Nice to see we finally have reviews. Reading Anand's review right now... Arg the decision to wait for Bulldozer and see how things play out or just jump on the Sandy Bridge bandwagon right now is going to be a hard one!
Printable View
Nice to see we finally have reviews. Reading Anand's review right now... Arg the decision to wait for Bulldozer and see how things play out or just jump on the Sandy Bridge bandwagon right now is going to be a hard one!
The power consumption under load compared to a i7 920 is just crazy. Some of the reviews show close to 100W difference even with 1.4+ voltage on the 2600K.
I'm definitely picking up a 2600K for folding but now to find the best mobo.
HWiNFO32 offers a more advanced support of Sandy Bridge (since several months).
It can report several additional params and monitoring that no other tool is currently capable (like power limits, consumption, GT GPU clock, etc.).
wtf how is sandy bridge losing in real world tests, those amd systems were way slower in the synthetic tests. gotta read more reviews and see if the real world improvement is there.
http://images.tweaktown.com/content/3/7/3756_56.png
can you post up an example?Quote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35038.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by bamtan2
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35039.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35040.pnghttp://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35023.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35024.png
Reviews
http://www.hardwareheaven.com/reviews.php?reviewid=1091
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i...-2600k-review/
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel...cessors-Debut/
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=1057
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Ha...600K_i5_2500K/
http://lanoc.org/review/energy-items...k-sandy-bridge
http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/c...ridge_review/1
http://tbreak.com/tech/2011/01/intel...-2600k-review/
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/375...pus/index.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/815-...dy-bridge.html
According to the chart on Anandtech the K series don't support VT-d or TXT(Whatever that is :P).
Anyone got an explanation why?
And yet another review:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel...K-175630.shtml
VT-d has got to do with virtualization. mistake in the charts ?Quote:
Originally Posted by FISKER_Q
http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.ph...1&limitstart=1Quote:
Core i5-2500K Specifications
Base Clock Speed: 3.3GHz
# of Cores: 4
# of Threads: 4
Max Turbo Frequency: 3.7GHz
L1 Cache: 32KB Instruction and 32KB Data for each core
L2 Cache: 256KB Shared Instruction/Data for each core
L3 Cache: 6MB Shared Instruction/Data among all cores
Instruction Set: 64-bit
Instruction Set Extensions: SSE4.2
Lithography: 32nm
Max TDP: 95W
1ku Bulk Budgetary Price: $216
Memory Types: DDR3-1066/1333
Intel HD Graphics: Yes
Intel HD Graphics 2000/3000: 3000
Graphics Base Frequency: 850MHz
Graphics Max Dynamic Frequency: 1100MHz
Intel Flexible Display Interface: Yes
Intel Clear Video HD Technology: Yes
Dual Display Capable: Yes
Socket Supported: LGA1155
Intel Hyper-Threading Technology: No
Intel Virtualization Technology: Yes
Intel Advanced Vector Extensions (AVX): Yes
Intel vPro / TXT / VT-d / Intel SIPP: Yes
Intel Quick Sync Video: Yes
AES New Instructions: Yes
wow 2600k is even beating 980x!
would there still be a socket 2011 or is this the highend SB??
will wait for that one and for the bulldozer/FX whatever amd comes up with before jumping..
This is madness....:up:
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/435/sboc.jpg
http://www.techreaction.net/2011/01/...p67-part-12/4/
K-series do not support neither TXT nor VT-d
damn, that sucks. bad for people who were looking to build some cheap workstations :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumak
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...k,2833-18.html - pay attention to the minimum fps :)
Any reviews of a duel core laptop? Pretty sure they are not stuffing a quad core into the X201 Tablet replacement :) with these batterytimes I would not mind though
Anand mentions 4 and 6 cores on LGA2011 in Q4, without IGP. No 8 cores though. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaserjzx100
8 full cores do not fit thermal envelope at 32 nm
8 bulldozer semi-cores do fit
VT-d also needs to be supported by the chipset and the bios of the mobo.Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
If true that sucks :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumak
Since the IMC and GFX is now integrated in the CPU, the VT-d support is now split between CPU (DMA, Memory, GFX) and PCH (HDA, SATA, USB, GbE, APIC, HPET..)
just thinking.. if the 2500 is ~$215(?) & is better than i7-920.. what will happen to the price of 2nd hand i7 CPUs? :D
Anand reviewed SB notebook (i7-2820QM + HD3000):
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/i...le-landscape/2
Looks very impressive. Mostly faster then desktop i7-920, pretty capable graphics (level of hd5470 & 320M) and excellent battery life.
