Intel Developer Forum, Day One

Sandy Bridge Graphics

A new graphics engine is now integrated on-die. It has its own voltage plane, and takes full advantage of the power management built into Sandy Bridge. As with past Intel graphics efforts, it’s aimed at providing a “mainstream” gaming experience, but it may finally achieve parity with integrated (or entry level discrete) solutions from AMD and Nvidia.

  • The execution units (“shader units” have been improved so that each EU is now 2x faster than existing EUs in current Intel graphics cores (the company claims). A maximum of 12 EUs will be built into the first release, but these numbers may be scaled back for lower-end products.

  • MPEG-2, H.264, and VC-1 decodes are now offloaded into a dedicated fixed-function unit inside the media processing engine.
  • The graphics core is “DX10+”, supporting DirectX 10 graphics, but allowing some elements of DirectCompute to run on the GPU cores (which is allowed by DirectX 11). Other DirectX 11 features, particularly hardware tessellation, are not supported.
  • Turbo Boost will also work with the GPU side of the processor, scaling up frequency for short periods of time under heavy loads.


Perhaps the most significant design decision was to move the GPU to the same side of the highest-level cache as the CPU. This means that the GPU and CPU now share the last level cache (what Intel calls the “LLC”). This is typically an L3 cache on most modern CPUs. What data is cached by the GPU is determined by the graphics driver.

The System Agent (formerly “Uncore”)

What Intel is now calling the “System Agent” integrates the internal interconnects, memory controller, and power control unit (PCU).

  • The interconnect consists of a high speed, modular ring topology. Each connection can move data at peak throughputs of up to 96 GB/sec. Bandwidth scales with cores: a quad core CPU will move up to 384GB/sec, while a dual core CPU supports “only” 192 GB/sec.

  • What Intel is calling the “last level cache” is also modular. While some LLC is required, the sizes are flexible.
  • The PCU (power control unit) is smarter than the one built into Westmere and Nehalem, and also can power-manage the graphics part of the chip.
  • The memory controller is a dual channel DDR3 controller, clearly defining this as a mainstream CPU, and not one oriented towards performance enthusiasts.
  • Further reinforcing the mainstream/mobile emphasis, only 16 PCI Express lanes originate from the PCI Express controller on the CPU, so only a single x16 or dual x8 discrete graphics cards will be supported.


Sandy Bridge will require new motherboards using an 1155-pin interface. The supporting chipsets will be dubbed H67 and P67. If you drop in a Sandy Bridge into a P67 motherboard, the on-die graphics engine is disabled completely, including the media decode engine. So, all media decode will either be handled by the discrete GPU or the CPU itself.

Overall, Sandy Bridge looks to be a solid mainstream offering. Performance enthusiasts should note that LGA 1366 is not going away, and Westmere-based  hexa-core CPUs will continue to be offered. Intel even suggested that future LGA 1366 offerings may become available, but wasn’t prepared to make any definitive announcements.

On the other hand, Sandy Bridge-based quad-core systems should make excellent mainstream gaming systems. The only downside is the low number of PCI Express lanes available for discrete graphics. But a quad-core system built on P67 with an Nvidia GeForce GTX 480 or Radeon HD 5970 should still be a pretty hardcore gaming rig.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
27 comments
    Your comment
  • dragon5677
    hope the day comes soon when sandy bridge is released with a surprisingly low price.
    5
  • letsgetsteve
    really not a fan of the pin change in mobo's but I guess I'm interested
    4
  • kashifme21
    No point of having such powerful hardware, when 95% of current games can be run on a dual core cpu and an 8800gtx gpu @ max settings.

    Intel, Nvidia and AMD should rather pursue game developers to make use of current hardware instead of throwing newer hardware which most likely will be unused.

    Sandy Bridge aint needed for Web surfing or using Word pad any 8yr old CPU is enough for that. Bring on the games or i am not interested in any more upgrades.
    -6
  • Tamz_msc
    Quote:
    Overall, Sandy Bridge looks to be a solid mainstream offering. Performance enthusiasts should note that LGA 1366 is not going away, and Westmere-based hexa-core CPUs will continue to be offered. Intel even suggested that future LGA 1366 offerings may become available, but wasn’t prepared to make any definitive announcements.

    Unless they are offered at reasonable prices, I see no point in people investing in LGA 1366.
    1
  • jfby
    I don't think it's so much that people will want to invest in LGA 1366 but rather Intel will not support anything else.

    The argument to have only 16 lanes available doesn't seem legit; 'mainstream' gamers aren't going to buy a 1366 system at the moment.

    At least people who have bought a 1366 have a potential for an upgrade 2-3 years from now, though I'm sure the better choice will just be a brand new system, again.
    3
  • pjmelect
    Intel graphics even at twice the speed, no thanks. AMD could take a big lead over Intel if they integrate ATI graphics in their CPU's.
    1
  • ScrewySqrl
    dragon5677hope the day comes soon when sandy bridge is released with a surprisingly low price.


    Low priced? from Intel? You must be joking
    6
  • atdhe
    kashifme21No point of having such powerful hardware, when 95% of current games can be run on a dual core cpu and an 8800gtx gpu @ max settings.Intel, Nvidia and AMD should rather pursue game developers to make use of current hardware instead of throwing newer hardware which most likely will be unused.Sandy Bridge aint needed for Web surfing or using Word pad any 8yr old CPU is enough for that. Bring on the games or i am not interested in any more upgrades.


    You know, a computer can be used for more than just gaming, surfing or Word ;)
    5
  • wolfram23
    Glad to be missing this generation, as I just got an i5 750 earlier this year. Won't need to upgrade until at the earliest Ivy Bridge.

