The Sandy Bridge Preview (Anand)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trinibwoy

On the other hand there's no point rationalizing people's feeling of entitlement either.

---

well, since people pay for the cpu's it isn't difficult to imagine people getting the feeling of entitlement :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kl0012

Isn't K-series targets espetially the "enthusiast" crowd? After all it seems that mainstream K-series is going to be pretty affordable and makes the "enthusiast" life much easier.
Also theres nothing new in SB limited overclocking. I mean this is not because the overclocking is locked on the chip level, but because the lack of appropriate PCI-e multipliers inside the cpu. There was chipset in the past without appropriate AGP multipliers and this didn't stop a real enthusiast from an overclocking, it just was a bit harder job. I mean overclocking these days is not what it was some time ago.

---

I didn't limit "enthusiast" to LN2 guys. if you read my reply i mentioned people in Collage, new jobs etc who aren't going to buy $1000 cpu's.

yeah. K series is fine but i doubt the limited multipliers can just be used top push the cpu more than 400-600mhz .DrWho said, SB overclocking isn't limited but has a different way of overclocking . well, now Anand is saying something else.


i

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Pretty good boost with the new GPU,good work intel . The CPU core to core improvement is around 10% as Anand says in the conclusion,but the retail 2400 will have 3.4Ghz Turbo so a few percent should be added on top of that.Pretty solid improvement all around ,GPU being the most reworked part.

---

i agree, this along with amd's solution will hurt nvidia something fierce. and if the amd part will crossfirex with a regular videocard, there will be big trouble for nvidia.

Quote:

---

Today's statement also says of the risk factors, "Intel is in the process of transitioning to its next generation of products on 32nm, and there could be execution issues ... including product defects and ... lower than anticipated manufacturing yields".

---

Source

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

well, since people pay for the cpu's it isn't difficult to imagine people getting the feeling of entitlement :rolleyes:

---

Yes exactly, you pay for the CPU and its advertised speeds and features. You don't pay for the right to overclock it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slaveondope

Source

---

Wasn't going to believe the inquirer, but I clicked on their source link and indeed it comes from Intel:

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/...w-expectations

I highly doubt they'll have those issues just because they already have current 32nm hex-cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richierich

Wasn't going to believe the inquirer, but I clicked on their source link and indeed it comes from Intel:

http://newsroom.intel.com/community/...w-expectations

I highly doubt they'll have those issues just because they already have current 32nm hex-cores.

---

I'm sure such things are always listed in the "Risk Factors" sections of various reports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

well, since people pay for the cpu's it isn't difficult to imagine people getting the feeling of entitlement :rolleyes:

---

You want better OCing, PAY MORE.
:rofl:


Seriously, WHERE does it say Intel has to sell you a 4GHz CPU at a 2.6GHz price point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

You want better OCing, PAY MORE.
:rofl:


Seriously, WHERE does it say Intel has to sell you a 4GHz CPU at a 2.6GHz price point?

---

because green side do it :up:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madcho

because green side do it :up:

---

And we all know why they do it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madcho

because green side do it :up:

---

They didn't when they were on top.

Remember the FX? AMD only does this b/c they HAVE to. If they were in Intel's position, as they have shown in the past, they would not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tajoh111

Bulldozer was a tech slideshow with no performance numbers, this is a performance preview bordering on a full review. This is a sign of :banana::banana::banana::banana:iness more than anything from intel. They are showing AMD they are not scared and might as well reveal its cards now because they are confident AMD will not show them up.

---

You should realize Intel's business model is not sustained by high-performance, high profit margin components, but by decades old legacy support in hardware.

Releasing information on Sandy-bridge is not some brilliant tactical/strategic maneuver. Sandy Bridge is here. Release is just a few months away. Bulldozer release is probably at least a year.

Have you had a real conversation with JF-AMD? Read his posts? "Can't talk about it/Don't know about it/Customers care only about performance&wattage." Trying to coax information from this man is harder than getting Glenn Beck to admit he needs round the clock psychiatry.

any one know what happened to the rumor that there was specific silicon for "transcoding" ?

Can't say these numbers are convincing me to upgrade.

This performance jump is good enough, actually more than enough to convince many of those who are using 45nm CPUs now. But it won't have the WOW-convincing-effect on performance before the high-end hits the market later, and it's natural of course.

These mainstream CPUs will be really convincing for those who want a cool and power efficient 32nm CPU, but don't need (don't want to spend 0n) high-end 32nm 6-core+.

Hmmm, not convinced enough to switch from the current crop of i7's but for the average user it's a convincing upgrade. And since were on xtremesystems, we'll just disregard the average user stuff hehe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by geo

There is no point rationalizing Intel's poor decision to deliberately crippled SB with regards to overclocking.

