Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sandybridge Mobo Confusion

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
January 4, 2011 5:18:04 PM

Alright so I'm really confused here..

It seems like all the mobo's coming out for the new 1155 socket atm all do some things and not do others.

P67 can overclock the CPU (if a K series), but can't even get access to the graphic portion on it? Which means no QuickSync?

H67 can make use of the graphic area of the CPU, but can't OC and only the K series has a decent graphic engine on it?

And are any boards actually viable to use SLi in? What reviews do give any info here seems to imply that if you go the SLi route your stuck with 8x/8x wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose of even offering SLi?

Am I understanding this all right?
a b V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 5:29:59 PM

x8/x8 will only make a difference if you're using two 5970/gtx580 level cards, a 5870 and even gtx480 only suffer 2-3% decrease in performance even at high resolutions.


m
0
l
January 4, 2011 5:52:06 PM

Will any P67/1155 boards offer x16/x16?
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 6:03:19 PM

Any P67/H67 with a compatible CPU can be OC via the BCLK, and to some degree even is using an onboard GPU with the H67.

Regarding Quick Sync - http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-Core-i72600K-and-i...

It depends upon what you're using for encoding, I use Premiere Pro CS5 and the acceleration is via the GPU GTX 470 in my case.
GPUs http://www.nvidia.com/object/adobe_PremiereproCS5.html

SLI, but x16/x8 - the soon to be released EVGA P67 Classified is a 4-WAY http://www.techpowerup.com/136583/EVGA-P67-Classified-M... As stated above the x8 won't hamper the scaling performance even on the GTX 580.

I have never loved the P55 and the P67 is a baby step forward. They really screwed-up, and should have added PCIe 3.0 support. If you want x16/x16 TODAY then get an X58. My eyebeams are on the X68 with PCIe 3.0.

m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 6:25:55 PM

PCIE 3.0 is already out?
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 6:57:38 PM

Yes, it was supposedly 'finalized' in November. I've seen the X68 listed both ways PCIe 2.x and 3.x; so what's rumor and reality only the powers that be know.

The availability 'seems' to coincide with the X68 release in Q2~Q3 2011. I'm use to being disappointed.

In addition, they need a new 'SATA 4' standard {12 Gbit/s} ASAP!!! Many SATA 'drives' are breaking the 600 MB/s barrier NOW and a PCIe interface is needed. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...
m
0
l
January 4, 2011 7:58:53 PM

jaquith said:
Any P67/H67 with a compatible CPU can be OC via the BCLK, and to some degree even is using an onboard GPU with the H67.


I dont think this is correct at all unless I'm misunderstanding all the reviews of SB.

BCLK is locked at 100mhz. Apparently you could OC a tiny bit here but only a couple percent.

The K chips have unlocked multipliers which is where the OC in SB really occurs.

Multiple references have said that one can't OC with the multiplier in the H67 boards. And they've also been clear that P67 boards do not use onboard GPU at all and require a discrete.

What are you seeing that the rest of us are not, Jaquith?
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 8:00:13 PM

moogleslam said:
Will any P67/1155 boards offer x16/x16?


Sandy Bridge, like Lynnfield, has the PCIe 2.0 controller built onto the CPU die, and the built in controller only provides 16 lanes. So the only way to get x16 / x16 is for motherboard makers to install an NF200 PCIe bridge which multiplexes 16 lanes into 32 lanes. There were a few P55 motherboards that did this, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a few P67 motherboards equipped with an NF200 as well. However, as stated above x16 / x16 isn't necessary for SLI / Crossfire, x8 / x8 will do well.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 8:08:41 PM

hogan773 said:
I dont think this is correct at all unless I'm misunderstanding all the reviews of SB.

BCLK is locked at 100mhz. Apparently you could OC a tiny bit here but only a couple percent.

The K chips have unlocked multipliers which is where the OC in SB really occurs.

Multiple references have said that one can't OC with the multiplier in the H67 boards. And they've also been clear that P67 boards do not use onboard GPU at all and require a discrete.

What are you seeing that the rest of us are not, Jaquith?


Yeah, Sandy Bridge bases the SATA clocks, PCIe clocks, and a bunch of other clocks (some of them very timing sensitive) off of the BCLK, so you can't OC Sandy Bridge via BCLK increases... unless you want to corrupt everything that gets sent to or from you hard drive.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 8:09:40 PM

Aha, and what drive exactly is breaking the 600mb/s barrier, aside from that ridiculously expensive PCIE SSD, current high end, blazing fast SATA SSD's cant even hit 300mb/s.

Only a person with too much free time and enough cash to wipe their A$$ with it wouldn't be satisfied with current SSD performance.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 4, 2011 8:58:58 PM

hogan773 said:
I dont think this is correct at all unless I'm misunderstanding all the reviews of SB.

BCLK is locked at 100mhz. Apparently you could OC a tiny bit here but only a couple percent.

The K chips have unlocked multipliers which is where the OC in SB really occurs.