Personally i'm locking forward to buy i7-2657M based notebook (i hope it would not be to expensive). That thing would destroy any brazos based notebook.
The turbo mode for SB notebooks has been improved a lot. If you look at first page of anandtech review, you would see that 2820QM can go up to 3.4GHz when 1 core used, 3.3GHz when two cores are used and 3.1GHz when all the 4 cores are used.
Also, all the mobile CPUs (except OEM & LV/ULV models) have GPU turbo up to 1300MHz
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/i...le-landscape/1
Not to mention that power consumption is much better than previous generation
EDIT: LV/ULV models are going to have HD3000 (12EU) graphics. Though, the GPU clock is going to be lower than regular models
yeah the high-end mobile SB chips are impressive, but you know darn well they are going to command a very high price. I'm more interested in seeing how the lower-end mobile SB will be priced.
I was surprised by this too. Maybe Anand made a typo there? Of course,there is a possibility that intel is going for maximum of 6 cores with SB(power limited) and 8 cores with IB refresh.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
Impressive gaming performance, look like I'm gonna return the i7 950 along with the memory then. Now I just need a high end mobo, any words about how much it's gonna cost?
At first I was kinda expecting Sandy Bridge to perform the same as the first generation i7's, but it beats the 980x in half of the tests which is quite impressive but not impressive enough for me to replace my X58/1366 setup, waiting for 2011 or 1356 or whatever is next. But still, its quite a decent product from Intel, the i7 2600K quite a beast of a CPU. I wonder if Intel will drop the 980x price though.
hi guys,
did you notice that :
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/815-...dy-bridge.html
it is in french, but the graph is clear : under heavy CPU load, the IGP performance is falling down (and drastically).
any cpu under load decrease rendering performance of the gpu....Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
very impressive performance and power efficiency on a ~210mm˛ die, well done intel
now bring us SB-E and IB :D
This is the standard Turbo behavior, since the TDP limit is shared among IA and GT Cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
True, but not in such a range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe
The test of the 2600K is very clear :
As the load of the CPU inscreases, the FPS in HAWK drops from 80 to 20 FPS (divided by 4).
With a discrete GPU (HD5450), the frame rate is 68 whatever the CPU load is.
I know this can be easily explained by TDP sharing, nethertheless, it is a real issue, IMO.
It also could be due to sharing of the L3 cache. With too much going on, the GPU may become cache starved I would imagine...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumak
That sucks. One of the reasons that puts me off...Quote:
Originally Posted by geo
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthShader
I think we will see 4 and 6 cores for consumer market, and 8 and 12 cores for servers.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Yes, it is. Not sure anything can be done, though. If it's TDP, then perhaps there will be some BIOS option to turn this off... If it's caches and memory bandwidth being starved then nothing can be done most likely.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
Really powerfull CPU's, cruncher's dream :yepp:
It seems my guess about Sandy Bridge prices was right.
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8255/sblineup.gif
Now all they need to do is release a Core i3 2120K for ~150 USD and the lower-end chip customers will be happy. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by AnandTech
2600K beats 980x in some tests because consumer applications are not well threaded(past 4 or max 8 threads). SB does have,apart from ~10% better IPC, higher turbo modes that engage even if all 4 cores are 100% loaded so there is one more performance feature added,which is very good(TDP of underutilized GPU logic is enabling this feature).Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrono Detector
As AT mentioned,there will be 4 and 6 core chips on 2011 socket so you will get all SB benefits with more cores and more cache.
