Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Socket 1155 CPUs - All hype or for real?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 8:58:35 AM

About a year ago, when Intel dropped the H55 and P55 platform with the socket 1156 processors on us, for about 4 months all the reviews told us this was better than the X58 and 1366.

For a scant few reviews, these 1156 platforms were used to test and benchmark other components (SSDs, PSUs, video cards, etc...). Then, the reviewers started using 1366 again to test all components for benchmarking purposes. They also began referring to the X58 chipset as the "enthusiast" chipset again, not long after the P55 introduction while the P55 became the "mainstream" offering. Eventually, everyone began re-discovering the idea that the X58 chipset was superior to the P55.

Enter the P57...

Is it all marketing hype again? Yeah you have more GHz going on with the 1155 mainstream processors, but why is Intel still referring to the X58/1366 as their "enthusiast" line? Again is it chipset limitations that won't let the superior (?) P57/1155 combo surpass the X58/1366 combo from a performance standpoint? Or does it beat the X58/1366 and if so, why does Intel still stand by the X58 as the enthusiast platform?

Addionally, an LGA2011 platform is said to be replacing the 1366 as the new "enthusiast" line toward the end of 2011.

Why the rush to Sandy Bridge? Is 1156 in 2011 like the 1155 was in 2010? What gives?
a c 86 à CPUs
March 12, 2011 9:16:53 AM

I'm not sure I totally agree with you. I do remember them talking about the 750, but only in a gaming sense. Everything I read said if you need to do CPU work that could make use of the triple channel memory, get the 920. Otherwise if all your doing is gaming, the 750 is fine. That's actually something I would agree with today. Sure the new 2500/2600 lack anything higher then dual channel. But for gaming, what else do you need?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 10:10:26 AM

I see your point, but it seems like the P55/1156 platform has been eclipsed by P57/1155 only 1 year later from a pricing and performance standpoint?

I'm trying to get a feel for this as I am always looking to improve my situation. Seems like we already have a Z68 chipset coming in May offering more than the long anticipated and corrected P57 motherboards:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/z68-express-lucidlo...
m
0
l
Related resources
a c 86 à CPUs
March 12, 2011 10:21:40 AM

I missed that point entirely. It almost sounded like you are upset Intel is bringing us faster CPUs.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 10:35:10 AM

Definitely not upset. Do you remember back in the day when Intel was all about FSB speed? That's when AMD began to catch them with architecture.

I'm wondering if everything about the P57 or Z68 are supporting the faster speeds of the processors. Or are we just looking at different means to the same ends?
m
0
l
a c 86 à CPUs
March 12, 2011 10:39:40 AM

Quote:
I'm wondering if everything about the P57 or Z68 are supporting the faster speeds of the processors. Or are we just looking at different means to the same ends?


While I was sarcastic before, I honestly didn't follow this.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 11:23:19 AM

Lately Intel offers 10-15 CPU sockets. And the prices for the older generation CPUs don't come down either (a Q9650 is $340).

So, those who bought a quad for their Intel systems are already at the end of the line on that socket. If you have the i5-750/760 on the 1156, the i7-950/960 on the 1366 or the 2500-2600 on the 1155 and want something better you'll have to change the motherboard, the better CPUs on those sockets will remain very expensive. Basically that's one mobo/one CPU ratio. I'm running my third CPU on my AM2+ mobo.

Intel makes great products only it's like a car company forcing you to change the chassis when you want to change the tires of your car.


m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 12:50:24 PM

I wouldn't change my CPU for a 10-15% performance increase let alone the CPU AND the motherboard. The 1155 is for people who run socket 775. Those with newer sockets are fine and those with the 1366 like the OP have even extra PCIe bandwidth compared to the new socket.
m
0
l
a c 86 à CPUs
March 12, 2011 1:29:32 PM

Correct. While the 750 was fine for gaming compared to the more expensive 920, it wasn't as fast in CPU tasks like video editing, etc. The new 2500/2600 change that, as only the 6core CPUs on S1366 can keep up. If you already have a 920, there is little reason for you to upgrade to the new chips. I would argue that this is true even for AMD CPUs in that there is little reason to get the 1055/1090 if you already have an Athlon 640 or any of the PhII 9xx chips. The extra performance for most tasks doesn't justify the cost.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 2:54:04 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
I'm wondering if everything about the P57 or Z68 are supporting the faster speeds of the processors. Or are we just looking at different means to the same ends?


While I was sarcastic before, I honestly didn't follow this.