Multiple references have said that one can't OC with the multiplier in the H67 boards. And they've also been clear that P67 boards do not use onboard GPU at all and require a discrete.

What are you seeing that the rest of us are not, Jaquith?

BS! Looking at an MSI Manual right now: {BCLK = CPU Base Frequency}
"CPU Base Frequency [10KHz]
This item allows you to set the CPU Base clock (in 10KHz). You may overclock the CPU
by adjusting this value. Please note the overclocking behavior is not guaranteed."
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 1:51:10 AM

Hes right bout Base clocks of 100mhz.. besides one review mentioning of a person getting 115mhz (with no credible verification of it) every review can not get over 105mhz and even get Windows to finish loading. Your not going to really overclock at all with this.. multiplier is the only real way to OC on Sandybridge and that's limited to the K series.
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 1:53:54 AM

Sorry forgot to mention one thing.. Turbo Boost. Which allows the non K series to basically OC themselves, but its very limited I believe 4.1GHz was the max.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 2:10:04 AM

And you want more than 4.1ghz? GHZ O_o
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 4:26:52 AM

jaquith said:
BS! Looking at an MSI Manual right now: {BCLK = CPU Base Frequency}
"CPU Base Frequency [10KHz]
This item allows you to set the CPU Base clock (in 10KHz). You may overclock the CPU
by adjusting this value. Please note the overclocking behavior is not guaranteed."
http://i1013.photobucket.com/albums/af254/Jaquith/P67_BIOS.jpg


Is that UEFI?
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 6:22:13 AM

I have downloaded and (partially) read the manuals for the Gigabyte GA-H67M-D2 and the MSI H67MS-E33. Both are the cheapest (based on the features) H67 motherboards from those two manufactures. (Asus does not have its manuals up yet.) BOTH support multiplier overclocking. As these are the cheapest, I do not think that it is a workaround in the BIOS or any thing like that (that's actually the reason I went for them).

Of course, there is no guarantees about how far it can go/how well it would overclock if this is correct.
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 7:32:40 AM

im understanding it the same way as you Bladespirit. This fact is pushing me back towards 1366 for my new build since no SB can't touch gulftown and does not seem to be trying to. also i hate the idea of paying for the latest and greatest if i wont be able to use its new late and great features. I like the media encoding and image processing perks a lot but i think that gets cut out on the P boards along with the gpu. Anyone know if i would still reap the super fast media encodes and image processing rewards with a P board?

It almost would feel like buying a nice new smart phone but not getting service for it or something like that.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 11:02:33 AM

wiinippongamer said:
Is that UEFI?

Yep, I am not impressed. SOS different GUI.

I once mentioned in another post that I would be 'impressed' in the 'component(s)' info could be read and be 'optimized' via the cloud.
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 11:17:25 AM

Keep hearing mention of Z68 supposedly coming in a couple months that will be a hybrid of the P68 and H68 giving access to both the fragmented features of the two chipsets. While X68 coming much later (Q3) will be the replacement to X58.

But now I'm just going to get confused about Ivy Bridge which is removing the GPU element and thus no more QuickSync? Seems odd to make something so cool and not even let it spread its wings.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 11:35:02 AM

Quote:
umm 1mhz= 1000khz.
so as shown in the pic, cpu base frequency = 10000
that is 10,000 x 10khz = 100mhz.

an increase in 10khz steps is almost nothing.
to increase by 1mhz you need to increase step by 100.

the base clocks can hardly be increased by ~6 Mhz (which in 10khz is 600 steps)

1 megahertz = 1,000 kilohertz
10 megahertz = 10,000 kilohertz
1 gigahertz = 1,000 megahertz
1 gigahertz = 1,000,000 kilohertz

You're FORGETTING the CPU Multiplier, so you need, from above, 1/31st.

So, 10,000 KHz -> 100 MHz * 31 = [3100 MHz] = 3.10 GHz
OC, 11,000 KHz -> 110 MHz * 31 = [3410 MHz] = 3.41 GHz
Backwards, to achieve 4.0 GHz [4000 MHz] = X MHz * 31 = 129 MHz -> 12,900 KHz

So, IF the P67 cannot support ~13,000 KHz {with the proper cooling} it would be crap -> Id' buy AMD! My feeling it's no different than the P55's and will be no problem for the P67. If it's not then Intel just ended itself -- maybe for good. Not to mention ALL of the OC hardware out there whose companies would also tank.

However, I give Intel some credit and it'll be fine.

--- Comparisons P55 vs P67 ---
133 * Y = 3100 MHz = 23 CPU Multiplier equivalent approximatively.
Therefore, can you buy into a current P55 running a BCLK of 174 {4000 / 23}?? If so then there's your answer. AMD uses the equivalent 'BCLK' 200 MHz. I OC all day an X58 with a BCLK > 190 MHz.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 12:47:15 PM

Bladespirits said:
Keep hearing mention of Z68 supposedly coming in a couple months that will be a hybrid of the P68 and H68 giving access to both the fragmented features of the two chipsets. While X68 coming much later (Q3) will be the replacement to X58.

