Sandy Bridge: Preliminary Clocks Revealed?

[informal]

the video is on a mobile platform SB vs 920XM...

last 2-3 minute here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjEjP...layer_embedded

Thanks for posting the video.So it's a mobile platform after all. No wonder why i7 scored lower,it runs @ 2Ghz when all the cores are loaded. We already have SB numbers in Cinebench over at coolalers website.

[haylui]

the video is on a mobile platform SB vs 920XM...

last 2-3 minute here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjEjP...layer_embedded

according to what I've seen, SB completed in about 40sec while 920XM uses 68sec

in terms of time, it is about 1.7 times faster for SB to render the same scene???
I wonder if this is the job by AVX?

[AKM]

Maybe it's a "modded" version of Cinebench making use of AVX?

[mAJORD]

or it's running at 3+Ghz...

[IDANPE]

mobile 3GHZ 4c/8T cen't be bad thing

[superrugal]

I wonder why the desktop version of Sandybridge only clock 3.4Ghz while the mobile version clock 3Ghz+......

[Sn0wm@n]

if its mobile platform vs desktop platform then its fail again intel .....

[FlanK3r]

maybe they had fear show it in better R11.5 version, this version is more "reality" than lagging R10 at more than Quadcores...

[informal]

according to what I've seen, SB completed in about 40sec while 920XM uses 68sec

in terms of time, it is about 1.7 times faster for SB to render the same scene???
I wonder if this is the job by AVX?

It's called higher clocks + higher Turbo(thanks to 32nm).

[mAJORD]

I wonder why the desktop version of Sandybridge only clock 3.4Ghz while the mobile version clock 3Ghz+......

well, the 920XM platform, while it IS a mobile platform, isn't very mobile like.. 55w TDP + the chipset .

While i'm not discounting SB's performance here, I think if anything it shows exactly what SB is aimed at.. very good performance/watt.

To show this in the BEST possible light (which is the smart thing to do when you're marketing something) it makes sense to use a very high power consumption mobile platform as a comparison for perf/watt improvements

[IDANPE]

if its mobile platform vs desktop platform then its fail again intel .....

it's mobile vs mobile.

[saaya]

only 3.4 max?
same clocks as the current chips... what gives?
i wonder why they keep the guaranteed clocks low and boost turbo instead...
and 10-15% higher ipc of sb vs current gen? where? its half of that from what ive seen, and thats vs lynnfield/clarkdale which have a lower ipc than bloomfield/gufftown...

gulftown and even bloomfield continuing in the market for quite a while until sb launches says a lot about how much faster sb will be, doesnt it? :P

[wuttz]

ok, can anyone reconcile the chart with dresden's finding in BOINC?

P.S.: Since looking for BOINC stats of Ontario and Llano was successful I tried the same for Sandy Bridge (although there are other benchmark results out there):

Sandy Bridge Stepping 3, 2.2GHz
Sandy Bridge Stepping 2, 2.0GHz
Sandy Bridge Stepping 0, 2.2GHz
Sandy Bridge Stepping 3, 2.4GHz

/citavia.blog.de
(see end of blog post)

[Behemot]

Minor speed improvements over Lynnfield clock 4 clock, but it will have an improved memory controller, AVX and should have better stock frequency (which should translate to good overclocks too).

A little info here, but plenty more if you look around.

Fudzilla talked about the same DDR3-1333 only officially supported

[dartaz]

only 3.4 max?
same clocks as the current chips... what gives?

Did you say that it is same clock as the current chip ?

i7 860 is 2.8GHz, and i7 870 is only 2.93Ghz !

Also, SB is supposed to have better performance per clock, and better performance per watt

[FlanK3r]

3.4 GHz without turbo is great default clock!

[Hornet331]

and 10-15% higher ipc of sb vs current gen? where? its half of that from what ive seen, and thats vs lynnfield/clarkdale which have a lower ipc than bloomfield/gufftown...

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/46?vs=107

lynnfield has the exact same performance as bloomfield, there are only very very few apps where the additional bandwidth helps bloomfield... get your facts right.

[Nintendork]

maybe they had fear show it in better R11.5 version, this version is more "reality" than lagging R10 at more than Quadcores...

Specially when 1090T get i7 965 numbers.

[wuttz]

Specially when 1090T get i7 965 numbers.

while it's $600 cheaper.

[mAJORD]

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/46?vs=107

lynnfield has the exact same performance as bloomfield, there are only very very few apps where the additional bandwidth helps bloomfield... get your facts right.

you linked a bad comparison to make your point, ended up reinforcing saaya's instead

The i7 870 has a higher Turbo freq (3.6 vs 3.2Ghz) , and not all those tests are fully multithreaded.. ones that are do show a few percent on avg higher performance on Bloomfield :p

[Tenknics]

I thought it was pretty obvious it was a mobile chip IE 920xm when they said their fastest i7 and it was only topping out at 2ghz. That and the fact that intel and everyone in the know has said over and over and over and over again that the first SB parts will be mobile and desktop mainstream. Why would they then compare it to a high end chip? Why is it so hard to draw simple conclusions but so easy to make random conspiracy theories?

[[XC] Synthetickiller]

How much of a jump are these going to be, performance wise, compared to the current 1156? I've been thinking i3 530 @ 4.2ghz or greater, but is this really worth it? It's not like we can't drop these into 1156 boards (Thanks a lot INTEL!).

At least keep the 1156 mounting holes. We don't need ANOTHER set of coolers for this.

I like the idea of say 31x100 = 3.1ghz. Imagine OCing something like that. 31 x150 = 4.65ghz. I can see people putting LN2 on these and getting 7+ ghz no issue.

[=SOC= Admiral]

Interesting strategies Intel and AMD are using. Intel is releasing midrange to begin with where AMD is going full throttle and releasing their high end right away. Then again AMD is banking everything on there chips.

[Sn0wm@n]

It's not like we can't drop these into 1156 boards (Thanks a lot INTEL!)..

last i heard about it is the placement of some pins that is different so different thing different place = non compatibility ... so no ... but yes we will still blame intel for a long platform longevity .........

[=SOC= Admiral]

Intel and Socket longevity are 2 things that will never coincide. This is mainly because they change so much that between the architecture if they kept the same board problems would pop up out of nowhere. Intel's strategy of changing the socket with the processor keeps these problems from occurring.