    I don't really like how so much die space gets wasted on their P67 platform. Hopefully they make special CPUS that are a little beefier and no on-die graphics for that chipset... tho it's unlikely.
    2
  • jdamon113
    This direction is pointed at the business model, main stream deaktops.
    Yes they sound quite powerfull and will do well, Not sure why intel is leaving the high end market up in arms, I think until intel buys nvidia they will continue to be like this. Until then, we wait for X68 to come through or stick with aging technolgy in the X58 and the chips is supports.
    Today, intel all your managed to do was make me look forward to AMD's Next offerings. I still have run a 775 with an extrime chip. Its still fast and can stand up to a 1366 / 920 . From what I read here and other articals, my next platform will be AMD bulldozer.
    -1
  • f-14
    here's an idea to throw at intel, IBM had a 1GHZ cpu before 2000, nothing could cool it adequately at the time so they burned out right away P4 3.8 GHZ was out long before 2010, tell them to design for 4GHZ on their new high end products and their low end never dropping below 3GHZ. if they priced the 4GHZ around $300-$400 and the 3GHZ $100-200 they would sell about 5 times more product. i guess that just makes too much sense and they could gut their marketing department if they did that.
    -6
  • wa1
    A new tech = always for gaming and 3D works.
    You still can run ms.word (doc) on Pent.4 PC...
    Sigh...
    0
  • nexus9113
    f-14here's an idea to throw at intel, IBM had a 1GHZ cpu before 2000, nothing could cool it adequately at the time so they burned out right away P4 3.8 GHZ was out long before 2010, tell them to design for 4GHZ on their new high end products and their low end never dropping below 3GHZ. if they priced the 4GHZ around $300-$400 and the 3GHZ $100-200 they would sell about 5 times more product. i guess that just makes too much sense and they could gut their marketing department if they did that.


    You clearly don't understand CPU design and engineering and haven't heard about the debunked "clockspeed myth".

    Clock speeds don't really mean much anymore, it's primarily about the architecture and how the CPU handles data. Hence why a 2.2GHz iX Core can outperform a Quadcore Core2 that might be clocked higher.
    7
  • truerock
    I think what I am hearing from Intel is:
    1. AMD isn't really pushing Intel competively - so Intel can be lazy about increasing the speed of its CPUs
    2. Because Intel doesn't need to develop faster CPUs they can try to rip off their customers with obsolete CPUs that incorporate non-CPU technology, i.e. video/graphics

    Intel has always wanted to avoid creating faster CPUs and put other technologies on their CPU chips. Granted, it was AMD that started the "a slower CPU can be better" myth. I understand that multi-CPU and enhanced memory architectures provide better throughput - but, nothing beats a faster CPU clock at most tasks. We have been stuck at less that 4 GHz for 7 years! That is insane. Intel has no viable competetor and is using its monopoly to screw everyone.
    -5
  • truerock
    I bought my 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 CPU on eBay for $70. This year you can pay $1,200 for a 3.4 GHz Sandy Bridge CPU. I am not impressed. There is something very, very wrong with Intel.
    -8
  • onecallednick
    What about overclocking? I hear that sandy bridge is going to be tough to OC what with the "system agent" controlling everything all at once.
    2
  • warmon6
    truerockI think what I am hearing from Intel is:1. AMD isn't really pushing Intel competively - so Intel can be lazy about increasing the speed of its CPUs2. Because Intel doesn't need to develop faster CPUs they can try to rip off their customers with obsolete CPUs that incorporate non-CPU technology, i.e. video/graphicsIntel has always wanted to avoid creating faster CPUs and put other technologies on their CPU chips. Granted, it was AMD that started the "a slower CPU can be better" myth. I understand that multi-CPU and enhanced memory architectures provide better throughput - but, nothing beats a faster CPU clock at most tasks. We have been stuck at less that 4 GHz for 7 years! That is insane. Intel has no viable competetor and is using its monopoly to screw everyone.


    There is also a thing called IPC (instruction per clock) ...... The primary reason why a Athlon single core Athlon 64 at 2.2 GHz matched or beat a 3.2GHz HT p4 on most tasks back in the day......

    AMD never started a Myth about MHz speed. Intel started that the MYTH about MHz/GHz with there P4 when they notice that AMD had something that can compete and exceed there own product. Thus hoping that the public thats not educated in computers would see High GHz and would by there product. AMD countered that MYTH by stating that higher MHz does not equal higher performance.

    After a year or more of trying to push this myth, intel droped the rest of the Netburst line (after prescott, there was suppose to be Tejas and Nehalem) and with the core line. Which is much faster than the P4 even with only running 1 core on the core 2 line.

    Now for the Performance between Core i5 Sandy Bridge vs Core i5 Nehalem, I guess you haven't seen them as other sites like Anandtech has bench marks that are single cores and show this.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the-sandy-bridge-preview-three-wins-in-a-row/9

    Core i5 2400 @ 3.1 without turbo boost on, beatting core i7 880 AND core i7 980x is impressive to me as it sounds those had turbo on.


    GHz Mean nothing these days. P4's (even though im typing on one as we speak) proved that. 3.8GHz (which was a p4) is the highest shipped cpu and that that was due to heat and amount of power needed to keep thats High GHz. Same issue even today. Even with IBM cpus for severs, they dont reach 3 ghz. (except for an experimental overclocked 500GHz chip thats not made on silicon but thats was 4 years ago.) IPC, better cache system, wider ram bandwidth, will be better for performance on single threaded stuff than higher ghz.
    2
  • theoutbound
    I think this is going to be the platform of choice for laptops going forward. Decent integrated graphics and low power draws have me excited for SB based laptops.
    1
  • Proximon
    I just remember how those dial telephones made my finger hurt. :)
    1