Like someone mentioned if L3 is utilized by CPU cores a lot then GPU might be getting less of it so there is a potential GPU bottleneck.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
My AM3 system with my 1090TBE tells me I don't need to upgrade, I can do anything any everything I need to do. But yet, I have this urge that tells me my AM3 system is wrong and I could do anything and everything more betterer. Me want.
is there any review that does a clock for clock comparison?
i run my 920 @ 3.8ghz daily and want to see if i see any huge gains
its been too long since i upgraded! need to find out if i should bite now or wait for SB-E
Yes, and especially when you see the electrical usage essentially halved vs a i7-920 at the same speeds and output of a 2600 non K in WCG at 3492 just outdoes a i7-920 at 4GHz..Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
The old Intel would have charged $2000 for the Core i7-2600K. I'm glad Intel woke up and realized folks can't spend house payments on CPUs. This pricing can really stomp a hole in AMD if all does not go well for Zambezi. Honestly, I think 8 real cores will end up being very competitive with Intel's 4+HT cores. Lets just hope AMD can sell an 8 core CPU for $350 or less.
SB is truly a great CPU! Congrats to Dr. Who?
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...formanceratingQuote:
Originally Posted by ap4lifetn
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/815-...dy-bridge.html
Maybe I shouldn't post this as I'm sure I'm going to get a bit of stick but here goes.
I'm have a similar CPU/GPU issue atm on my Giga P67 & 2500k....
Haven't investigated it much so could be all sorts of problems like unstable clock, not enough vcore lack of the magic internal pll fix etc but here it is & I thought it would be worth mentioning.
As always 3DMARK03 & 05 CPU tests require a tad more vcore than any other test I run Prime, LinX etc.... nothing new there. 03 is constant with a bit more vcore but 05 only passes 1/2 the time & out of those times rarely achieves a decent score. I can consistently achieve a similar score at lower CPU speed like 200MHz or so.
It probably doesn't help I am still using an old 3870X2 as the dual core cards are known to give the CPU a good pasting but this is something I didn't expect. It looks to me crossfire or even quadfire will be tricky at max CPU speed with the 2500.... maybe the 2600 with its larger L3 cache will do better but we'll have to see.
Your thoughts please.....
#### Edit #####
Gave up & put a HD6950 in & all is well, looks like my setup dont like the old 3870x2!!!
.
one more review (SB as HTPC cpu)
http://www.missingremote.com/review/...bl-motherboard
The hardware.fr link is pretty interesting since they shown the exact gain that HT bring on both Lynnfield and SB. With and without HT the gap is around ~13.2 and 11.3% at 2.8Ghz.As can be seen, with HT it narrows down quite a bit in few tests while it jumps up in 1 or two totaling in lower advantage for SB with HT ON. I heard that HT should have been improved considerably with SB since it has much more potent memory subsystems(much higher L/S bandwidth) ,but in tests they ran it is not showing at all. I suppose that when AVX optimized software arrives it will show up in tests as a good performance uplift.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
english please?Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
or maybe a quick summary..
is it <20% clock for clock?
I don't speak french or german as well, but you actually don't need it to understand the charts. The clock for clock perf diff varies from 5% to 20% depends on application.Quote:
Originally Posted by ap4lifetn
Na its the same for dedicated gpus, when i run boinc in backgorund while I play TF2, my avg fps is a lot lower then when I stop boinc. And thats with a hexacore and a HD5870.Quote:
Originally Posted by cpuz
How many cores can TF2 utilize ? If you limit boinc to 4 cores and TF2 uses up to 2 cores then you shouldn't see much of a drop off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
the performance jump from 1156/1366 Core i7 to SB 2500/2600 is like the performance jump we saw from Q6xxx to Nehalem no?
the test was compared across mulitple platforms, and only SB had losses in the game when cinebench was using up more coresQuote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
i honestly woulnt call this bad at all considering its trying to manage the TD of 2 components with the same heatsink, this is actually how almost every laptop will work in the near future when fusion based cpus are most of the market (not saying AMD fusion, just all cpu+gpu packages in laptops)
it will require testing to be much more detailed in how the results were obtained instead of just reading the FPS and calling it a day. i hope this means we will see really nice utilities from both AMD and Intel for showing us the turbo speeds and TDP usage for each part of the package during gameplay. when everything is perfect hopefully in the next 10 years, the cpu and gpu will both be running at 100% load in gaming, because the cpu will be downclocked until its maxed out, and the gpu overclocked, with per frame balancing to maintain the 100% load on both parts of the chip.
what this does mean though is that you probably do not want to have your cpu encoding in the background while you play warcraft if your using SBs integrated GPU
TF with MT uses 2.x threads, but you allways notice a drop since the BONIC projects are heavy on the cache. It was the same with every cpu i owned till now (C2D, C2Q, and even on X4). You notice it less in gpu bound games like crysis, but you still have a considerable fps drop.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
That SB has an additional concern with the TDP limit isn't exactly helping this either.