But now I'm just going to get confused about Ivy Bridge which is removing the GPU element and thus no more QuickSync? Seems odd to make something so cool and not even let it spread its wings.

RE: Quick Sync - The only difference is the Integrated Intel graphics sub-system K's = HD 3000 (12 EUs), other SB = HD 2000 (6 EUs) so unless there's some MAJOR difference in FUNCTION all the SB's 'should' still be accelerated.
ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Mainstream_.2F_High-End
ref - http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-031174.ht...

As far as the other stuff?? who knows, but I'm not aware of the P68 or Z68 as anything 'coming' the P68 was part of Intel NetBurst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst_(microarchitecture)
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 7:17:05 PM

jaquith said:
RE: Quick Sync - The only difference is the Integrated Intel graphics sub-system K's = HD 3000 (12 EUs), other SB = HD 2000 (6 EUs) so unless there's some MAJOR difference in FUNCTION all the SB's 'should' still be accelerated.
ref - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Bridge_(microarchitecture)#Mainstream_.2F_High-End
ref - http://www.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-031174.ht...

As far as the other stuff?? who knows, but I'm not aware of the P68 or Z68 as anything 'coming' the P68 was part of Intel NetBurst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBurst_(microarchitecture)



Jaquith I feel like you're on a completely different planet......you're poo-poohing SB and also saying "yes you can OC via BCLCK" yet all the reviewers specifically state that you cannot. Maybe the mobo THEORETICALLY ALLOWS a change in BCLK but that doesnt mean it actually WORKS with this chip! No offense but how do you know all these SB things if you've never used one, but the reviewers who have been testing it for past few months are wrong and you're right?
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 7:22:25 PM

haha sorry meant 67 not 68 (was a late night)

Anyway... so will I be able to make use of QuickSync on a P67 board? I know CPU supports it.. but will the motherboard allow it? The reviews seem to indicate its a H67 feature if I read it correctly. And even then if you have a graphics card you can't make use of it though one review mentioned you could run the HD2k/3k off a 2nd monitor and make use of QuickSync then.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 7:44:01 PM

hogan773 said:
Jaquith I feel like you're on a completely different planet......you're poo-poohing SB and also saying "yes you can OC via BCLCK" yet all the reviewers specifically state that you cannot. Maybe the mobo THEORETICALLY ALLOWS a change in BCLK but that doesnt mean it actually WORKS with this chip! No offense but how do you know all these SB things if you've never used one, but the reviewers who have been testing it for past few months are wrong and you're right?

As above, this is STRAIGHT out of the MSI Manual!
"{BCLK = CPU Base Frequency}
:heink:  "CPU Base Frequency [10KHz]
This item allows you to set the CPU Base clock (in 10KHz). You may overclock the CPU
by adjusting this value. Please note the overclocking behavior is not guaranteed."


If it doesn't then you'd be out of your MIND to buy ANY P67!
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 8:12:03 PM

jaquith said:
As above, this is STRAIGHT out of the MSI Manual!
"{BCLK = CPU Base Frequency}
:heink:  "CPU Base Frequency [10KHz]
This item allows you to set the CPU Base clock (in 10KHz). You may overclock the CPU
by adjusting this value. Please note the overclocking behavior is not guaranteed."


If it doesn't then you'd be out of your MIND to buy ANY P67!


Forgive me if I'm confused again, but are you saying that this is the lingo they use to describe changing the CPU multiplier?

Anand and Toms were both clear that you might be able to goose the BCLK a little bit (a couple percent) but its not like you can just take it from 100mhz to 175mhz. It appears the main thing that can be changed is the CPU multiplier - up to 57x limit.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 8:26:00 PM

FYI - the CPU Base Frequency, as I recall reading goes up to 20,000 kilohertz.

The info in BOLD is a copy/paste straight from the manual. It says the SOS for P55/X58/P67/you name it -> "...overclocking behavior is not guaranteed."

Lingo = NO & NOT the CPU Multiplier, only the 'K' is unlocked. Don't, I'm not, confuse "CPU Multiplier" with "CPU Base Frequency".
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 5, 2011 8:46:17 PM

BTW - WoWy look at the HuGe differences. Make me really excited to spend 30% more for SB!!! :lol: 
Also -> "Upgrading to Intel’s P67 will certainly require a new motherboard, but the fact that you won’t need a new CPU appears to be Intel’s dirty-little-secret. ASRock found the secret and exploited it, bringing next-generation performance to today’s processors."





ref - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-transformer-lga...
m
0
l
January 5, 2011 11:31:10 PM

this should clear up all your overclocking and comparison arguments.
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_b...

NOW LETS GET BACK ON TOPIC!
It appears that the main selling points for SB (the on chip gpu that makes some tasks way faster) are killed if you intend on trying to oc or use a separate video card.
AKA
If you use a P67 mobo you loose the cpu's gpu and all the benefits it provides.
IS THIS RIGHT????

