Sandy Bridge = Legendary?

Is SB legendary?

  • Yes

    Votes: 173 55.6%

  • No

    Votes: 74 23.8%

  • Not yet

    Votes: 64 20.6%
  • Total voters
    311
If the Q6600 is considered legendary, and I believe it should be, then the 2600K/2500K most definitely are as well. The introduction of the ring bus was a big leap forward. Sandy Bridge is still a monster two years after release.
 
///M3 said:
If the Q6600 is considered legendary, and I believe it should be, then the 2600K/2500K most definitely are as well. The introduction of the ring bus was a big leap forward. Sandy Bridge is still a monster two years after release.
Click to expand...

To me the Q6600 was not legendary. AMD was able to match the performance of the Q6600 with the Phenom II X4.

when the I7 920 came out, AMD was unable to catch it performance wise until the 8350 was released last November (i could be a month or 2 off).

This is why the I7 920 is legendary.
 
First i7 generation is considered legendary, I'll say, you can even run it with today's programs and it can still handle what you can throw at it.
 
I think Core 2 (Conroe+Kentsfield) has been one of the biggest steps in the right direction for Intel (includes a little bit of Pentium M too). As it was the abandonment of the poor Pentium 4 direction of doing things.

Nehalem was the next huge leap. Integrating the memory controller in order to ditch the FSB and finally be able to compete (and win) against AMD when it comes to memory bandwidth and the such (and to remove that bottleneck). Although high introductory costs (for the X58 platform) and a confusing mix of i5+i7&LGA1156+LGA1366 resulted in well... not the best environment for consumers to be buying.

Sandy Bridge though was a very nice increase in performance, for a good chunk of money less too. Nothing was very ... revolutionary though. It's not ditching long pipelines & voltage leak problems of the P4... and it's not ditching the FSB of all of Intel's previous cpus.... it's just an improvement of all the shit that was already figured out. Don't get me wrong, it was a nice improvement, but I see the two other changes as just as legendary, if not a little more.

Curious to see how Haswell will turn out. It should be good, as there are some exciting features being brought to the table.
 
DASHlT said:
To me the Q6600 was not legendary. AMD was able to match the performance of the Q6600 with the Phenom II X4.
Click to expand...

The Q6600 came out in January 2007. The PIIX4s came out in 2009. Two years is a LOT of time when it comes to computing, and the Q6600 was most certainly a legendary chip.

G0 stepping Q6600s were potent overclockers for only around $200 when intel lowered prices. I remember them being suggested for EVERY new/upgrade build thread on this forum. Whatever the budget, Q6600s were shoehorned into those rigs--it was a great time.

The i7-920 was a sweet chip (thanks Nehalem architecture) but X58 boards were easily in the $300+ range for a long time. Corresponding Intel P45 mobos for the Q6600 that could OC started at about $125. The 920 was a costly (and fast) option, but the Q6600 continued to beat it out when it came to price/performance for quite awhile. It wasn't until LGA1156 came around and mixed the spectrum up, but even still people were enjoying their Q6600 rigs.

The 2500K/2600K is the Q6600 of our "time" in my opinion. It's that $200-some dollar chip, great performance, good priced mobos to compliment it, OCs like crazy... everything most people are looking for. The 920 had a more expensive entry fee and supplies ran out quickly in the beginning.
 
colinstu said:
The Q6600 came out in January 2007. The PIIX4s came out in 2009. Two years is a LOT of time when it comes to computing, and the Q6600 was most certainly a legendary chip.

G0 stepping Q6600s were potent overclockers for only around $200 when intel lowered prices. I remember them being suggested for EVERY new/upgrade build thread on this forum. Whatever the budget, Q6600s were shoehorned into those rigs--it was a great time.

The i7-920 was a sweet chip (thanks Nehalem architecture) but X58 boards were easily in the $300+ range for a long time. Corresponding Intel P45 mobos for the Q6600 that could OC started at about $125. The 920 was a costly (and fast) option, but the Q6600 continued to beat it out when it came to price/performance for quite awhile. It wasn't until LGA1156 came around and mixed the spectrum up, but even still people were enjoying their Q6600 rigs.

