Sandy Bridge Review

Here is the first of many reviews to come out on the Sandy Bridge CPU:

• http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,2833.html
• http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083 [...] 100-tested
• http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/1/
• http://benchmarkreviews.com/index. [...] &Itemid=63

The i7 2600k is equal to or better than the i7 980X on most applications at $315 price tag and the i5 2500k might just be the price to performance king at little over $200.

Those are some fast processors.My only gripe is that you have to use the IGP to use QuickSync. But the K- series are absolutely amazing overclockers.AnandTech got a stable 4.4 GHz using the stock cooler!

Looks like I'll be getting another CPU for another FSX system

Yep, you shouldda waited, but I wouldn't say you're 'screwed' - the 1090T is a pretty capable CPU, you probably just paid way too much for it. I expect the prices on the 1100T and 970 CPUs to be cut dramatically in the next few weeks.

It's probably a good time to sell any AMD stock if you own shares - this is not going to do AMD's bottom line any good whatsoever this quarter.

Well at least you're realistic about it. There are lots of "should I wait for SB" posts on here, and while I and others were vocal about waiting....why wouldn't you wait???......you and others made the choice for instant gratification vs delayed gratification and now you've got some regret. You're not alone.....this whole US of A has become a can't wait, instant gratifcation society!

If that is true, I'll feel a lot better about it.

Core i5-2500K will be priced @ 216$, it's the best CPU price/performance wise and has no competition at that price range at the moment.

And jedi don't worry much, the Phenom II's are still very capable CPU's and will serve you well for at least 2 years.

Yes but you'll need a 600$ platform for sure to keep up with that 500$ GPU.

the $216 price is per 1000 units. for a single unit the price will be higher . I was going to buy the 2600k , but im not paying more than $300 for a cpu. I reall wish they could be that low ... I guess we will have to wait for newegg for the prices, I predict newegg to have the best prices, so far some stores are selling the 2500k for $250 and the 2600k for $360

What annoyed me about this article was that the author was so amazed by Quick Sync and said AMD has no alternative and likely wont for a long time... Well if he ever looked at the recent block diagrams for Fusion or the one that was on the main page of AMD's website a while back he would notice that they do in fact have a dedicated hardware decode/encode unit specifically for video. Ill post a link in a bit, let me find the link on AMD's site.

The prices at major etailers for Intel's current cpu's are exactly at what Intel specifies for 1k lots, currently

So the new cpu's will also be got for their 1k lot prices. The few that are selling early before Intel's nda lift might be priced high, right now, to make a few bucks.

I wouldn't believe any of the current/launch prices to the be "final" sale price. It always takes a bit for the prices to come down. I would totally believe $250 now, and $220 in a month or so.

I hate waiting too. And I am still on a Q6600. And considering I bought my Q6600 just a month before the Q9X50 series hit and have seen Nehalem, Westmere and now Sandy Bridge pass..... it sucks to not have the money to build a new PC whenever I want.

But the wait will be worth it. My PC can still handle most every game on max with only a HD4870 OCed a bit and when I move to my next system (probably around 2012) it will feel like a much better boost than moving systems every year.

time to replace my Q9650 the the i5 looks nice

Considering the fact that it has a good integrated GPU, does that mean one could run a system with this CPU without a graphics card?

i'm still reading tom's article. but i think i wet my pants when i saw the quick sync features.

I predict AMD to be pounded in the next two quarters. How unfortunate that they are releasing the Bulldozer later this year and that too server chips first!

It would have been fun if BD came out before SB!

IGP is something Intel never really were very good at. But the IGP is never meant to game. Its for those who don't want to use a GPU and are on a tight budget. But considering all these, the IGP on the chip is quite good.

There will be 6/8 core CPUs on this socket? Where are the cheap quads? The cheapest is supposed to be the i5-2300 at $177? How good is that one?

Nice performance but I'm not falling for a 15 CPUs limited socket again. I want anything from a cheap single core to a 8 core on my mobo.