Here are a few other alarming things i have read about the new SB chips.
- there is some kind of copyright infringement protection built in to protect media copyright violation. Im not sure what this means but i don't like the idea of intel deciding weather it thinks im the owner of my media or not.
- This may be a rumor but apparently the 2011 socket chips will not have the built in gpu so..... this is truly intended for laptop application. There is another article out there that talks about why lintel decided to make these chips. Its basically an attempt to make an ultra thin laptop by being ultra low on power consumption and eliminating the need for an extra video card. It talks about how desktop users are a dieing breed and now intel is more focused on laptops (for a while).

It seems to me a 1366 mobo with an 950 is going to beat the current SB setups with a medium overclock. Gulfgtown will blow SB out of the water! I finally know what i'm going to buy!!!! Now to just get it cheaper lol.
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 12:19:58 AM

jaquith said:
BTW - WoWy look at the HuGe differences. Make me really excited to spend 30% more for SB!!! :lol: 
Also -> "Upgrading to Intel’s P67 will certainly require a new motherboard, but the fact that you won’t need a new CPU appears to be Intel’s dirty-little-secret. ASRock found the secret and exploited it, bringing next-generation performance to today’s processors."
http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/F/272571/original/image018.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/Q/272582/original/image030.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/Z/272591/original/image026.png
http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/K/272576/original/image023.png

ref - http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p67-transformer-lga...



Seriously? Why are you trying to purposely misinform people? don't post up GPU bottlenecked benchmarks making it look like there is no difference.



And you also fail to mention "Both processors were set to identical clock speeds, yet getting there on the older CPU was no easy task. To put it frankly, this particular Core i5-750 is a dud, and keeping it stable at 4.00 GHz required high core voltage levels and low temperatures. The only results that you might consider unfair as a result are the power consumption numbers, and we’ll keep that in mind when discussing efficiency."
So its not even showing the extra headroom the 2500k has with overclocking in those benchmarks. What exactly as your post accomplished besides making yourself look like your trying to misinform people or play dumb?

Not to mention you completely missed the point of that article which was to show what if any benefit there was from true 6GB/s Sata and thus why there are just a couple pages in the article on game performance and 4 for storage performance. Which showed the transformer board having zero or limited benefits over the old P55 boards while not getting close to the P67 board in most tests and falling extremely behind it in others.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 12:35:29 AM

I have a feeling that the DRM thing has to do with HDCP and bitstreaming. One thing I heard was that SB chips have a remote killswitch as an anti-theft measure, but that it was only enabled on corporate chipsets (Q67).

Intel definitely has been focusing more on laptops and low end desktop users anymore. The way they look at at the vast majority of people don't care about high end discrete graphics and other enthusiast features. Power consumption, esp for laptops, is more of a focus. Just looking at the sales figures and from people I know I can see that desktop sales, esp higher end models are way lower than they were. Everybody just goes out and buys a laptop or netbook. Seems like businesses are the main area where desktop sales are fairly good, and in that sector high end chips aren't a big seller.

From what I've seen the LGA 2011 chips definitely won't have an IGP on die. Everything about that platform (SATA III, Quad Channel RAM?(from what I've heard), PCIe 3.0, high core count models) is suited to enthusiast / server use. So no on-die IGP to cut down on the overclock with LGA 2011 chips.
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 1:12:13 AM

jprahman said:
I have a feeling that the DRM thing has to do with HDCP and bitstreaming. One thing I heard was that SB chips have a remote killswitch as an anti-theft measure, but that it was only enabled on corporate chipsets (Q67).

Intel definitely has been focusing more on laptops and low end desktop users anymore. The way they look at at the vast majority of people don't care about high end discrete graphics and other enthusiast features. Power consumption, esp for laptops, is more of a focus. Just looking at the sales figures and from people I know I can see that desktop sales, esp higher end models are way lower than they were. Everybody just goes out and buys a laptop or netbook. Seems like businesses are the main area where desktop sales are fairly good, and in that sector high end chips aren't a big seller.

From what I've seen the LGA 2011 chips definitely won't have an IGP on die. Everything about that platform (SATA III, Quad Channel RAM?(from what I've heard), PCIe 3.0, high core count models) is suited to enthusiast / server use. So no on-die IGP to cut down on the overclock with LGA 2011 chips.

I read 2011 will still be triple channel, pci 3, along with some other goodies.
Seems like 1366 is going to be king for a while, especially with gulftown. I'm actually excited to see what tops gulftown lol.. When soc2011 comes out i'm sure the price will be absurd for at least a year since its targeting buisness and people who NEED top notch performance.
I'm almost thinking intel is going to push gamers to laptops and isolate buisness and high end users for desk top. Seems like they are trying to ( i may get flamed for this ) take an apple marketing approach. Push all the low to middle/high end users to laptops/portable desktops then have an absurdly expensive and powerful model for the ones who need it.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some really nice ipad like computers in the near future with sb in them.
OK enough about marketing approach and whats next!

