Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Promises Big Performance With Sandy Bridge

Last response: in News comments
Share
October 14, 2010 3:11:11 PM

Ramp shmamp, just keep trickling the tech down, milking us for every bit that we are worth...
Score
-21
October 14, 2010 3:17:12 PM

My favorite band once said:
"Hoping that he's bid for more than arguments And failed attempts to fly, fly"
Score
-21
Related resources
October 14, 2010 3:18:15 PM

I guess this answers to all those queries asking whether to hold on till the Sandy Bridge launch or to buy a system right now..
Score
12
October 14, 2010 3:19:56 PM

If this is as big as a leap like the one from Pentium to Core, I might have to give them my money. I still use an old Core 2.
Score
23
October 14, 2010 3:26:01 PM

That is an impressive claim. Let's hope they fulfil the expectations of the consumer and AMD isn't far behind bringing a more powerful CPU to the market as well.
Score
13
October 14, 2010 3:26:01 PM

We don't need no stinkin CPUs

Better chipsets please!
Score
18
October 14, 2010 3:26:37 PM

Yeah, but it will be a promise for even BIGGER Prices!
Score
15
October 14, 2010 3:27:57 PM

so basically the saem advise we've been giving people on the forums for the past 4-5 months.. if you need a system now go for it, if you can wait sandybridge is right around the corner (as is bulldozer) and i'll be wating till both are out and benchmarked to buy one
Score
11
October 14, 2010 3:29:47 PM

I'm still unsure how Sandy Bridge will outpace X58 systems. From what I've read (and maybe misunderstood) it seems like the two CPU families are very similar other than a puny GPU built into the CPU. For enthusiasts, is this really that big of a deal?

IMHO - Sandy bridge may be good for sub 800$ systems, since you won't need a separate GPU, but anyone looking to push the limits wouldn't benefit.
Score
16
October 14, 2010 3:31:58 PM

Can't they say that about just every new generation of procs? I mean... in theory, each get is about double the one before it. I know this isn't as true as it once was. My point is that "P2 represents the largest increase in computing performance in our history"... "P3 represents the largest increase in computing performance in our history"... "P4 represents the largest increase in computing performance in our history"... etc, etc... should hold true in general.
Score
21
October 14, 2010 3:39:51 PM

chiralI'm still unsure how Sandy Bridge will outpace X58 systems. From what I've read (and maybe misunderstood) it seems like the two CPU families are very similar other than a puny GPU built into the CPU. For enthusiasts, is this really that big of a deal?IMHO - Sandy bridge may be good for sub 800$ systems, since you won't need a separate GPU, but anyone looking to push the limits wouldn't benefit.


There are going to be SB based systems that will not have a GPU built onto the die, specifically the K series that has a unlocked multiplier.

In terms of performance, Anand had a review with some SB CPUs in a sort of Alpha stage and it was pushing 10-20% overall better performance than a equally clocked Core i7. With driver improvements and final silicon it could be higher than that. The SB to truly replace X58 based Nehalems though will come in late 2011 in X68 based systems on LGA2011.

dylansalibaRamp shmamp, just keep trickling the tech down, milking us for every bit that we are worth...


Yea if thats how you feel, you should not be a PC enthusiast. Technology always gets better. Should I be mad that LGs Ally is such a nice phone over the EnV Touch? Nah. I am glad. But you can't get everything for free.
Score
9
Anonymous
October 14, 2010 4:02:50 PM

I hope it will be able to play 1080P60 H264 Video from my Sanyo Xacti VPC-HD2000 smoothly with no stuttering or video audio sync issues!
Score
-5
October 14, 2010 4:21:18 PM

hmm... I remember when they added the FPU to the CPU with the 486... on graphics and specific apps, it made a HUGE difference or the first Pentium chips... if this is bigger, then it alone may not give us a huge leap, but future versions will.
Score
2
October 14, 2010 4:24:24 PM

And hopefully we can get BIGGER increases due to overclocking- but wait, you have to pay extra for the privilege with buying a special processor!
Score
3
October 14, 2010 4:29:57 PM

Hmmm... putting a GPU on-board will give you a lot more power on chip but will it give me anything I can't get with a discreet GPU?
Score
3
October 14, 2010 4:36:41 PM

This is complete BS. There will be only a minor improvement (10-20% at best) with Sandy Bridge. Think about it...It uses the same 32nm process and has the same number of cores, so the improvement will be lack luster.

I think that the real jump in performance will come when Ivy Bridge is released on the 22nm process. Notebooks will have 4 cores with 8 threads, and desktops will have 8 Cores with 16 Threads. Wait until Ivy Bridge or you will be very, very sorry.

