• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Sandy Bridge Reviews Released!

seanmcd said:
enough of the 980x bashing! There's no doubt the 980x is bad ass. Yes the new cpu's are performing better than it in some benchmarks. I'd still JIMP and so would you if you get get your hands on one for daily use.
Click to expand...

Like I said not sure why people are going "The 980x sux!" Hell, I've had mine for ten months and it's still not been totally dethroned, not until another 6 core or more beast comes out.

I guess people are just happy to see a $300 CPU compete with and often beat a $1000 CPU though that's not really a big deal historically as Intel's Extereme Edition CPUs normally don't have very compelling features over their non-EE brethern. The 980x was the first EE CPU in a LONG time that had something to offer besides an unlocked multiplier.

I'd like to see some real world gaming benchmarks running CF/SLI and EF/Suround.
 
pxc said:
He didn't want to post the current reality:
1qiz5u.jpg
Click to expand...

Man, don't you know the difference between a backhoe and a 'dozer?

One is for digging holes & trenches and the other is for pushing the dirt around.
sheesh.
 
added the Hardware Canucks review, and thanks Quickstrike for the formatting suggestion :)

edit: from the Hardware Canucks review:

Based on a third-party's extensive testing of 100 retail D2 stepping processors, this is how Sandy Bridge is shaping up on the overclocking front:

* Approximately 50% of CPUs can go up to 4.4~4.5 GHz
* Approximately 40% of CPUs can go up to 4.6~4.7 GHz
* Approximately 10% of CPUs can go up to 4.8~5 GHz (50+ multipliers are about 2% of this group)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Delete post
 
Last edited:
Porter_ said:
added the Hardware Canucks review, and thanks Quickstrike for the formatting suggestion :)

edit: from the Hardware Canucks review:
Click to expand...

Porter, those results are almost certainly gleaned from tests with the bugged bioses that all the boards had until today.

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1574130

With the new bios a bunch of chips that were stuck at 4.7-4.8 are now pushing well past 5ghz


And you guys could put a bit more effort into the google image searches. Here's a Bulldozer trying to surmount a Sandy Bridge :p
 
Porter_ said:
you're more than likely correct. i'm wondering who was important enough to get 100 chips allocated to them pre-release?
Click to expand...

I would think it would have to be a boutique PC builder since an OEM wouldn't be overclocking.
 
Awesome, thanks Kyle and look forward to the follow up OC testing!
 
R-Type said:
Awesome, thanks Kyle and look forward to the follow up OC testing!
Click to expand...


I talked to Intel engineers about overclocking to 5GHz. They said we should find processors to do that but it would be far and few between. We quote ASUS saying 2% in our article. I might be wrong, but I would not expect to all of a sudden find a lot of 5GHz air OCs....or water either. These CPUs seem to hit the point of diminishing returns rather quickly past 4.5GHz.
 
Thanks for the review Kyle, well done.

I'm still leaning towards the 2600K but kinda wondering if I should just get the 2500K and use the extra cash towards an SSD.
 
GLSauron said:
vRAM of 2.0v? Only if you want to be replacing the RAM *and* your CPU within a week. Get new RAM.

I'm still putting 4.6Ghz as my goal, with 5.0+ as the comedy awesome option.
Click to expand...

yea, 2.0v

i cant use it on a sandybridge motherboard?
 
Interesting view on Kyles benchmarks of the 980x vs the 2600k stock and o/c.
 
Filter said:
us on the [H]orde need it even at 4.4ghz :D
Click to expand...

Might want to look at what you get as far as WU/$ before building the next rig. Might build a lot more WUs with the same money.
 
R-Type said:
You can overclock all the locked processors to 4 multipliers over max turbo. This would take an i3 2100 to 3.7ghz and potentially higher with some baseclock fiddling. At that speed it will absolutely destroy any of the clarksdale duals.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
The i3 chips do not have turbo mode, so they are completely locked. Only way to overclock a SB i3 is by adjusting the BCLK which is limited to 103-105 mhz, resulting in a 3%-5% max increase.
So if you are lucky, an i3 2100 (2.93Ghz) can be overclocked to 3.0765Ghz

Only CPU's that have the turbo mode can be overclocked using the multiplier by up to 4 bins.
An i5 2500 that runs at 3.3 Ghz to 3.7 Ghz, can be pushed to run at 3.8 to 4.1 Ghz, a 15% overclock.
About the same as my i7 860 that's running a 25% overclock on air, with turbo mode enabled; 160 BCLK, with a multiplier up to 26, or 4.16 Ghz with a single thread. Also about the same $200 price I paid almost a year ago.