Does Putting SB on a P67 mobo really just make it just a slightly faster processor (at stock speed) with no other benefits????
I think it does.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 1:20:58 AM

Noxtreme said:
I'm actually excited to see what tops gulftown lol.. When soc2011 comes out i'm sure the price will be absurd for at least a year since its targeting buisness and people who NEED top notch performance.


Yeah, I've got a pretty strong feeling that we'll be seeing CPU prices in the $300+ range like see now with the current LGA1366 CPUs.

Noxtreme said:

Does Putting SB on a P67 mobo really just make it just a slightly faster processor (at stock speed) with no other benefits????
I think it does.


Slightly faster vs what? A SB on a H67 MB?
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 1:27:37 AM

As for DRM, rember, there is DRM in every modern graphics card, integrated or discreet. It is called HDCP, and lets you play back HD video with DRM at HD resolutions. This will be the same thing, only someone is making a big stink about it thin time for some reason.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 1:52:37 AM

Bladespirits said:
Seriously? Why are you trying to purposely misinform people? don't post up GPU bottlenecked benchmarks making it look like there is no difference.


And you also fail to mention "Both processors were set to identical clock speeds, yet getting there on the older CPU was no easy task. To put it frankly, this particular Core i5-750 is a dud, and keeping it stable at 4.00 GHz required high core voltage levels and low temperatures. The only results that you might consider unfair as a result are the power consumption numbers, and we’ll keep that in mind when discussing efficiency."
So its not even showing the extra headroom the 2500k has with overclocking in those benchmarks. What exactly as your post accomplished besides making yourself look like your trying to misinform people or play dumb?

Not to mention you completely missed the point of that article which was to show what if any benefit there was from true 6GB/s Sata and thus why there are just a couple pages in the article on game performance and 4 for storage performance. Which showed the transformer board having zero or limited benefits over the old P55 boards while not getting close to the P67 board in most tests and falling extremely behind it in others.


You've got it ass-backwards, GPU bottlenecking "means" that neither the P55 nor P67 showed ANY ADVANTAGE ---> My WHOLE POINT from the beginning! The CPU + MOBO of either showed ZIP/ZERO advantages over the other. You are misinforming people by having NO CLUE what "GPU Bottlenecking" is - it means the GPU reached its' maximum performance with no {CPU + MOBO Bottlenecking}, say it again, NO ADVANTAGE.

Funny as Hell! The Graphs with any 'differences' are so-called OLDER DirectX 10 Games! Duh, and the NEWER DirectX 11 Games were all identical. :lol: 

Worst this wasn't on some old crappy GPU it was on a BRAND NEW GeForce GTX 580!!!

Worst some more, both the P55 & P67 are STUCK at x8/x8 in CF/SLI!!!

My Question -- What ARE YOU PAYING MORE FOR?

Crazier yet, I stated all this even before I saw ANY Benches - I was 100% Shocked on how little difference there is for a CPU that costs the same as an O-L-D i7 950 AND the X58 offers x16/x16 CF/SLI!!!

You must feel 'Turbo Mode' is r-e-a-l-l-y CooL! ;)  The thermal dymic difference are even less than I could have imagined them to be -
Tom's "The remaining 30 W difference between it and the newer processor is mostly due to die process, where the 32 nm core required only 1.20 V to reach the same frequency. The new chipset appears to save a measly 1 W of power, though difference in motherboard design could have made that number smaller or bigger than it should have been."

You ever had statistics, or seen tests before, or even ran ANY before --- AND --- had differnet results?? Unless I see >10FPS on any test were you're dealing with a Game like Crysis or another where your seeing >80 FPS it falls within the margin of error. 99% of the new monitors are 1920X1080, unless you're like me running 3 @ 5750 X 1080 which your nuts to run Crysis with anything BUT 3-WAY.
Measly 6FPS - I have OC RAM and gotten 4-8FPS!

Here's your averages for every test:
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 1:54:34 AM

Oh, you mean P55, right. Well you certainly lose QuickSync on P67 compared to H67, although I don't do video transcoding so it doesn't matter much to me. As to the performance gains compared to P55 I'm not sure I would call them slight. The benches were showing something like a 20% gains between similarly positioned products (eq. i5-2500 against the i5-750).

Don't forget about overclocking. Yeah Intel severely gimped overclocking options on all but the K models, but if you do have a unlocked model (only about a $10-$20 increase) it sounds like 4.5 overclocks on air will be fairly routine, on a quad core! What really sucks is that only the most expensive models will have unlocked versions, which totally destroys the possibility of buying a cheap processor and oc'ing it to extract value. This is probably the main area where AMD can put a good fight.

Also, don't forget chipset SATA III support. On the P55 platform the lack of PCIe connectivity was a major problem for SATA III and USB III support via add-on chips. Now with P67 we have SATA III on chipset and the chipset generated PCIe lanes now run at full PCIe 2 speed, allowing add-on USB III chips to run without being bottlenecked.