Don't listen to Paul Otellini.
Score
6
October 14, 2010 4:56:10 PM

I switched to AMD for the Phenom II. While I have no doubts that Sandy Bridge will be a marked improvement, what I really want is AMD to get their stuff together to compete with Intel. Sandy Bridge will be big in the $200 - $300 (from what I've been led to believe) range and AMD isn't ready to compete with their current lineup. Which is sad. I'm agnostic as to AMD vs Intel, but if AMD can't compete that's bad for everyone.
Score
14
a b å Intel
October 14, 2010 4:58:25 PM

I plan to build my next rig in the Spring, around the time I get my extortion refund. If Sandy Bridge performance is only 20% better, I won't care. I will care that it will lower the prices of perfectly acceptably-performing i5 and i7 CPUs.
Then there's Bulldozer. I'm optimistic that Bulldozer will at least match i5/i7; since it will undoubtedly cost less, very likely that's the way I'll go, even if Sandy Bridge is 20% faster.
Of course, I could be pleasantly surprised and Bulldozer will equal or beat Sandy Bridge, while still costing less. That would be sweet indeed.
Score
15
October 14, 2010 5:01:14 PM

While it would be nice in SB had huge performance increases, this is largely just marketing fluff right now. I'll wait for final hardware benchmarks before committing to a new socket and processor.
Score
10
October 14, 2010 5:02:09 PM

If you keep stacking 5% increases then each increase is bigger than the last. "The biggest performance leap ever" is a marketing scheme.

Now, I still look forward to it but the pricing is always a concern with Intel. If AMD can even at least match i7 with Bulldozer but with their usual prices of considerably lower than Intel I would still be interested. I'd rather not spend 50% more for 10% more performance and end up with an unbalanced system.
Score
10
October 14, 2010 5:05:12 PM

Not all of Intel promises are good..I wait on my money anyway.Even if it does enter the market it would cost at least 1000USD.Making an expensive market price at first always gets the consumers attention.Then they slowly make it lower.Such as Intel i7 950.Last year it was 500USD now its around 270USD in one year.
Score
4
October 14, 2010 5:20:56 PM

Sandy Bridge is a completely redesigned chip, not a Pentium Pro derivative, so it's going to have a nice improvement in single-threaded apps, for sure.

But, his claim is absolutely ludicrous. The 286 was an incredible improvement over the 8086 (and yes, it was a successor, the 186 was made in parallel with the 286 and had different design goals). Not only was it over three times faster per clock cycle, it increased addressable memory by 16 times, and added virtual memory and allowed multitasking operating systems to be effectively created for it.

Call me crazy, but I just don't think the Sandy Bridge is going to be over three times faster per clock cycle. This is not to downplay the significance of the chip, since Intel finally left the Pentium Pro behind (again), but his statement is just not correct, or even close to it.
Score
4
October 14, 2010 5:25:07 PM

the_krasnoIf this is as big as a leap like the one from Pentium to Core, I might have to give them my money. I still use an old Core 2.


Actually, I wouldn't bet on it, although ironically, they used a lot of technology from the Pentium 4 in this chip.

The reason the increase was so big from the Pentium 4 to the Core 2 was because the Pentium 4 was so bad, as well as the Core 2 being excellent. Evidence of that is the relative performance to AMD processors, as well as IBM's. The Nehalem is a very good processor, which makes that type of improvement much more difficult to improve to the same extent.

Still, Sandy Bridge is a full redesign, so will be good. I hope you're right, but I think it might be a bit too much to expect considering the excellent performance of Nehalem based processors.
Score
3
October 14, 2010 5:43:52 PM

I need a new machine for january, but I don't think Intel will have anything SB ready then. On the other hand 3.4 Ghz with turbo at 3.8 with new architecture improvements looks really good, but never 2x-3x. I read somewhere clock for clock SB without hyperthreading to be as powerful as Nehalem with HT. It will be something like future SB i5 family outperforming current i7, and of course i7 being even faster.
Score
0
October 14, 2010 5:49:32 PM

I'm going to hang tough with my 2 year old Athlon X3 720 BE, clocked at 3.5GHz cooled by a Zalman9900 at 21C idle. In the mean time, I 'might' just replace my GTX460 in a year and a half, if that new Game 'really' requires it. But until 'that' new CPU comes out where I can manipulate , trim, convert 2GB Videofiles 'in near real time', I'll be happy as is now, to just let it do it overnight, and do "everything else" just fine now as it is.
Score
-2
October 14, 2010 5:55:56 PM

Does this mean the i7-975 will come down by half....$515.99? I must say wishful thinking is awesome!
Score
4
October 14, 2010 5:56:49 PM

jtt283since it will undoubtedly cost less, very likely that's the way I'll go

Why are you so confident it will cost less?
Score
-1
October 14, 2010 6:08:18 PM

good thing i held of the core i series.
still chugging along with my c2q :) 
Score
4
October 14, 2010 6:09:44 PM

rhino13Hmmm... putting a GPU on-board will give you a lot more power on chip but will it give me anything I can't get with a discreet GPU?

