-2600K consumed, even when overclocked and overvolted &#8211; we saw a power draw of 234W during overclocking while the 4.4GHz i7-980X system drew 368W.
Click to expand...
 
Filter said:
so your comparing an o/c chip to a non o/c chip. That's like comparing chocolate to dog shit.
Click to expand...

No, he's comparing max nehalem oc to max SB oc. This is exactly the way any of us would be running the systems and is therefore a valid comparison.
 
Damn, Bit-tech was able to combine a baseclock OC with the 400mhz fixed turbo OC to get a 2400 up to 3.99ghz (averaging 3.8-3.9)
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/14

This would suggest you can get the $117 i3 2100 up to about 3.7ghz by the same method. That will anihilate any clarksdale processor and should effectively nullify the locked overclocking complaints.

Tiger that is great news with the BIOS fixes, I hope ASUS releases an update for the mATX p67 boards.

I wonder if the review sites will do updates.
 
Anands reviews show only about 10% increase at the same clock speed. I will only upgrade if I am quite sure I can get well above 4.0ghz.
 
Ok 5Ghz as a 24/7 OC is actually very tempting.
And in no way do I even need that amount of power currently.
 
Filter said:
thing is you keep changing your story now. make up your mind.

thats find and dandy but show me the benchmarks where its 50% faster?
Click to expand...

I'm not changing a story haha. 5.5ghz is perfectly reachable, but even 5ghz will produce what I said :). I already linked you a benchie where at 3.4ghz Sandy vs. 3.06ghz i7 950 it is around 35% faster in the single-threading... add in another 25% for 5ghz being that much faster than 4ghz even (let alone 5.5 as I said) and we're still very much over 50% :). Note the 5.4ghz link I gave is on air, too.
 
I saw another thread that said Fry's had them last week just not out for purchase yet. Can they sell them yet? I want one now! :p
 
GoldenTiger said:
I'm not changing a story haha. 5.5ghz is perfectly reachable, but even 5ghz will produce what I said :).
Click to expand...


back up your claim with numbers. I haven't seen a bench mark where its faster then 50% O/c or non o/c .
 
Filter said:
back up your claim with numbers. I haven't seen a bench mark where its faster then 50% O/c or non o/c .
Click to expand...

Take an i7 930 at 4ghz for base reference value of 1.

Now add in the ~20% ipc increase (being conservative)
1 x 1.2 = 1.2

Now add the 25% higher clock speed that a 5ghz 2600k has over a 4ghz i7 930.

1.2 x 1.25 = 1.5 = 50% faster.

If you can break 5ghz it goes up even more.
 
GreenGoose said:
I saw another thread that said Fry's had them last week just not out for purchase yet. Can they sell them yet? I want one now! :p
Click to expand...

Latest news is tomorrow, sir :).

R-Type said:
Take an i7 930 at 4ghz for base reference value of 1.

Now add in the ~20% ipc increase (being conservative)
1 x 1.2 = 1.2

Now add the 25% higher clock speed that a 5ghz 2600k has over a 4ghz i7 930.

1.2 x 1.25 = 1.5 = 50% faster.

If you can break 5ghz it goes up even more.
Click to expand...


Thanks for explaining it, I am too lazy :D.
 
R-Type said:
Take an i7 930 at 4ghz for base reference value of 1.

Now add in the ~20% ipc increase (being conservative)
1 x 1.2 = 1.2

Now add the 25% higher clock speed that a 5ghz 2600k has over a 4ghz i7 930.

1.2 x 1.25 = 1.5 = 50% faster.

If you can break 5ghz it goes up even more.
Click to expand...

that's in theory. lets see it done.
 
Filter said:
if you can wait i would hold off for 2011 socket. thats just me. Even though the 2600k would be a nice upgrade.
Click to expand...



hey filter thanks for the reply. i was thinking to just upgrade my vid card first as i think i will have better performance. was thinking of 580gtx. my quad will tie me over for 1 to 2 more years or so.
 
Filter said:
that's in theory. lets see it done.
Click to expand...

It is done, already. CPU's already are known as common knowledge to scale nearly linearly with clockspeed in the recent Intel generations since the Core 2's. Users have already OC'd to 5ghz+. The benches all show the IPC gain. You'll see more results showing this as common once the CPU's have been out to end users for more than T-minus 1 day of launch ;). There's no true need to have the benches in front of you to understand this.

drescherjm said:
I thought stock voltage was 1.1V or lower.
Click to expand...

Noper. It's around 1.330v in all the shots I've seen so far as the "default" from people. May be a tad lower, I have heard 1.45v (actual, not set, so maybe 1.5v on most boards accounting for vdroop during use) is perfectly safe for air from those "in the know".

http://i109.photobucket.com/albums/n69/giorgioprimo/gigabyte p67 ud5/3dm11_51g.jpg?t=1293492547
Another 5.1ghz 2600K on 1.5v BIOS, ~1.45 actual per poster.
 
Last edited:
Filter said:
that's in theory. lets see it done.
Click to expand...

4.8ghz 2600k beats 4.4ghz 980x in most tests. Since the 980x is itself 50% more cpu that a quad nehalem, the performance gain here is more than 50%
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/13

Here a 4.8ghz 2600k is beating a 4.3ghz 950 by about 30%, that is an exceptionally high oc for a 950 and a pretty low oc for a 2600k. Standard oc maxes would put the 2600k about 50% faster.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/7
 
R-Type said:
4.8ghz 2600k beats 4.4ghz 980x in most tests. Since the 980x is itself 50% more cpu that a quad nehalem, the performance gain here is more than 50%
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/13
Click to expand...

most those benmark programs they used are limited to 4-8 threads so you cant say that the 980x is 50% more cpu. since its not using all 12 threads.

look at the cine bench where it can use all threads. 2600k doesn't win.

again apples to oranges.

and to the above poster 980x was bought to fold with and we already know the 2600k at 4.9ghz still doesn't come close to my 980x at 4.4ghz while working with big adv units.
 
Filter said:
and to the above poster 980x was bought to fold with and we already know the 2600k at 4.9ghz still doesn't come close to my 980x at 4.4ghz while working with big adv units.
Click to expand...

Cmon, don't spread misinformation: some lurkers may read this and take it as gospel that SB is "slower" than the normal i7's as you claim (when it's not).
 
Nice reviews.. only complain is that some site use 1650x1050 max and No AA and no AF.. wth is that no AF? LOL :)
 
GoldenTiger said:
Cmon, don't spread misinformation: some lurkers may read this and take it as gospel that SB is "slower" than the normal i7's as you claim (when it's not).
Click to expand...

Sorry but SB 2600k at 500mhz o/c more isnt faster then my 980x in F@H


All i said is it isnt 50% faster then you claimed. then you bring up overclocking. your keep changing your story.


Clock per Clock SB isnt 50% faster then i7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top