Did anyone noticed SB hardware transcode test?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...2100-tested/9#
It's just me or picture with a police car in fact looks much better after SB transcode then after x86 & ATI transcode (not to mention terrible Nvidia quality). It seems like some kind of AA was applied to the picture during transcoding.
There is no Intel vPro on their K processors? That is almost a deal breaker for me!
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/inte...e/all_cpus.jpg
QuickSync is pretty good at what it's designed for but there is one big issue with it : you can't use it on desktop if you have discrete gfx card in your system. AT indicates that intel may be preparing some sort of switch (software?) later on,so it may be resolved. On notebook this is not a problem,but majority of users won't use their notebooks for such a task anyway(or they will use it only when they really have no other choice).
He explain it on the article, Quick Sync loose some sharpness ( nothing to do with AA ), this help for this image ( the police car ), but normally it's not desirable to get this lost of sharpness.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
http://www.computerbase.de/artikel/p...formanceratingQuote:
Originally Posted by waway625
According to these charts clock for clock, the jump from Yorkfield to Nehalem is a little higher.
Yes, i saw it. But in fact "lost of sharpness" affected nothing except much better looking edges (especially white line on the police car) after SB hardware transcoding. So i guess this is not just a "lost of sharpness" but some kind of hardware post-processing mentioned at IDF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanek
i think the batman example looked greatQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
the bond one however was identical between the x86 and 6870, yet the batman one was clearly having different brightness between the two, so i dont know if a setting got messed up or what
this is a nice feature to have and i hope that amd fusion bring competition here so we get better and better quality and speeds in the next few years
also did they ever compare file sizes between all the end results?
At first, I'd think it's a trival case of being starved for memory bandwidth. But if you say only SB showed this behavior, then I'd say it's the L3 cache... so memory starving after all. The IGP sharing the cache seems to be a big deal for SB - Dr.Who even suggested the IGP will challenge Llano thanks to it. :rolleyes: First step towards this goal has been done - the HD5450 is challenged. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
There are surely some sophisticated algorithms taking care of dividing the available cache among the IGP and cores, depending on needs. If your cores aren't heavily taxed, then most cache is probably reserved for the IGP. At full load, the cores need the cahce to handle it, not much left for IGP, effective bandwidth drops, performance plumets.
Well, LucidLogix already announced a software switching sollution for SB. But to work, you will need a monitor plugged in the mobo's video socket. This means, you need to have a mobo with a video socket. (duh)Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
That means P67 users will have to use traditional x86 encoding on their machines. :rolleyes:
Do any of these reviews feature a GTA IV bench?
Thank you! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Any chance you guys will do a face off of top of the line boards? Say P67A-UD7 vs Maximus IV Extreme vs MSI Big Bang Marshal or whatever is their top end at launch? I am interested in multi-GPU performance since manufacturers are getting creative with the PCIe.
Hardware.fr does feature that test, quite a nice improvement over i7 9xx :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Raqia
I'm assuming you can't overclock on the H67 chipset. Such a shame. :(
did anyone overclock it and check the igp performance vs stock?
Do all the 2600k chips have the same max multi?
Sorry i got alittle lost i all those reviews.
No, they don't seem to have the same max multi cowie :(Quote:
Originally Posted by cowie
anand did, i thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by rozzyroz
all i remember was ~85% OC saw just ~19% more perf
Do i pay less for the one that has a weak multi? :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Olivon
You mean this one:Quote:
Originally Posted by Manicdan
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph4083/35022.png
I think there is Anand's typo here. I suppose, the clock was increased from 1100 MHz to 1550Mhz (not from 850 to 1550) which is 40% clock increase.
yup that one,Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
i think its accurate
just look at HD2000 to HD3000, its 2x larger and only like 40-60% faster. some rare cases its near double, but most seemed like a half jump
i really think they reached their limits on the GPU without making major changes
Nice job ... 1 thing, on hardware used listdescription you write LGA1156 ( instead of LGA1155 ). too bad you don't have a 950 or 975 for compare. more accurate of the jump between the 920 and 980x ( who show his limit on memory test vs the 950-975)Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
hopefully the Z68 chipset will sort out all of you IGP users who want to overclock ;)
sandy bridge looks good.....cant wait for the enthusiast stuff!