So overall P67 and SB is a pretty good improvement over P55 Lynnfield / Clarkdale, but I don't think it's something I would rush to upgrade to.
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 2:25:02 AM

jaquith said:
You've got it ass-backwards, GPU bottlenecking "means" that neither the P55 nor P67 showed ANY ADVANTAGE ---> My WHOLE POINT from the beginning! The CPU + MOBO of either showed ZIP/ZERO advantages over the other. You are misinforming people by having NO CLUE what "GPU Bottlenecking" is - it means the GPU reached its' maximum performance with no {CPU + MOBO Bottlenecking}, say it again, NO ADVANTAGE.

Funny as Hell! The Graphs with any 'differences' are so-called OLDER DirectX 10 Games! Duh, and the NEWER DirectX 11 Games were all identical. :lol: 

Worst this wasn't on some old crappy GPU it was on a BRAND NEW GeForce GTX 580!!!

Worst some more, both the P55 & P67 are STUCK at x8/x8 in CF/SLI!!!

My Question -- What ARE YOU PAYING MORE FOR?

Crazier yet, I stated all this even before I saw ANY Benches - I was 100% Shocked on how little difference there is for a CPU that costs the same as an O-L-D i7 950 AND the X58 offers x16/x16 CF/SLI!!!

You must feel 'Turbo Mode' is r-e-a-l-l-y CooL! ;)  The thermal dymic difference are even less than I could have imagined them to be -
Tom's "The remaining 30 W difference between it and the newer processor is mostly due to die process, where the 32 nm core required only 1.20 V to reach the same frequency. The new chipset appears to save a measly 1 W of power, though difference in motherboard design could have made that number smaller or bigger than it should have been."

You ever had statistics, or seen tests before, or even ran ANY before --- AND --- had differnet results?? Unless I see >10FPS on any test were you're dealing with a Game like Crysis or another where your seeing >80 FPS it falls within the margin of error. 99% of the new monitors are 1920X1080, unless you're like me running 3 @ 5750 X 1080 which your nuts to run Crysis with anything BUT 3-WAY.
Measly 6FPS - I have OC RAM and gotten 4-8FPS!
http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/M/272578/original/image025.png
Here's your averages for every test:
http://media.bestofmicro.com/B/X/272589/original/image038.png



Jaquith you really are cherry picking here. You're all "mehhh" about SB, fine. Based on a purely gamer's view, that a CPU is not the bottleneck. This doesn't make SB BAD or WEAK or a WASTE OF MONEY or whatever. There are lots of people like myself in the mkt for a new build to replace a much older one. Shall I listen to you and flip the bird to Sandy and buy an older i5 750 for the same price as SB just because on certain settings on a certain game, the FPS is equal?

FACT: SB is faster than first gen Core i5 and i7, and at lower TDP and power consumption. End of story. You can cherry pick all the FPS graphs you want. Is SB price higher? A little, but not much. If what you're saying is that people with PRETTY NEW machines, like i5 750s, shouldn't trash their systems to get SB, then I agree. But reading your posts it appears you just hate SB in general.

And according to your logic, why the heck would ANYONE wait for S2011, because if SB bottlenecks the GPU, certainly S2011 for all you "enthusiasts" will also do so.
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 2:27:09 AM

jprahman said:
Yeah, I've got a pretty strong feeling that we'll be seeing CPU prices in the $300+ range like see now with the current LGA1366 CPUs.
1366 has come down a lot... It took quite a while to happen...


Slightly faster vs what? A SB on a H67 MB?

I should have been more specific.
It appears to me that a lga1366 I7 950 would be really really close to a I7 2600k on a P67 since the I7 2600k would become an ordinary processor with a .6ghz advantage (or something like that) when paired with a p67mobo. If both processors were max OC then I guess i might get somewhere near a 1ghz boost. Unless i water cool and can get my 950 over 4ghz
Am i right?
I have to use a discrete graphics card or 2 because I do a lot of 3D, video, and image processing so im basically ruling H67 out.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 2:51:20 AM

don't worry about it (its been a little slow today, lol)

right on, the I7 2600K is pretty close to the LGA 1366 Quads, and depending on the OC applied to either processor your going to have a situation where both CPUs are going to be very close. Depending on the exact nature of the workload and relative OC of one processor to the other you'll probably end up with the I7 2600k and LGA 1366 Quad trading blows with each other, although the I7 2600K seems like it would probably win more often than lose.

Exactly, H67 is definitely out when it comes to highend build, just as it was with H55, except even more so now given that multiplier based CPU overclocking is out of the question on H67 boards barring a BIOS hack. Just imagine how much it would suck to get a I7 2600K just to find out you couldn't overclock it on your H67 board! lol

The way I look at it the main advantages of X58 over P67 are similar to the advantages of X58 over P55: greater PCIe connectivity for high-end GPU setups and a selection of more powerful CPUs. Although that last point isn't as large of an advantage now as the I7-980 is the only LGA 1366 CPU that sits head and shoulders over the I7-2600K.

m
0
l
January 6, 2011 3:13:55 AM

Ok so I got my answer to this thread lol. Guess I just didn't want it to be true. If you want to OC your Sandy AND have a built-in GPU on the CPU that'll work you have to wait for Z68 in Q2.