The 2500K/2600K is the Q6600 of our "time" in my opinion. It's that $200-some dollar chip, great performance, good priced mobos to compliment it, OCs like crazy... everything most people are looking for. The 920 had a more expensive entry fee and supplies ran out quickly in the beginning.
Click to expand...

And pretty much the only reason that Q6600 isn't relevant today is the pricing of their successors - and especially i5 in LGA1155; it's NOT a fault in the CPU itself.

I'm running a Q6600 (bone stock), and it easily does everything I could ask, and then some. What is putting the pressure on me to upgrade is more the pricing of DDR3 (which my current Q6600 motherboard does not use) - not a fault in Q6600 itself.
 
-Athlon 64 (beat the pants off Pentium 4's)
-e8400 (overclocking beasts)
-Q6600 (quad core beasts)
-i7 920 (longevity and overclocking beasts)

2500k/2600k isn't in the books yet since not enough time has passed IMO.

I'm still with the socket 1366 platform because I don't find upgrading worth it at the moment. I went from 920 to a cheap 970. I'm holding out for Broadwell-E or Skylake-E, or whatever is the *true* successor to the socket 1366 platform.
 
PGHammer said:
I'm running a Q6600 (bone stock), and it easily does everything I could ask, and then some. What is putting the pressure on me to upgrade is more the pricing of DDR3 (which my current Q6600 motherboard does not use) - not a fault in Q6600 itself.
Click to expand...

Most of those DDR2 boards max out at 8GB, also, as far as I'm aware. Enough for most, but sometimes I've got both VMWare Workstation AND Firefox open, so 8GB is not enough for me. I run 12GB currently but would like 16GB. So even regardless of price, I wouldn't have been able to do that with my P35 setup. I have a VMWare ESXi server also and it's a socket 775 setup... I have the maximum 8GB (ECC) in it but would have also liked 16GB if it'd been possible. I use IOMMU to pass through multiple devices to multiple VMs, and using IOMMU seems to make VMWare ESXi VMs actually use twice the amount of RAM you assign to them (unless I've just misconfigured it, but I can't seem to figure out how if so).

I expect to keep my 2500k for quite a while. At the very least I am waiting for DDR4 before I upgrade again, but even when Broadwell rolls around, if I don't have a specific reason to upgrade from my 2500k then I will hold off even longer than that.

I had a C2D E6600 for years. It was good. BTW, most of you actually made the wrong choice in going for those Q6600s, especially those of you that are gaming. Almost no games used >2 cores back then, the clockspeed was lower, TDP higher, and just generally wasn't the best choice for most tasks. Quad-core is, and back then was even more so, for stuff like video encoders, etc. Not gaming. They were still good CPUs and the G0 did let them overclock pretty well, but even then it was mostly a waste. Not to say that nobody here had a reason to buy one (nor am I saying it was a terrible idea - just not necessarily as ideal as some say it was), but it was more popular than it deserved. And yes, I did also buy a Q6600 myself, though I didn't use it in my desktop (and I actually do VMs and video processing and stuff to use more cores - not so much gaming which wouldn't have). Especially those of you who bought Q6600s when the 45nm Penryn/Wolfdale/etc. CPUs were out, because those were a good improvement. I'd rather have an E8400 than a Q6600 for most purposes.

For general purpose computing, multiple cores are usually not even close to as good an upgrade as clockspeed and IPC. Multiple cores are what you do when you run into walls with clockspeed/IPC OR when you know you'll be using highly paralleled stuff. It's just way easier to add a second core than it is to double clockspeed or IPC (other than for SIMD instructions).
 
Last edited:
I see it as legendary. I replaced my OC'd Q6600 [3.4GHz] and was hitting 4.8GHz with a 2600k in no time. If in another two years, a modestly OC'd SB can hang with the sub-$400 chip, it'll be awesome in the eyes of that owner and their purchase more than validated.
 
No doubt the 2500/2600 are good CPU's, but I wouldn't call them legendary yet. Maybe in a couple more years if it holds up. I'd say for sure the Q6600 is legendary status.
 
I vote for the 2500k being legendary, it's still such an amazingly strong CPU and can keep up with all but the most high end multi-GPU configurations. It's overclocking ability is amazing and it has a very stable and yet cheap platform. Gatta love sandy.
 
