Look at the roadmap in the first post. The 4 core SB-E is in the exact same tier as the >i7-2600K. And you get the exact same story with the Lynnfield and Bloomfield i7's as well. And we don't even know Bulldozer costs in any way except for any motherboards that have been released.Your hypocrisy is astounding.
First you go and say that Bulldozer, which ranges from ~$180 to ~$320, competes with Sandy Bridge-E, which ranges from ~$350 (perhaps $320) to $1000. Then you say that lower-end Core i7 SB-E replaces Core i7 SB, which is completely untrue. They're different platforms and sockets, which is why Intel is putting lower-end Core i7 Sandy Bridge-E in one tier higher than Core i7 Sandy Bridge. If you look back this is the exact same story as Lynnfield Core i7 with Bloomfield Core i7, where what made Bloomfield classify as Enthusiast was the higher-end platform.
The main point of what I'm trying to get to: even if the lowest-end SB-E has similar cost to the highest-end FX-8100 CPU, the platform costs are what marks the difference. What signifies that Bulldozer competes with Sandy Bridge is the similar CPU and platform costs.
First you go and say that Bulldozer, which ranges from ~$180 to ~$320, competes with Sandy Bridge-E, which ranges from ~$350 (perhaps $320) to $1000.
Look at the roadmap in the first post. The 4 core SB-E is in the exact same tier as the >i7-2600K. And you get the exact same story with the Lynnfield and Bloomfield i7's as well. And we don't even know Bulldozer costs in any way except for any motherboards that have been released.
And how do you know it will overclock so badly? As far as we know, the LGA2011 platform will allow base clock overclocking, so it could well be the other way around (but not by quite as much). And some things are RAM bandwidth limited.
AnandTech said:As with other i7 processors, all the new chips support Hyper-Threading, and while the hex-core chips will be fully multiplier unlocked the quad-core offering will be a limited unlock. The roadmap states that the limited unlock will allow up to six bins of overclocking above the maximum Turbo frequencies, which means that even that chip should be able to hit up to 4.5GHz (with appropriate cooling, motherboard, etc.)
based on the i7-8xx vs the i7-9xx, the performance increase was their, but not a huge amount. It is that sort of improvement that I am expecting SB-E to bring over the SB.
The larger cache should bring some performance difference. The myth of i7-9xx having more IPC vs. i7-8xx series really needs to die already. Perhaps it started as a justification for the large price premium that i7 930 and S1366 motherboards initially commanded over S1156 and i7 860.
Final performance rating with applications and games
Core i7 870 2.8ghz + HT = 73.5%
Core i7 930 2.8ghz + HT = 73.9%
The 0.4% difference is most likely attributable to higher memory bandwidth of the S1366 platform in certain apps. Otherwise, i7 8xx and 9xx series have identical IPC.
====================
There is a short article from Nordic Hardware about a new update on SB-E. Looks like SB-E delay is related to a chipset issue; and PCIe 3.0 may take time to sort out.
Where? And you don't think they can easily unlock the PCIe multipliers and such, or even have them set automatically? They can if they want.1. It is Sandy Bridge. If it did allow BCLK overclocking, it would overclock roughly the same as current SB K SKUs.
2. It is Sandy Bridge. The way the CPU is structured doesn't allow for any real BCLK overclocking. It has been confirmed SB-E is no different.
3. Some things are bandwidth limited. Like on-package IGPs. That doesn't even exist on SB-E.
Where? And you don't think they can easily unlock the PCIe multipliers and such, or even have them set automatically? They can if they want.
i5 2500K and i7 2600K are going to completely destroy the i7 3820. 2MB of L3 and some unnecessary RAM bandwidth aren't going to make up for the 1+ GHz defecit it will be at after overclocking those CPUs.
Not really true. i7 870 (2.93 GHz base clock) and i7 950 (3.06 GHz base clock) perform near identically thanks to the 870's slightly more aggressive turbo. The 880 outperforms the 950 in almost every case.
Good night AMD
Don't forget that the i7 8xx have ridiculous Turbo modes...
The only reason i see, for someone to get the Quad Core SB-E and socket 2011 is the upgrade path to a cheap 22nm 6 core IB-E one year later (if there will be an 8 core).
1. It is Sandy Bridge. If it did allow BCLK overclocking, it would overclock roughly the same as current SB K SKUs.
2. It is Sandy Bridge. The way the CPU is structured doesn't allow for any real BCLK overclocking. It has been confirmed SB-E is no different.
3. Some things are bandwidth limited. Like on-package IGPs. That doesn't even exist on SB-E.
Where? And you don't think they can easily unlock the PCIe multipliers and such, or even have them set automatically? They can if they want.
The larger cache should bring some performance difference. The myth of i7-9xx having more IPC vs. i7-8xx series really needs to die already.
The only reason i see, for someone to get the Quad Core SB-E and socket 2011 is the upgrade path to a cheap 22nm 6 core IB-E one year later (if there will be an 8 core).
Winner of the 150.000th declaration of AMDs imminent death since 1969, here's a Jerry Sanders doll for ya.
So True :\
It really stinks that Intel killed real ocing outside of their high priced K cpu's.