Desktop performance is about in line with what I was expecting, perhaps a bit better, but the mobile parts look really good. Too bad all I do on my personal laptop is surf the web.
maybe I missed it, but what about SATA performance???????
+1:(Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
With the way these chips look, I really don't think I need to OC anymore. Intel is making this a lot like plug and play, and having the CPU basically scale itself according to demand is pretty good.
That being said, I'm waiting for Bulldozer and how it will address single vs multithreaded performance.
However, personally, things are looking especially grim for AMD now. I'm finally feeling the age of my CPU, it's simply not holding up in new games like Civ 5. I want to upgrade now, and the chips are appropriately priced. While I think AMD will come out with something very good, at this point in time I just don't have that much faith in them to wait nearly 6 more months (if they keep that promise at all).
So unless AMD peeps something soon, I might grab Sandy Bridge on its first sale soon.
Also, incredible lol's at nvidia's terrible CUDA encoding were had @ anandtech.
Where is the mobile duelcore reviews :s
HWCANUCKS: did u tested x4 975 and x4 840 too?:) I see it in graphs :)
SKY, any chance of doing some tests with Civ 5? We've talked about this before, and I think it would be a perfect way to test Civ 5's scaling.
There's a notable problem with turn cycling with a large number of AI's in the middle to late game, and I want to see if improving the CPU helps.
Are there any reviews with clock for clock comparisons, comparing sandy bridge, lynnfield, bloomfield, and equivalent amd chips? Comparing all these cpus at different clock speeds is useless for me, because if you assume that you're running a lynnfield at 4ghz, how much benefit would a sandy bridge at the same clock be on average?
i really miss a socket 775 cpu there, e.g. a core2quad :(Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL
Ok... so now that we've seen the official reviews (and the chips have been in the hands of others and for sale in Malaysia for weeks) when are they going to be sold?
Thats actually a really good idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
This is what I was wondering as well... Good reviews but I wanna buy one....:D Also I would love to see more user overclock results on real mobo's (not Intel trash) because if 5GHZ seems to be the norm on 2600K after these new BIOS's come out then it just might be worth thinking of upgrading....Quote:
Originally Posted by trn
Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
Run it as a standlone, just publish results, refer to old article for testing conditions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ
I know it's hard to find a save game or something where the game begins to bog on turn-cycling, but this would be a good test of whether you can cater to real situations and the audience at the same time.
Also you mentioned that the game is heavily CPU bound. Another good scenario to test.
As someone else said before, socket 775 would be an excellent reference. Just like the 4850 / GTS 250 reference points I have been asking for before.
Why not? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by clayton
For anyone interested... we hit 4.7GHz...
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news...rom-intel.aspx
Since the OP refuses to post our reviews in his threads.
Hey guys, I'd really like to tailor part 2 of my review to answer as many questions as possible. If you'd be so kind as to chime in with a vote in my poll, it would be most appreciated :)
http://www.techreaction.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=4706
I sent some saved big games with turns taking arround 40-45s on i7920 to Marc at hardware.fr for his CPU comparative review. I think it should be updated soon with sandy bridge but I don't know if they'll add Civ 5 and its turns speed because he was undecisive for adding the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by cegras
If a reviewer or an other SB possesor wants to test it out, just pm me for the saves, i'd be glad to help and thankful for the results :D
(the saves are ready for measuring)
Civ 5.
not willing to sign up yet, but option one, clock for clock vs bloomfield!Quote:
Originally Posted by miahallen
NP....I'll monitor here as well :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Boogerlad
Intel became evil. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ghost_recon88
Pffff... no SB without GPU yet? Without GPU should OC much better.
And I was actually waiting a cheap SB quad core(8 HT) by 90$ omg...
SB without IGP = Xeon, cant wait for that one.
:)
Don't see why, the GPU is completely power-gated when disabled.Quote:
Originally Posted by jogshy