As far as gaming benefits though... how about improved SLi scaling? I'd say that's a pretty good reason to upgrade to a new motherboard for gamers.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1500/8/
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 4:42:41 AM

Bladespirits said:
Ok so I got my answer to this thread lol. Guess I just didn't want it to be true. If you want to OC your Sandy AND have a built-in GPU on the CPU that'll work you have to wait for Z68 in Q2.

As far as gaming benefits though... how about improved SLi scaling? I'd say that's a pretty good reason to upgrade to a new motherboard for gamers.
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1500/8/

LOL. I know how you feel man. Its been a roller coaster of emotions for me planning this new build. It was an unexpected turn of events when i found this out too. I been ready to pull the trigger on both rigs but now i have my victor.
I recommend just going 1366 if waiting isn't what you want to do. The price will be very close. The performance will be very close to the point you wont know the difference unless you go higher then an I7 950 which then will probably give LGA 1366 the edge when both are fully OC with good Air cooling. LGA1366 (or i should say X58) is about as mature as its going to get where 1155 still has a lot of growing to do (this could be a perk or a downfall i guess, i see it as a perk). 1366 is an actual enthusiast high end platform where 1155 is being called consumer. 1366 has gulftown sitting in the wings (i have seen people picking these chips up for around 300 which is a good indication there price will fall eventually). 1366 does not have sli scaling issues (sb does based on the numbers but maybe not in the real world... UNLESS you get the highest end mobo which are rumored to be around the $400 mark). bla bla bla intels marketing path, bla bla bla
you can see where i'm at with it.
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 4:55:19 AM

i know 1155(p/h67) is replacing 1156(p55) but why arnt more people comparing 1155 to 1366 in all reviews. It just does not make sense to me to compare anything other then the most recent with the most recent!
It just seems like another lame marketing gimmick to me
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 5:06:35 AM

I'm still sticking with P67. Not having QuickSync is a bummer, but I still love everything else about it. Its deff not worth waiting 2-5months for though. The other main thing that Z68 will bring is something I really haven't looked into much SSD caching sounds cool again would of been nice to have, but again not really worth the wait plus some rumors that it might get patched into P67 anyway (though I wouldn't hold my breathe on it).

I think it was hardocp that showed even gtx460's in SLi on x4 PCI-E 2.0 wasn't bottlenecking in realworld situations on 2560x1600 which is what I run. So I figure that makes it pretty safe to assume that two 580's on x8 slots is fine as well. I'm not going to be adding the 2nd 580 till hopefully a couple years down the road when I can't keep my resolution maxed.

If I had an i7 already I'd deff hold off on building. But I'm running a Q6600 and my 8800 finally kicked the bucket so I'm running on an older backup card atm and it's just not cutting it.

On the plus side whenever this new rig becomes obsolete I'll maybe be able to buy up a cheap micro H67 board and use QuickSync then :p  Since it seems like all the next big leaps are doing away with the built-in GPU on the CPU that means Sandy stands alone when it comes to QuickSync. Seems odd to spend all the money and time developing to remove it as an option so quickly. Or maybe the rumors are false bout the next generation of CPU's not having an area on the die dedicated as GPU.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 12:38:25 PM

hogan773 said:
Jaquith you really are cherry picking here. You're all "mehhh" about SB, fine. Based on a purely gamer's view, that a CPU is not the bottleneck. This doesn't make SB BAD or WEAK or a WASTE OF MONEY or whatever. There are lots of people like myself in the mkt for a new build to replace a much older one. Shall I listen to you and flip the bird to Sandy and buy an older i5 750 for the same price as SB just because on certain settings on a certain game, the FPS is equal?

FACT: SB is faster than first gen Core i5 and i7, and at lower TDP and power consumption. End of story. You can cherry pick all the FPS graphs you want. Is SB price higher? A little, but not much. If what you're saying is that people with PRETTY NEW machines, like i5 750s, shouldn't trash their systems to get SB, then I agree. But reading your posts it appears you just hate SB in general.

And according to your logic, why the heck would ANYONE wait for S2011, because if SB bottlenecks the GPU, certainly S2011 for all you "enthusiasts" will also do so.

I truthfully NEVER care what anybody 'Buys' - I rarely respond to cheap builds. I only care about 'Value' and the SB 'should' be more than, as I've stated, a 'Baby Step' forward. I don't have the energy to tit for tat everyone's incorrect or convoluted assumptions.

Bottom-line, the P55 -> P67 architectural changes are a HUGE mistake and technologies like PCIe 3.0, increased lanes, and/or other changes {e.g SATA 4/or 2x SATA3} 'should have' been implemented. The GPUs similar to the GTX 580 are getting closer by the day to fully saturate the x16, and today fast SSDs are already > than SATA3 speeds {700 MB/s+} which will inhibit computational abilities for MANY TYPES {Gaming, CAD, Rendering, Computation, etc}. The SB CPUs are indeed faster, but as you've read could just as easily been implemented into a 1156 LGA/P55 until an improved platform was available. Shooting your wad too soon.