This shouldn't be a discussion of whether sandy bridge is legendary versus any other gen/cpu/socket but whether it stands on its own merits to reach that level. To me there's no doubt the 2500k warrants that label.

Each generation for AMD and Intel has a cpu has that right blend of value, performance, and overclocking ability. The 2500k is clearly the best cpu in that respect since the 920 and the proliferation of the cpu was certainly helped by much more respectable 1155 mobo prices. I loved 1366 cpus but goddamn those motherboard prices.
 
I think overall CPU increases are somewhat the least exciting. For years now, a standard user could get by with any 2.0ghz chip. Only real noticeable gains are gaming and professional - specific work.

I remember a day when increasing your processor speed would directly correlate to your enjoyment of using the PC at all times. Sigh. Maybe I'm just getting old.
 
Its at the top because the market hasnt demanded higher, if this logic was the case then the 486DX4-100mhz would be "Legendary" if the market never demanded higher.


I would have to support this poster's logic....
onedestinazn2 said:
No doubt the 2500/2600 are good CPU's, but I wouldn't call them legendary yet. Maybe in a couple more years if it holds up. I'd say for sure the Q6600 is legendary status.
Click to expand...
 
I think that the processor that ignited Intel desire for IPC was the Pentium M, that little chip was so small and efficient. The Q6600 was legendary too, able to have the edge over the late AMD Phenom X4 based on Barcelona, the Q9550 had the performance/price ratio, the i5 750 was exceptionally good for the price, the i7 920 was one of the CPU's with the best longetivity on the market, the i5 2500K is one of the most powerful CPU's in the performance/price department, still even on the heels of more expensive i7 models, the i7 2600K is amazing as even two years later, still being one of the fastest processors on the market. FX 8350 was some sort of AMD comeback being able to offer a nice performance/price ratio between the i5 and the i7 after the Zambezi fuad. I think all CPU's have some story to write.
 
I'm still rocking my 930 (close enough) and don't feel a need for more CPU power yet.

I think the 920 D0 is legendary due to its longevity. It could easily last someone until 2015 if overclocked to 4.0Ghz.

I think the 2500k will be legendary too in time.
 
+1 on 920 D0's
Admittedly I have a 950 but many mate's have them and there never seems to be that much of a reason to upgrade.
All those D0 chips perform the same and the 920 was the value package.
 
I think Sandy Bridge is nowhere near a legendary CPU. The CPU doesn't offer many PCI-Express lanes, is hard locked (except for the K models) and has so many other limitation and restrictions by Intel as part of their "market segmentation" strategy that to call it legendary would be complementing arrogance.

The truly legendary CPUs were those cheap low bin CPUs that you used to be able to overclock to high heaven with little effort for maximum performance, or chips that one could use in a manner that they weren't really intended, but still worked amazingly well (Celeron 300A in a BP6).

Intel as of late has gone out of their way to ensure that the days of getting something for less than they think you should be paying are over...and I fear that truly legendary Intel CPUs are a thing of the past.:(
 
I've spent a lot of $$ upgrading other parts of my rig...videocard, SSD, keyboards, mice but my 920 D0 at 4.2 is still there, hanging tough. Will shed a tear when i replace it with Hawell :(
 
The 920 was/is way more legendary than the 2600k ever will be. IMO. :p
 
The 920 D0 went from 2.66 to 4.2+ on BCLK overclocking, far more impressive than a 2600k going from 3.5 to 5.0 IMO. Plus, the 920 was on the legitimate enthusiast platform :p
 
Tsumi said:
The 920 D0 went from 2.66 to 4.2+ on BCLK overclocking, far more impressive than a 2600k going from 3.5 to 5.0 IMO. Plus, the 920 was on the legitimate enthusiast platform :p
Click to expand...

Not only that, but could upgrade to Hexacore (i7 970, etc) too from the 920, which is what I did.
 
the way things turned out, Sandy Bridge is equally as legendary as the Q6600 imo. both fantastic processors.
 
I just picked up a 2600K. Going to see how it fares against my 4.8GHz 3570K. Also got a FX 8320 that overclocks to 4.6Ghz. Gonna have some fun!
 
