Sandy Bridge Reviews

[Dark Shroud]

Anyone who thinks that a single core CPU is good enough isn't thinking right. IE8 has been multi-threaded since the betas and runs at least 3 threads. That's the default browser for Win7 and IE9 is multi-threaded and hardware accelerates everything. Chrome runs even more threads and is working on some hardware acceleration as is Firefox.

So anyone even old people will be running these browsers while on the Facebook & the interwebs. That's not counting them running a Flash/Silverlight/Java video/app/game.

Running that stuff on a single core CPU causes lock ups. I know because I'm doing that right now. I'm running a P4 3ghz and even with hyper threading it sucks badly. The only reason I can even play back HD video is because my HD 4670 1GB does hardware accelration.

Does everyone need a Core i7, of course not. But the low cost of AMD duel & quad cores there isn't any real reason not to run them on the low end.

The US needs far better broadband penetration and faster speeds before people start worrying about HD playback on the web.

Sorry to burst your bubble but most low to mid range DSL packages can handle the higher res youtube videos. That's not counting Comcast with their "power boost" technology. Not to mention the simple fact that most US ISPs do server cacheing of this content so it goes fast through thier networks. Local area nods might not be so great but Comcast, Verizon, & AT&T all have fat fiber trunk lines as their netowrk back bones.

 

[edplayer]

Dude...read what I said. I'm agreeing with you.

yeah, I know. I was just trying to expand a little on your thoughts...

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Sorry to burst your bubble but most low to mid range DSL packages can handle the higher res youtube videos.

I said nothing about handling the video. I'm talking about how fast it downloads before you can play it without pauses. Broadband is available to most, but the higher speed options are not economical for many.

 

[Gillbot]

Anyone who thinks that a single core CPU is good enough isn't thinking right. IE8 has been multi-threaded since the betas and runs at least 3 threads. That's the default browser for Win7 and IE9 is multi-threaded and hardware accelerates everything. Chrome runs even more threads and is working on some hardware acceleration as is Firefox.

So anyone even old people will be running these browsers while on the Facebook & the interwebs. That's not counting them running a Flash/Silverlight/Java video/app/game.

Running that stuff on a single core CPU causes lock ups. I know because I'm doing that right now. I'm running a P4 3ghz and even with hyper threading it sucks badly. The only reason I can even play back HD video is because my HD 4670 1GB does hardware accelration.

Does everyone need a Core i7, of course not. But the low cost of AMD duel & quad cores there isn't any real reason not to run them on the low end.




Sorry to burst your bubble but most low to mid range DSL packages can handle the higher res youtube videos. That's not counting Comcast with their "power boost" technology. Not to mention the simple fact that most US ISPs do server cacheing of this content so it goes fast through thier networks. Local area nods might not be so great but Comcast, Verizon, & AT&T all have fat fiber trunk lines as their netowrk back bones.

then you are doing something wrong because my mom's single core sempron at ~2ghz does everything just fine and never locks up. My "server" also did quite well on a single core celeron for the longest time for daily use. Then again, I took the time to clean out the bloat in the OS and whatnot. I guess for the lay, throwing more cores at it will fix anything. :hmm:

 

[IntelUser2000]

How many people really care about HD video though? Think of the masses that all their PC does is email and freecell at most. Hell, my niece has my wifes old Dell laptop and she uses it for school just fine without a single issue.

(Not a personal response, just a general one)

Eventually everyone upgrades. The only difference is how long the cycle is. Intel's ASP on desktop chips are under $100, meaning majority of the sales are Pentium dual cores and older 65nm chips. In a few years that'll be Sandy Bridge based Pentium dual cores, and 45nm chips.

I guess there will never be a jump again like there was from the Pentium D to the Core 2 duo? even the early Core 2 models were nearly twice as fast clock for clock.

Every time this type of question arises. Ask yourself though, if the Pentium D at the end of the lifecycle was at 5GHz, would the Core 2 have looked as good as people see it now? Core 2's comparison is really Core Duo, and Core 2 was ~20% faster per clock.