Yes, lower power. It won't run the proverbial Crysis but for decoding and encoding HD streams, lighter games, etc it should be adequate.
Score
1
October 14, 2010 6:10:43 PM

TA152HThe reason the increase was so big from the Pentium 4 to the Core 2 was because the Pentium 4 was so bad, as well as the Core 2 being excellent. Evidence of that is the relative performance to AMD processors, as well as IBM's. The Nehalem is a very good processor, which makes that type of improvement much more difficult to improve to the same extent.


lol If that's true, then AMD REALLY sucked in that time. But it's not. pent. 4's where great for their time. I just put a 3.4HT into my parents PC and it runs VERY well. It's a very acceptable processor.
Score
1
a b å Intel
October 14, 2010 6:10:58 PM

enzo matrix said:
Why are you so confident it will cost less?

Compare the prices of Intel's top tier to AMD's. Now do the same for their bottom tiers. Any different in the middle? Nope. Pretty consistent difference if you ask me...

Anyway, regardless of pricing I am sure that both companies will make CPU's that perform quite well. I'm just hoping for reasonable TDP's to go with that performance.
Score
2
October 14, 2010 6:49:55 PM

ibemersonWe don't need no stinkin CPUsBetter chipsets please!


they have moved the north bridge on chip but im still waiting for the south to join it.
Score
2
October 14, 2010 6:52:20 PM

Translation .... " hold on buying AMD's next cpu's Bulldozer.. we have great prices for our next cpu's" what shall we expect for ?
Score
0
October 14, 2010 7:02:09 PM

@thearm, actually the P4 was pretty bad for its time. Benchmarks on Tom's Hardware at the time showed a (lower clocked) Pentium III beating the (higher clocked) P4 on I believe 5 out of 8 tests, and the Athlon beat the P4 on 6 out of 8 tests. Was the P4 good enough to run Windows and Office? Sure, but so was the Pentium II based Celeron. P4 required higher clock rates to get the same performance as other chips, and I believe that was TA152H's point (though I don't mean to put words in their mouth).
Score
7
October 14, 2010 7:03:59 PM

Hopefully it will push AMD to get Zambezi out the door faster. When their 4 is faster then your 6, in a true multitasking scenario, then your 6 is just not worth buying.

I really hope that AMD can deliver a huge performance per core increase so this is not the case.
Score
4
Anonymous
October 14, 2010 7:10:56 PM

AMD sucks!!!!!!
Score
-7
October 14, 2010 7:17:14 PM

Anyone else think "Sandy Bridge" kinda makes these sound lame?
Score
1
October 14, 2010 7:34:28 PM

They are just releasing a speed bump because they are scared of Bulldozer. Remember when they use to class Celeron as the competitor to the first Athlon.
For their next trick they may get into the gigahertz race again.
Because I mostly play games CPU takes second place in my rig, so I'm happy with the cheaper AMD CPUs.
Score
3
October 14, 2010 7:37:32 PM

freiheitner@thearm, actually the P4 was pretty bad for its time. Benchmarks on Tom's Hardware at the time showed a (lower clocked) Pentium III beating the (higher clocked) P4 on I believe 5 out of 8 tests, and the Athlon beat the P4 on 6 out of 8 tests. Was the P4 good enough to run Windows and Office? Sure, but so was the Pentium II based Celeron. P4 required higher clock rates to get the same performance as other chips, and I believe that was TA152H's point (though I don't mean to put words in their mouth).


That's kind of what I was saying. I agree with you, and disagree with him, that the Pentium 4 was a very good chip for its time. In my opinion, it was horrible compared to other chips. If we compare it to the K8, it was much larger, much slower, and consumed much more power, despite Intel's superior manufacturing technology. I don't see how this is good, and apparently Intel didn't either since they killed it.

I also agree with you that it could run most apps fine - I still use a Tualatin overclocked to 1.6 GHz most of the time, and it works fine. But, even doing that, the Pentium 4 gets way too hot, and uses way too much power. There really isn't one metric where it can be called superior, or even mediocre, except for clock speed, which equated to sub-standard performance anyway.

By contrast, Nehalem is broadly excellent at almost everything. So, it's a much harder act to improve on. Still, I have high hopes for Sandy Bridge, but I think the expectations Otellini is creating are just unrealistic and probably will lead to many people being disappointed.