I think platform is related. 1366 had the superior upgrade path to 6-core as was mentioned, but 1155 was superior in performance to both cost and power use. They both had their pros. ;)
 
Now that Haswell is out and considering it brings only 15% over SB, runs even hotter than IB and overclocks poorly i'd say Sandy Bridge is definitely legendary. The heydays of overclocking may never return...

At the time i picked my current 2500k over 2600k because it offered better price/performance ratio (figured HT wasn't worth it 40%+ price) but now i kind of regret that decision. Might be hunting for a cheap 2600k/2700k now but they're hard to find.

Other great cpu's from the past i've owned:
P4 2.4C
Q6600
E4300 - remember this cheap Core2Duo? Came in at 1.8GHz and overclocked easily past 3GHz!
 
mircx said:
Now that Haswell is out and considering it brings only 15% over SB, runs even hotter than IB and overclocks poorly i'd say Sandy Bridge is definitely legendary. The heydays of overclocking may never return...
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true....

First and foremost, Haswell does not generate more heat than IB or SB. Haswell's power consumption is a lot less, therefore you're not going to generate more heat from less power. It's just not happening. Now, the reason why the core temp seems to run "hot" is because you have less area for the heat to dissipate. Just because the core is hot, doesn't make it "hotter" than IB or SB. You can only generate so much heat from so many Watts with these. It's one of the trade offs with going smaller. Less surface area.


Just because you aren't running at 5Ghz, doesn't mean it's not good enough. Since you don't need 5Ghz on Haswell to reach the performance of a 5Ghz Sandy Bridge. It's the reason why the speed of any given CPU is only relevant within' it's own generation/architecture.
 
Smaller die, crappy tim or too much space between the die and ihs, etc. Whatever the reason, (i never stated one so i'm not sure exactly what you find untrue in what i said) Haswell DOES work at a higher temperature in load than SB and IB.

It also consumes more power in load than IB and about the same as SB probably due to integrated vrm.

I never said Haswell is not "good enough". Coming from an older system it might me worth it to upgrade, but if you have SB or IB it makes little sense.
 
mircx said:
Smaller die, crappy tim or too much space between the die and ihs, etc. Whatever the reason, (i never stated one so i'm not sure exactly what you find untrue in what i said) Haswell DOES work at a higher temperature in load than SB and IB.

It also consumes more power in load than IB and about the same as SB probably due to integrated vrm.

I never said Haswell is not "good enough". Coming from an older system it might me worth it to upgrade, but if you have SB or IB it makes little sense.
Click to expand...

The performance per watt is still greater with Haswell than with IB or SB.
 
IntelEnthusiast said:
I have a feeling that the Intel® Core™ i5-2500K will go down as one of the best processor we have ever released. It opened the door for overclocking for a great deal more people than ever before and It had a price that was reasonable for the level of performance that it game.
Click to expand...

And of course, the 100 dollar more proc of the time, the i7 2600k builds on top of the i5 with hyper-threading.

I've yet to run anything this processor can't handle and I "only" have a GTX 670.

I was skeptical at first, but more and more, it seems like the low adoption rate of win8 will be proven as people don't need a new computer. Granted, I don't run SLI or triple screens - I tried it... not that impressed. Its cool yes, but many games don't support it (like left for dead2). Now I will say that in BF3, it gave a huge advantage, but at the same time, was a little overwhelming.

I didn't ever think we'd have an epic processor that could compete with the celeron 300a, however the sandybridge has done so with sugar sprinkles on top.
 
Skillz said:
That's not entirely true....

First and foremost, Haswell does not generate more heat than IB or SB. Haswell's power consumption is a lot less, therefore you're not going to generate more heat from less power. It's just not happening. Now, the reason why the core temp seems to run "hot" is because you have less area for the heat to dissipate. Just because the core is hot, doesn't make it "hotter" than IB or SB. You can only generate so much heat from so many Watts with these. It's one of the trade offs with going smaller. Less surface area.


Just because you aren't running at 5Ghz, doesn't mean it's not good enough. Since you don't need 5Ghz on Haswell to reach the performance of a 5Ghz Sandy Bridge. It's the reason why the speed of any given CPU is only relevant within' it's own generation/architecture.
Click to expand...
That is true. If clock for clock SB to IB was 200-300 MHz, then Haswell is about 400-600, so a person would only need 4.4 to 4.6 to equal a 5ghz SB cpu. That is pretty good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top