 

[Gillbot]

(Not a personal response, just a general one)

Eventually everyone upgrades. The only difference is how long the cycle is. Intel's ASP on desktop chips are under $100, meaning majority of the sales are Pentium dual cores and older 65nm chips. In a few years that'll be Sandy Bridge based Pentium dual cores, and 45nm chips.

Don't get me wrong, I am not telling everyone NOT to add more cores or whatever. I just hate it when people generalize and say you MUST have more than one core and EVERYONE needs them. This is simply misinformation. There's a reason Intel, AMD, Dell, etc. wants you to THINK you need more, bigger, faster, better.... It's called $. That's the simple answer.

As I said, if people took the time to optimize their OS and apps, they'd be surprised at how far you can get with less.

 

[RussianSensation]

Why the disappointment?

- They could have easily supported 1155 processors on socket 1156 if they wanted to. Intel is just forcing you to buy another mobo. Money grabbing tactic imo. Sure, it's a free market, but we can still be disappointed.

- There is no guarantee socket 1155 will support anything beyond 4 cores. I bet Intel will leave 6 and esp. 8 core variants for 2011. Early on during S1156's life there were rumors that it may support 32nm chips too. We know how that turned out.

- We had $300 Q6600 4-cores in 2007, then $300 Core i7 920 4-cores + HT in 2008, then $300 Core i7 860 4-core + HT in 2009, and wait for it, ding ding ding, another $300 Core i7 2600k 4core + HT in 2011...Sure most people don't care about more than 4 cores, but the reality is that we have been stuck at $300 price level and still chugging at 4-cores + HT on the Intel side is still disappointing for those of us who had Q6600 @ 3.4ghz since 2007...:\ (Although I admit AMD's inability to compete on the high-end is largely to blame for Intel's complacency).

- S1155 brings no new features to the table from S1156 - it will still be stuck at PCIe 8x/8x setup (I realize this has 2-3% performance impact, but still), lacks native chipset support for USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0, still PCIe 2.0, and you won't even be able to use integrated graphics on P67 socket. Some mobos won't even support UEFI bios, at least initially (looking at you Gigabyte).

- S1155 CPUs are still stuck at 8mb of cache. 2500K will only have 6mb of cache, which is even worse.

How many people really care about HD video though? Think of the masses that all their PC does is email and freecell at most. Hell, my niece has my wifes old Dell laptop and she uses it for school just fine without a single issue.

That's true. 2600k is a $300 processor though. Therefore, it will be subject to the same stringent criteria under which we judge all high-end CPUs or GPUs for that matter. There is really no reason why we should be paying $300 for yet another 4-core CPU in 2011 that can barely outperform a Core i7 920 from 2008. Talk about stagnation in the CPU market.

 

[IntelUser2000]

There's a reason Intel, AMD, Dell, etc. wants you to THINK you need more, bigger, faster, better.... It's called $. That's the simple answer.

As I said, if people took the time to optimize their OS and apps, they'd be surprised at how far you can get with less.

(This is a personal response )

Then this discussion is merely philosophical? Nearly nothing is a need. Of course you shouldn't be only living on necessities either. That is a boring life, and you bring yourself down to lower creatures level. Therefore "wants" are a form of a need. Then the question is "Do you want it?"

Now onto the second sentence. Everything, including software and hardware development, is a balance of multitude of factors. A software programmer group that is focusing on say, performance optimization(even that which could be divided into: multithreading vs. single thread/GPU vs. CPU/accuracy and compatibility) is naturally sacrificing something else.

- They could have easily supported 1155 processors on socket 1156 if they wanted to. Intel is just forcing you to buy another mobo. Dirty tactic.

- There is no guarantee socket 1155 will support anything beyond 4 cores. I bet Intel will leave 6 and esp. 8 core variants for 2011. Early on during S1156's life there were rumors that it may support 32nm chips too. We know how that turned out.

1. Sure, and vast majority of the people don't change just the CPU when upgrading their systems, precisely because of how long it takes them to upgrade to the new one. I've read that big computer manufacturers use 3 year old chipsets on AMD systems, and how they might be seen as obsolete systems by the majority of people. We want the everyone to be like a charity, but that's not how this society works.