The 286 improvement will be much higher. The 386 sucked. The 486 was also a huge improvement. Pentium, maybe a little less, but still quite large. It has no hope of matching any of those three. The Pentium Pro comparison is ambiguous, since it actually ran the most common code from that time slightly slower than the Pentium (meaning 16-bit), which was somewhat fixed in the Pentium II, and completely fixed by software moving to 32-bit (although it was not really a 16-bit or 32-bit issue, just segment registers were used extensively in Real and 286 Protected, and not generally used in 386 Protected mode).
Score
2
October 14, 2010 7:58:59 PM

Leap = Pentium D to Core 2 or GF200 to Fermi?
Score
1
October 14, 2010 8:00:44 PM

One thing is for sure, when this will come out, it will be expensive. I hope AMD's bulldozer will balance it out.
Score
1
October 14, 2010 8:05:59 PM

This is nice to hear, hopefully they can hold up their end of the bargain. I'm still using an old C2D, I'm happy with that. Wouldn't mind an upgrade next summer though, so hopefully all goes well.
Score
1
October 14, 2010 8:11:03 PM

TA152H Call me crazy, but I just don't think the Sandy Bridge is going to be over three times faster per clock cycle. This is not to downplay the significance of the chip, since Intel finally left the Pentium Pro behind (again), but his statement is just not correct, or even close to it.


Well the way I see it, Paul Otellini is correct in saying: "Sandy Bridge represents the largest increase in computing performance in our history."

Note that he is not referring to a %computing increase compared to the previous leading Intel Chip (i7), but as far as total increase in mathematical ability.

Of course Sandy Bridge will probably be something like 20% faster than core i7 on average, BUT this is a large computational speed increase.

I think this article is stupid. Of course Silicon tech. is exponential and they can make this claim with each (or most) new x86 chip they make. Comparing the rise in computation power of the new generation vs the rise in computation power of the previous generation


Score
1
October 14, 2010 8:21:44 PM

So like what? a 150% increase? I'd like to see a percentage factor and in what.
Score
2
October 14, 2010 8:32:18 PM

Intel made a lot of dough by getting into AMD's demographic of low to mid budget systems. I think making Sandy Bridge overpriced will lose them money. Their non-overclocking edition CPU's not being faster than overclocked 1366 or 1156 systems won't do well with the bang-for-your-buck enthusiasts, either. Enthusiasts in general will still pay their premium, like the people who bought the 980x and 975's for $1k.

I'm glad that they're progressing in their line of products, I just don't think Sandy Bridge is going to be as big as everyone thinks.
Score
0
October 14, 2010 8:44:28 PM

lol If that's true, then AMD REALLY sucked in that time. But it's not. pent. 4's where great for their time. I just put a 3.4HT into my parents PC and it runs VERY well. It's a very acceptable processor.

P4's ran great compared to what? P1's? Clock for clock they were the worst performing chip ever. A 2GHz P4 was benching like an 800 MHz P3. Sure they were great for cooking dinner, but they were getting killed by the AMD Athlon 64 X2. I had a 3.2 GHz P4, and had a Laptop with an Athlon 64 2GHz that ran Battlefield 1942 WAY better than the P4 did. When I saw how much better it ran, I dumped my P4 for an Athlon 64 X2 4600 plus. Ran it right up until the Core 2's came out, and then bought a 3GHz. Now I am running a 3 GHz quad core version, but until Intel dumped the P4, they had nothing that touched a Athlon 64, even when people over clocked them to 4GHz, they still could not compete.
Score
-4
October 14, 2010 8:48:23 PM

otacon72Bulldozer is looking more and more like a cub cadet compared to Sandy Bridge.

You say this based on how big Intel is playing up SB? I'll believe the stats when they start showing benchmarks. Why would Intel hype up their products and tell you to hold off buying a new system? Hmmm...around the same time AMD is launching THEIR on-die CPU/GPU chips?

Anyways, if Intel actually releases this chip at a reasonable price, I'll be a little shocked. I'm sure it'll be performance/premium based pricing, as per usual, but, as the avg CPU is no longer the bottle-neck in a rig, it's going to be hard to push this over a $500 price tag, especially if they limit the overclocking , which has always been sell point to the enthusiasts that enjoy messing around and trying to have as much fun with their new toys as possible.

AMD really needs to come back with something. Sure, it LOOKS like they'll have the GPU market all but locked up, but, Nvidia might have something up their sleeve that we haven't seen yet. If AMD's Bulldozer gets caught flat-footed on this "big leap", it might end up costing them in both markets.
Score
2
October 14, 2010 8:52:19 PM

Suck on that AMD...

PS: I'm using a Phenom II... so don't give me the bias crap..
Score
-7
October 14, 2010 9:08:10 PM

simple... it is for tablet computers-specifically the ipad next generation... come on use your head people. Not a desktop cpu by any means.
Score
0
!