I was just thinking sure the 1155 CPU has a higher speed, but does the P57 chipset limit the performance to the equivalence of the 1366 CPU on the X58 chipset? Different means with the same end result = brilliant marketing by Intel. Just a thought.
m
0
l
a c 86 à CPUs
March 12, 2011 4:15:49 PM

No, its just a matter of cost. 8x/8x CF is cheaper to implement then 16x/16x. I don't think Intel did anything like your thinking.

Was going to say I don't think I'd call the 750 a hyped chip. You're talking about a CPU that is faster in gaming then the 1055 from AMD, and equal more or less in other tasks with the exception of handbrake. I wouldn't call that a hyped chip. It is what it was, a great CPU.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 8:52:19 PM

I wouldn't say 1366 chips are obsolete. Yes I agree Sb is a killer chip but normal computer users could care less if they have a chip they can overclock and game on hardcore. I mean don't get me wrong I will upgrade from my 930 to Sb in 3 years or so.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 12, 2011 9:20:28 PM

Normal computer users can barely tell the difference between a decent Celeron and any faster CPU. =P

I'm waiting for IB, then I can finally get rid of my FSB/multi limited X48. :)  Assuming BF3 puts enough stress on my 4890s.
m
0
l
a c 318 à CPUs
March 13, 2011 1:03:14 AM

1) Unless I missed something, P57 does not exist. I think the OP is thinking about P67.

2) Every new generation gives you more for the same dollar, or, at least a higher upper limit. If it didn't Intel would have no need to invest in anything better.

3) SB has more instruction efficiency per cpu cycle. Combine that with a cycle increase and easier OC capabilities, you have the real deal.

4) The integrated memory controller on both the previous i7-9xx and sandy bridge is excellent. Each is capable of feeding the cpu with ram data from any speed ram, and does not need more than two channels. There is about a 1-3% difference in real application performance or fps(vs. synthetic benchmarks) between the fastest and slowest ram.

5) Current 1155 motherboards will be able to run the 22nm ivy bridge cpu's when they arrive. Only a bios update will be needed.

--------------------------------bottom line--------------------------
It is a great product.
m
0
l
a c 86 à CPUs
March 13, 2011 6:45:45 AM

Keep up with what? Only the 6 core Intel CPUs on the S1366 can keep up with the new 2500/2600.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2011 1:33:03 PM

Quote:
with what applications? I know you can't put a porche engine in a vw and expect it to be the fastest. The 1155 have limitations which clearly drags it down with 64bit heavily intensive cpu applications. 32bit programs yes but 64bit its bandwidth and the pci-e controller on the cpu drags it down. that's why the I7 920 overclocked to 3.7Ghz can outperform the 2600k. The disk setup alone enabled it to outperform it even lower clocked than the 2600k. That's due you can't run a Pci-e add in raid controller on the 2600k without creating extra I/0. The 1366 platforms don't have to bug the cpu to make read and writes to the ram when Pci-e devices is used. it has lower latency. Latency alone can cut Pci-e bandwidth in half.

See... This is what I'm talking about.

We should wait for the LGA2011 later this year then?
m
0
l
March 13, 2011 2:02:29 PM

1155 is certainly not "all hype". It is the new mainstream and will outperform almost every other platform in almost every application. There are some professional-level utilities that make use of the high-end 1366's but for the vast majority of pc users, SB (and later IB) are the future....
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2011 3:09:59 PM

geofelt said:
1) Unless I missed something, P57 does not exist. I think the OP is thinking about P67.

chop
--------------------------------bottom line--------------------------
It is a great product.


Correct. P67 sorry about that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2011 3:31:37 PM

Quote:
dude why move on? You got awesome rig. Add another 580 rather. 2xway sli there ain't a big gain. But with 3xway there's a big difference. Almost like the 2nd card only kicked in with the 3rd added.


Actually, I have no complaints about the performance of 2, but adding the 3rd is an intriguing thought.

Why move on? This is my hobby. I really wouldn't be moving on... just adding to my collection.

I have a few PCs. One in particular (Asus P4P800/P4 2.8GHz built 2003) is running well, but needs a tech update. From what people are saying, the 1155 seems like a viable gaming platform at a great value. Everyone that has one seems to be overclocking the crap out of these things, though. Is it necessary to do this to get decent performance out of these things?
m
0
l

Best solution

a c 86 à CPUs
March 13, 2011 3:32:59 PM

Quote:
with what applications? I know you can't put a porche engine in a vw and expect it to be the fastest. The 1155 have limitations which clearly drags it down with 64bit heavily intensive cpu applications. 32bit programs yes but 64bit its bandwidth and the pci-e controller on the cpu drags it down. that's why the I7 920 overclocked to 3.7Ghz can outperform the 2600k. The disk setup alone enabled it to outperform it even lower clocked than the 2600k. That's due you can't run a Pci-e add in raid controller on the 2600k without creating extra I/0. The 1366 platforms don't have to bug the cpu to make read and writes to the ram when Pci-e devices is used. it has lower latency. Latency alone can cut Pci-e bandwidth in half.