Look, you don't really need a hexa core CPU right now. You need a better efficiency and clock-per-clock performance and better architecture.
Perfect example: i7 2600K vs Phenom II X6 1100T (quad vs hexa)

You see the results?? A quad core with better architecture, more efficient and faser clock-per-clock is always better than hexa core which draws more power, heat and isn't as efficient and fast clock-per-clock. (and with a weaker architecture)

No, that's what I DON'T need. I don't give a rat's ass about architecture or if a CPU encodes 10 seconds/minute faster, I can watch the TV or have a beer with my buddies while the PC encodes my stuff. Heck, I can leave it overnight but I don't encode very much. I can wait a couple of minutes when unarchiving something, it's not like I can't do anything in the meantime.

I need good budget quads and cheap good mobos so I can buy better video cards. I don't want to change my very good crossfire mobo with solid capacitors (longevity) when I upgrade my CPU. When I will need a 6 core for gaming I don't want to change my mobo.

I'm underusing my Phenom II X4 right now, an Athlon II X4 or even X3 would have been good enough and I would have got a better video card instead - and that I'm not underusing, on the contrary, I need something better. I also need a new display, I have a cheapo 22" 1680/1050.

I'm a regular user

- Small stuff: Internet, music, videos, etc - any dual core is good for that.
- Gaming - any quad with a good video card.

No, I don't pay $400 for a CPU/mobo, I pay $250 or even less (I unlocked a Phenom II 555). If I pay $400 then better give me 50 CPUs on that socket or go take a hike, with the difference I can buy a much better video card or a new monitor.

No, I'm saying that if you buy right now an Athlon II X4 + mobo ($200) + HD 6950 (total $500) is much better than buying the 2500K ($216) + mobo (total ~$ 370 or more) + a $130 video card. That's for gaming.

And for the other uses the Athlon II X4 is even overkill for a regular user like myself.

Intel just doesn't get it. The current CPUs are already overkill for gaming and whatnot. We need cheaper stuff. For performance, the video cards are the ones that matter, THOSE are struggling with the newer games not the CPUs.

LE The Athlon II X3 will not limit a 6870 BTW.

Listen, the only bottleneck that matters in gaming is the one that gets you below 30 fps. A game running at 30 fps minimum plays just as good as at 300 fps, no difference whatsoever. A movie at 27-30 fps is just as crisp and clear as a movie at 1 million fps, that's why they never increased the fps standard, only the resolution when going full HD.

A CPU + any video card setup you want that can play a game at 30fps+ is NOT a bottleneck. Never was, never will be.

No, a rig with the Athlon II X4 + HD 6950 is far from being crazy. For most of the games you can even go Athlon II X2 and HD 6950.

Here is another example how the improved architecture can increase performance and efficiency.

I'm saying again: I would buy an i5-2500K any day over the Phenom II X6. 70% of us and more don't need hexa cores yet.

What game gives you under 45 fps or whatever you want on an Athlon II X4 with a good video card? What Intel quad with a cheaper video card (Intel is more expensive) gives you better fps?

In what game the Athlon II X4 + HD 6950 is worse that the 2500K + HD 5770? Gotta keep the same budget here. You have no budget limit? Buy two Xeons and two GTX 580.

I take those anandtech benches with a big grain of salt. What video card did they use? Why 1680x1050?

Looking at the benches I can say that they used a lower end video card and a smaller resolution in order to put more weight on the CPU. Let's take the 2500k vs the 955:

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/88?vs=288

From all those benches how many interest you and how many of those applications do you use? Cinebench? 3DSmax? Wow, I gain 9.6 seconds in...MS Excel Monte Carlo (whatever that is). 42 seconds on a....300 MB winrar compression WOOT! I can't live with my slower compressions. 8 FPS on a X264 encoding (I actually use that) - I'm ecstatic, I tell you.

Tell me again, why would I throw away my 955 + mobo and get a $400 Sandy Bridge + mobo when I can get a new video card AND a new monitor with that kind of money?

Look i'm not an Intel fanboy, i've newer been.
I already said mine, i won't argue with you. Have a nice day.

Let's continue with this thread.

this is bullcrap. try playing a racing game @ 30fps vs constant 60fps.

try playing the old counterstrike @ 30fps vs a constant 99fps.

it's quite obvious that you're only playing sidescrolling games when you made that statement.

quit super mario brothers and play a real game dude.

or try to play some competitive multiplayer games.