It not like Intel's sales were harmed with C2D and i Series overclocks. IMO these things happen with monopolies. Look at how intel brought back overclocking big time with C2D. when there was good competition from AMD. The original reason to overclock is to get as much performance as possible out of your system, specially useful if you are short on money Collage, new job etc. Businesses wont overclock their office systems anyway nor will pro server/rendering farms
This is just hurting the enthusiast crowd who want more bang for their buck.

---

OC crowd is very very tiny as a % of intel business. Intel traditionally allowed flexibility here because this crowd was vocal and it was useful to help drum up online buzz. AMD can't seem to get their act together, so dealing with issues associated with allowing people to muck around with ever more sensitive voltages and other parameters probably isn't as appealing to Intel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chaserjzx100

Hmmm, not convinced enough to switch from the current crop of i7's but for the average user it's a convincing upgrade. And since were on xtremesystems, we'll just disregard the average user stuff hehe

---

We shouldn't disregard those enthusiasts that still are running on those hot and power hungry 45nm i7. Many of them are waiting, because 980x and 970 is not exactly cheap. You wouldn't call those as "average" and disregard yourself too, would you? hehe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by madcho

because green side do it :up:

---

:rocker: Pentium 4 rulezzz :rocker:

:ROTF:

I've been going through the numbers, and it's looking something like this..
The non-HT SB @ 3.1ghz is 25% faster than the 2.93Ghz core i5 760 in tedts that SHOULD be using all cores, or close to, and keep the 760 down at 2.93. If Freq-perf scaling was 100% that makes the tested part 18% faster clk/clk in these tests

Comparing the HT enabled chip to Anand's Bench results in the same manor using a Core i7 870, which should be running at either 3.06Ghz or 3.2 with these 4+thread benches is around 13%-17% faster clk /clk. This indicates HT performance scaling is either no better, or lower than Lynnfield, but it's hard to say when you're attempting to guess the frequency with each benchmark.

If these tests were really done with Turbo switched off, it's an impressive IPC increase. and some of the induvidual app increases are ridiculous. (Like Photoshop CS4) Especially on what we assume to be the same base architecture.

Very keen to hear the details of the Uarch.

Regarding HT.. Is it possible the efficiency increases achieved have left less room for HT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slaveondope

Quote:

---

Quote:
Today's statement also says of the risk factors, "Intel is in the process of transitioning to its next generation of products on 32nm, and there could be execution issues ... including product defects and ... lower than anticipated manufacturing yields".

---

Source

---

Ahhhh, the Inq, back to their old ways....

AMD says they can't make 32 nm processors and will hurt revenues:

Quote:

---

We rely on GF to manufacture some of our products, and if GF is unable to manufacture our products on a timely basis and on competitive process technologies or to meet our capacity requirements, our business could be materially adversely affected.

---

Sources

nVidia says they cannot transistion to new technologies and will hurt revenue:

Quote:

---

The inability by us or our third-party manufacturers to effectively and efficiently transition to new manufacturing process technologies may adversely affect our operating results and our gross margin

---

Source

Every quarterly report has risk statements, it is the legal part necessitated by the SEC for every company to inform shareholders of risks to the company that will affect their financial performance.

Noticed how they didn't include AMD X6 performance on Cinebench 11.5 multiCPU score? :down:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/s...2107/24409.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slaveondope

Source

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey

Noticed how they didn't include AMD X6 performance on Cinebench 11.5 multiCPU score? :down:

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/s...2107/24409.png

---

Not hard to put it in yourself, CBR11.5 is pretty reproducible, my 1090T scores around 5.1 to 5.14 on this bench.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Davey

Noticed how they didn't include AMD X6 performance on Cinebench 11.5 multiCPU score? :down:

---

They are all quad cores, and the X6 isn't really going to light that test up anyway as they'd have to put the 980X in too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mstp2009

You want better OCing, PAY MORE.
:rofl:


Seriously, WHERE does it say Intel has to sell you a 4GHz CPU at a 2.6GHz price point?

---

they must be saving lots of money by locking the cheaper CPUs multiplier (and in this case killing the possibilities to modify the clock speed), if they want to charge for "auto OC" fine, but I like to have the possibilities to do a fine tuning on the cpu settings that I buy, and to work at the max speed this piece of hardware can (if this means no warranty, less durability, more power usage, untested regimes of operation, I have no problem in accepting these risks) and I find it convenient, and that's not the way it comes from the factory, for many reasons, by their point of view I understand, they want to maximize even more their profits, but if it's true that 95% of the users of cheap CPUs don't care, why bother locking the multiplier? they want this 5% to pay an extra just because they care and know how to make a better use of the CPU adjustment settings? if making OC possible had a
great cost, in that specific part, I wouldn't see a problem,