Only the K versions have fully multipliers for higher overclocks.
 
Has there been any analysis or views given on the importance (or lack of, whichever the case may be) of using higher speed DDR 3 memory?
 
limitedaccess said:
Has there been any analysis or views given on the importance (or lack of, whichever the case may be) of using higher speed DDR 3 memory?
Click to expand...

All the reviews above and what I've garnered from them suggest overclocking is a snap, and that super high memory speeds, tight timings, super coolers, etc., aren't quite as necessary this time. I haven't seen anything in terms of a serious mention on memory, though that's just what I've been reading.
 
nutzo said:
Wrong.
The i3 chips do not have turbo mode, so they are completely locked. Only way to overclock a SB i3 is by adjusting the BCLK which is limited to 103-105 mhz, resulting in a 3%-5% max increase.
So if you are lucky, an i3 2100 (2.93Ghz) can be overclocked to 3.0765Ghz

Only CPU's that have the turbo mode can be overclocked using the multiplier by up to 4 bins.
An i5 2500 that runs at 3.3 Ghz to 3.7 Ghz, can be pushed to run at 3.8 to 4.1 Ghz, a 15% overclock.
About the same as my i7 860 that's running a 25% overclock on air, with turbo mode enabled; 160 BCLK, with a multiplier up to 26, or 4.16 Ghz with a single thread. Also about the same $200 price I paid almost a year ago.

Only the K versions have fully multipliers for higher overclocks.
Click to expand...
Oh wow, thanks for correcting me on this. I somehow missed that the i3's didn't have turbo.

This makes the cheapest chip with turbo the i5-2300 at $177, at which point you may as well spend the extra $40 to get a fully unlocked 2500k. If you were going to buy a quad anyway, this isn't too far off i5-750 pricing. It seems Intel has simply cemented the fact that dual core cpu's are no longer an enthusiast item, something many of us have been preaching for a while... ;)
 
hey guys quick question. if amd cant pull off with their bulldozer what intel did with their SB what do you think will happen to amd. i like the compitition that we're having between the two company as it lowers the price of our goods. so hopefully amd can at least do something decent with their next line up. tia
 
canmanone said:
hey guys quick question. if amd cant pull off with their bulldozer what intel did with their SB what do you think will happen to amd. i like the compitition that we're having between the two company as it lowers the price of our goods. so hopefully amd can at least do something decent with their next line up. tia
Click to expand...

AMD's market share at its peak was never that high to begin with, and if the trend from Core 2 to present is any indicator, it will continue to decline.
 
Bulldozer will be a good processor in highly multithreaded loads provided AMD can clock their 4 module / 8 core high enough. In my work I could use a few for crunching Lung CT cases. Again provided that AMD clocks the Bulldozer high enough. I am not at all interested in 2.5 GHz parts.
 
All of a sudden, over the last twelve hours, my q9550 for the first time feels ancient to me. Oh well, hopefully I can get another 2-3 years out of it. I really envy you guys that can run out and upgrade to SB.
 
I have one question for anyone who has pored over all these reviews:
How much faster is a stock 2500k than an OCed 9550 (basically the best 775 has to offer) in gaming at mainstream resolutions (single gpu, ~16x12)?

Anand had a stock clock q6600 in their charts. [H] had no 775 at all and TR used a stock q9400.
 
Ruiner said:
I have one question for anyone who has pored over all these reviews:
How much faster is a stock 2500k than an OCed 9550 (basically the best 775 has to offer) in gaming at mainstream resolutions (single gpu, ~16x12)?

Anand had a stock clock q6600 in their charts. [H] had no 775 at all and TR used a stock q9400.
Click to expand...

the french review in the OP (Hardware.fr) pits SB against a lot of different CPU's - including the Q9550, Q9650, and QX9770. i assume these chips are not overclocked though.
 
Ruiner said:
I have one question for anyone who has pored over all these reviews:
Click to expand...
Comparing your specific config vs a stock 2500k is easy if the reviewer tested game(s) you play. Just benchmark your own system and compare it to those numbers in the same game(s).

Unfortunately, no one can hand you the specific benchmark numbers for your system on a platter, given the wide array of speed people overclock to and various video cards used.

Not trying to sound rude, but 1/2 the data you want is available and only you have the meaningful other half to answer your question. There are several utilities that make benchmarking easier. guru3d has several.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top