2. Actually, S1156 does support 32nm.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I still maintain that the average pc user doesn't even need more that 1 core. Grandmothers and soccer moms on facebook outweigh most i'd bet, and regardless of what we on this site believe, you dont need multiple cores for freecell.

I pretty much see what your saying . But things change rapidly sometimes.

One ofthereasons I like hardware forums is the info. If its good info . It can change your life . Its like having inside info . But not . Investments made wisely off of good info can be life changing. Not long ago here in P&N section when the bubble burst . Many people gave the call to buy Gold . I was allready doing that . But I sold all shares I held and bought Gold . The only thing a hung onto was my Apple stock because of a patient Apple filed. Until today I had not heard anything about it. Link at bottom.

Having a dothan gave me great insight into what C2D was going to be like . Did I run out bu more intel stock . NO! I shorted AMD. Again after A sold the shorts I told people to buy AMD when it got below $5 , well it went down to $1+. Did I buy No . Did I believe I could make out at a $1 share Yes. But AMDs short was really good to me . So I said enough is enough.
Now the reason for my post here was the Quote . Things sometimes change rapidly . Sometimes slowly in this case it was slowly. I bought My Apple stock at $5+ change.
Did I think about selling yes, But that dang patient kept me from selling .

Heres the link . This is going to be huge the biggest thing ever possiably. I don't know but I Am risking a great deal that it will be hugh. Keep in mind apples doesn't have a huge stock float . Is this off topic? Yes and no ! Is apple cheap to buy. No but there is alot of stock spilts sitting there. So as the quote sugjest that many are happy with single or dual cores . I have had the same web browser for years P4c 3.2 ghz. Now I can't watch 1080 high HD. But 720 works fine. But the thing is slow on the web now . That is why I like 1055 SB . I already have power hog gaming PC and workstation. But for web browsing running those be plain dumb. SB with IGP is perfect for the web, PERFECT!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40831862/ns/technology_and_science/

Now its a matter of how soon. Do I believe in the end times . Yes . But I still live life day to day . As My grandson has given me a new lease on life He keeps me going . Exceptional child.

This forum flusters me so often I can't help but put head in hands . Intel Vs AMD . AT gives advice to buy the better value AMD and many here agree, Which is fine. But its many times the same people who will speak against intel SB 1055. When its clearly a super duper buy. Shakes head and wants to get off of merry go round. I mean really a 2500k for a little over $200 and O.Cs to 4.8 4.9 ghz under 1.4v and will beat almost anything out there that uses 4 threads or less . Its a show stopper.

 

[RussianSensation]

2. Actually, S1156 does support 32nm.

You know I meant 32nm quads

 

[MrTransistorm]

S1155... lacks native chipset support for USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0, still PCIe 2.0, and you won't even be able to use integrated graphics on P67 socket.

Actually, from what I've seen the P67 does have native SATA III (granted it's only two ports).

 

[Patrick Wolf]

I'm not sure why some people [here] are griping about changing platforms to upgrade to the latest CPU's. Basically all of us are builders and selling old parts to upgrade is nothing new. Or for the more charitable, giving an entire system to someone who could use it. Going from 1156/1336 to 1155 means a CPU and mobo change. That's it. You can still use your DDR3 memory. As for buyers. They don't give a damn since they don't upgrade. They just buy a whole new system after it's run it's course many years later.

 

[PreferLinux]

As far as I know, the P55/H55 chipsets for socket 1156 wouldn't support SB anyway, even if it used 1156, so you would still have to get a new motherboard. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[edplayer]

- They could have easily supported 1155 processors on socket 1156 if they wanted to. Intel is just forcing you to buy another mobo. Money grabbing tactic imo. Sure, it's a free market, but we can still be disappointed.

- There is no guarantee socket 1155 will support anything beyond 4 cores. I bet Intel will leave 6 and esp. 8 core variants for 2011. Early on during S1156's life there were rumors that it may support 32nm chips too. We know how that turned out.