Proof?

Quote:

See... This is what I'm talking about.

We should wait for the LGA2011 later this year then?


I've got to come up with a better way to phrase this. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in what Diggle writes. Sure it might seem logical at times, but the proof isn't there, at least from what I've seen. What did I say? The 2500/2600 is the fastest out there, and it takes a 6 core Intel just to beat it. He took exception to that? Lets check out Hards review.

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridg...

He mentioned video editing, so check out the handbrake section. Their 920 is OC'd only to 3.6 instead of 3.7, but that should be close enough. Does the OC'd 920 beat the 2600K? No. Care to guess what can beat the 2600? Oh my gosh, a six core chip from Intel...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

Here is the Toms review for what its worth. No OC'd 920, though they do have the 950 @ 3+GHz. They don't have the 980x either.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...

Finally here is Anands review. Stock figures only, but notice that they test more codecs. Depending on the codec used, it seems a stock 2500/2600 can beat even the 980.

I/O? Latency? From what I've seen in the reviews the 2500/2600 STOCK have little issue keeping up with even OC'd 9xx. As I said, only the six core 980x will give these chips a run for their money. Considering the unreal price of the 980 you are way better off spending the $200-$300 on them and spending the money saved by avoiding the 980 on better drives/SSDs. Unless diggle can show us what he's talking about I'd just move on from what he's trying to convince you of.
Share
a b à CPUs
March 13, 2011 4:03:26 PM

4745454b said:
Quote:
with what applications? I know you can't put a porche engine in a vw and expect it to be the fastest. The 1155 have limitations which clearly drags it down with 64bit heavily intensive cpu applications. 32bit programs yes but 64bit its bandwidth and the pci-e controller on the cpu drags it down. that's why the I7 920 overclocked to 3.7Ghz can outperform the 2600k. The disk setup alone enabled it to outperform it even lower clocked than the 2600k. That's due you can't run a Pci-e add in raid controller on the 2600k without creating extra I/0. The 1366 platforms don't have to bug the cpu to make read and writes to the ram when Pci-e devices is used. it has lower latency. Latency alone can cut Pci-e bandwidth in half.


Proof?

Quote:

See... This is what I'm talking about.

We should wait for the LGA2011 later this year then?


I've got to come up with a better way to phrase this. I wouldn't put a lot of faith in what Diggle writes. Sure it might seem logical at times, but the proof isn't there, at least from what I've seen. What did I say? The 2500/2600 is the fastest out there, and it takes a 6 core Intel just to beat it. He took exception to that? Lets check out Hards review.

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridg...

He mentioned video editing, so check out the handbrake section. Their 920 is OC'd only to 3.6 instead of 3.7, but that should be close enough. Does the OC'd 920 beat the 2600K? No. Care to guess what can beat the 2600? Oh my gosh, a six core chip from Intel...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i...

Here is the Toms review for what its worth. No OC'd 920, though they do have the 950 @ 3+GHz. They don't have the 980x either.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-rev...

Finally here is Anands review. Stock figures only, but notice that they test more codecs. Depending on the codec used, it seems a stock 2500/2600 can beat even the 980.

I/O? Latency? From what I've seen in the reviews the 2500/2600 STOCK have little issue keeping up with even OC'd 9xx. As I said, only the six core 980x will give these chips a run for their money. Considering the unreal price of the 980 you are way better off spending the $200-$300 on them and spending the money saved by avoiding the 980 on better drives/SSDs. Unless diggle can show us what he's talking about I'd just move on from what he's trying to convince you of.

Looking at those review, though, there doesn't seem to be a significant performance advantage for a gamer and an 1155 cpu in the Tom's benchmarks while the Anandtech shows great advantage for CPU-intensive games with the 1155s? Seems like the i5-2500k is a great value at $180 and the i5-2400 at $150. This seems to be a good upgrade solution for me.
m
0
l
a c 86 à CPUs
March 14, 2011 2:28:24 AM

Hard to say. Toms only tested 3 games, and all were DX11. I'm also not sure of the setups so that could play in as well. The 2500 is a great value at the ~$200 price point. The 750 used to be there and its pointless to get it now. I'm not sure how nice the lower end CPUs stack up.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
March 23, 2012 5:09:43 PM

Best answer selected by ubercake.
m
0
l
!