If none of this pertains to 'you' then go buy the cheapest PC out there today and be happy, it's do everything except game well.

Speaking about buying, if you're spending LESS than $900 then it's proven that an AMD is your best choice {I personally am not an AMD man}. Today, on systems > $1,500 then the X58 clearly has the advantage. Both the LGA 1156/1155 are only 'good' for +/- $900~$1,200 systems.

I don't game that much, but I build $4K~$12K rigs and I do have a $5K gaming rig, BUT most of my systems are Xeon rack servers for my business with day to day pseudo {i7 930 + SSD} Workstations. So NO I look at PCs very literally $ {in} -> Performance {out}. It's a box of quickly depreciating 'stuff' to perform the work I need it to do - in a period of time - that's all.

Looking at what a PC will do for me tomorrow, does me no good today. I look at the P55/P67 as a consumer Internet Explorer/Outlook Express/MS Works/light Gaming yielding PC.

I feel the P67 is going to be short lived.
m
0
l
a c 717 V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 4:05:56 PM

m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 4:36:31 PM

Yea performance wise SB is bit of a dissapointment , though it did improve quite a bit on the efficiency.

I'll keep my power hungry Phenom for a long time :D 
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 5:30:25 PM

Total disappointment.. it only matches a thousand dollar CPU for a fraction of the cost. [/sarcasm] Seriously get out of here with telling people to buying a first gen i7. Yes if you want 3+ GPU's in your system then P67 isn't for you.. for the rest of us its fine. PCI-E 3.0 is so beyond overkill we're not even maxing out x8 PCI-E 2.0 lanes yet for cards again unless your running ridiculous multiscreen resolutions which would require 3+cards to run a game decently anyway. And now a few SSD's running on PCI-E but that's hardly something that the mainstream will be buying into anytime soon and again doesn't really fall into the bang for buck category. Sandybridge is an awesome CPU that far surpasses any needs for gaming and yes the motherboard options at release aren't the greatest if your going for a real extreme version and you wouldn't be happy with a bang for buck CPU anyway.

You getting the theme of it here? Its a mainstream product that offers efficiency and a reasonable price that perform on par with even current extreme CPU's for many times more. Its the cream of the crop when it comes to 'value' for those that want a rig for more then just gaming. If all you want is gaming then yeh get an AMD because they still show FPS is limited in games via the graphics card not the CPU and there should be no mystery about it. But if your like me and have an outdated CPU pre i7 and do gaming, rendering, video editing, etc all on it and want a good value then you can't go wrong with a Sandy.
m
0
l
a b V Motherboard
January 6, 2011 5:43:47 PM

So you created this thread to brag about your "knowledge" and start a flame war with anyone who doesn't agree with you? :pfff: 

m
0
l
January 6, 2011 8:25:46 PM

No actually this thread is of me learning knowledge. For instance I didn't know that a card would perform on 8x slots with no noticeable loss in performance (and further looking showed hardocp to come to the same conclussion about running SLi.

Thread was just as the topic stated.. was confused and wanted some clarification and now I have it. Though then it turned into about jaquith who seems to be trying to confuse people or is confused himself and was helping point out the flaws in this. If that's flaming then well sorry.
m
0
l
January 6, 2011 10:25:52 PM

I've skimmed most of this post, and the only person that is constantly correct is jaquith. His arguments are correct and his discussions clear about saturation of the PCIe lanes, and both nVidia and AMD discrete graphics are currently at or above the x8 lane saturation limits. I didn't see him being negative about the CPU, and in fact his over clocking was making a positive spin on the Sandy Bridge. Therefore, under either CrossFireX or sli the p67's will suffer frame rate loss, and as time progresses it will be substantial. It's like having a 100 mph car trapped on an 80 mph highway with no way to go any faster. Remember not so long ago x4/x4 limits? The same holds true now.

The PCIe 3.0 is effectively twice the speed as the PCIe 2.0 hence an x8/x8 lane under PCIe 3.0 would not suffer the loss in potential saturation, but the apparent p67 limit is x8/x8 PCIe 2.0 and will even today lose frame rates and they will become quite a bit more apparent as discrete graphical processing becomes faster. The real problem is it's a factor months and not years before this becomes a real problem. Therefore, jaquith was also correct in the fact that the x58 offers x16/x16 PCIe 2.0 or effectively double that of the p67.

The p67 seems to lack balance, and for myself as a graphics professional my requirements are both a fast CPU and fast rendering rates. The p67 would not be a system I could consider even if I wanted one. I run Quadro 5000's.

Further, I have read that over clocking of the CPU base frequency is possible, and not much more different than it is today. I read the hard|ocp and that information is incorrect or clearly contradicts the literature and motherboard website information about over clocking.

I found jaquith's Ferrari and regular car spot on, and ironically correct.
m
0
l
!