- We had $300 Q6600 4-cores in 2007, then $300 Core i7 920 4-cores + HT in 2008, then $300 Core i7 860 4-core + HT in 2009, and wait for it, ding ding ding, another $300 Core i7 2600k 4core + HT in 2011...Sure most people don't care about more than 4 cores, but the reality is that we have been stuck at $300 price level and still chugging at 4-cores + HT on the Intel side is still disappointing for those of us who had Q6600 @ 3.4ghz since 2007...:\ (Although I admit AMD's inability to compete on the high-end is largely to blame for Intel's complacency).

- S1155 brings no new features to the table from S1156 - it will still be stuck at PCIe 8x/8x setup (I realize this has 2-3% performance impact, but still), lacks native chipset support for USB 3.0 and SATA 3.0, still PCIe 2.0, and you won't even be able to use integrated graphics on P67 socket. Some mobos won't even support UEFI bios, at least initially (looking at you Gigabyte).

- S1155 CPUs are still stuck at 8mb of cache. 2500K will only have 6mb of cache, which is even worse.

Most of those are reasonable points (except the wrong ones :awe

But can anyone counter what I posted?


Faster at stock speeds. Yes.
Faster clock for clock. Not enough info yet but it looks that way. Anand guessed around 10%
Larger overclocking potential on average. Too early to tell, but likely yes.
Uses less power. Yes
Costs less. Slightly, but yes.


Now none of those are really a lot larger than the previous offering from Intel but they are there. You say there is no reason anyone should be paying $300 for a quad core cpu in 2011 but there is. That is because Intel won't lower the prices of their older cpus. So why would you pick the slower, less power efficient and more expensive cpu from 2009?

 

[Dark Shroud]

I said nothing about handling the video. I'm talking about how fast it downloads before you can play it without pauses. Broadband is available to most, but the higher speed options are not economical for many.

I probably should have spent more time on my responce to you.

On Comcasts lower packages they usually offer "power boost." For the few years I used a low end 8mb dl connection I never had an issue with videos not loading up to start. When I was on a 25mb dl connection with them nothing lagged.

AT&T DSL, it depends on the time & nodes. I'm on a 12mb dl connection with them and I do notice this on peak hours for populair videos where it will sometimes take a minute to launch. When the video does launch it isn't usually a problem though.

My connection tests well enough for Vudo's HDX 1080p streaming video as well as Netflix's HD streaming. And I've never had any problem streaming these services.

Both of these packages were the standard offered bundle options. That 25mb connection is now 30mb with Comcast but still.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I'm not sure why some people [here] are griping about changing platforms to upgrade to the latest CPU's. Basically all of us are builders and selling old parts to upgrade is nothing new. Or for the more charitable, giving an entire system to someone who could use it. Going from 1156/1336 to 1155 means a CPU and mobo change. That's it. You can still use your DDR3 memory. As for buyers. They don't give a damn since they don't upgrade. They just buy a whole new system after it's run it's course many years later.

Your right . I have an old apple in the ruby color . I was offerred $500 for it I laughed at that . Not in this life its a nice show peace in the shop . People always comment on it. Some things money can't replace.

 

[mv2devnull]

For the few years I used a low end 8mb dl connection

Which implies that 8Mbps has been "low end" for several years now? I must have missed the boat thinking that 1Mbps -- what by that definition is way below low end -- is still "just fine" (although laggy with videos). Where is dial-up on your scale?

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Haha, I'm at 1 Mbps. Sucks. $23/mo through Midontinent. Though for $38/mo I could get 20 Mbps which I'll upgrade to sometime so I think I got it pretty good. Compared to Verizon anyway. Their rates vary by location I think, but their site says 10-15 Mbps for $55/mo? What a bargain. Were broadband penetration greater in the US we'd have more competition (cheaper prices), wider availability, and increased speeds and have more people with 8 Mbps+ connections. As prevalent as the web has become, 3 Mbps should be the bare minimum from all ISP's and shouldn't cost more than $16/mon.

 

[Dark Shroud]

I live in the Suburbs of Chicago. So with Comcast an 8mb package is/was low end. Right now I could order a 100mb connection if I wanted to, there's just no way I could pay for it. My area doesn't have a city sponsored monopoly so I have several ISPs to choose from.

Setting aside last mile rural areas the problem with US broad band being bad in areas is usually do to local monopolies. Most of the time the monopolies are actually sponsored by the local governments. If the FCC really wanted to help US board band they would block that from happening.

I was on AOL dial up until 2003, they were the only provider in my area. Then I was able to get either Comcast Cable or SBC DSL. The DSL was 1.5mbps for $20 a month with contract. I remember that because that's what we went with since comcast was more. My township voted very early to allow several ISPs set up in our area after the single Cable internet provider crashed leaving everyone without service. I think it was called World Net or something similar.

I know that when I move I'm probably going to get screwed. I would actually like to move to a more rural area. I already know its probably not going to have good internet. At least not without me either paying a lot for the telecoms to run lines & equipment or doing it myself and then getting service from them.

 

[mnewsham]

i wish i had the $200 to spare so i could get the 150 Mb/s connection in my area, however with my budget i can only afford the 25/25 (which isnt bad)

 

[Chaoticlusts]

Am I the only one that see's the dedicated media processor as a really nice plus?

I regularly run games and watch movies at the same time, my current system can't handle 1080p playback while gaming..while my systems a bit dated (E6600) and i'm sure plenty can handle 1080p while gaming, having a massive amount of the load taken away by dedicated hardware is quite a plus ^_^

regardless I'm quite looking forward to the step from an e6600 to a 2600..

 

[VirtualLarry]

Talk about stagnation in the CPU market.

This is why I just picked up two 775 quad-core chips to upgrade my two E2140 rigs, and I plan to ride out the next N generations of CPUs, until the newest ones are at least 50-60% faster than mine. Maybe Bulldozer, or 2nd-gen Bulldozer.

 

[bryanW1995]

Yes. Of course the S2011 will be better. But they aren't free. I'd be willing to buy one if they started around $200. Will they? I doubt it. I'd love to get an 8 core cpu with quad memory channels. But I wouldn't pay $1000 for it.





Can I mass PM them or should I do it individually? :biggrin:

Very few people need a six core gulftown. Lots of people want them. Very few actually buy them.

I would buy one if they weren't $900. Hopefully BD ends up being competitive enough that intel can't charge so much for skt 2011.

 

[Nemesis 1]

For the record.I did make the spelling corrections on post 59 . But someone on the forum has sad sense of humor. I would call it hubris myself. But thats just me . But who judges hubris? Nemesis maybe!

 

[beginner99]

To me it looks like:

Faster (base clocks), faster (clock 4 clock), more power efficient, cheaper, more overclocking potential.

Why the disappointment?

I don't really see the faster clock 4 clock. Yes few selected apps show a big improvment but in general it's below 10 % and rule of thumb is you won't really notice anything below 10 % if you don't do any crazy stuff. Yes it's faster but not really exiting. Maybe once software with AVX is available (maybe there already is? Don 't know) we see a huge improvement.
Overclocking comes at a price, ok not a big one but you pay for it. K Series...

I guess there will never be a jump again like there was from the Pentium D to the Core 2 duo? even the early Core 2 models were nearly twice as fast clock for clock.

- We had $300 Q6600 4-cores in 2007, then $300 Core i7 920 4-cores + HT in 2008, then $300 Core i7 860 4-core + HT in 2009, and wait for it, ding ding ding, another $300 Core i7 2600k 4core + HT in 2011...Sure most people don't care about more than 4 cores, but the reality is that we have been stuck at $300 price level and still chugging at 4-cores + HT on the Intel side is still disappointing for those of us who had Q6600 @ 3.4ghz since 2007...:\ (Although I admit AMD's inability to compete on the high-end is largely to blame for Intel's complacency).

Yeah, that's why I'm not so sure we will never see a big improvment again. Intel has no real competition hence no real pressure to be inovative. They are just evolving since core2 came out. You could be zynical and say the last tock was P4 to core2 and afterwards only ticks.
I'm gonna go a step further and say if they would actually come up with a new killer cpu architecture that would cripple AMD for good, Intel would be split up and the company probablly wants to avoid this.