We’ve already looked at two applications that were written to take advantage of Intel’s Quick Sync pipeline prior to the Sandy Bridge launch. Let's see those results one more time, as a reminder of what's possible when the processing load shifts from general-purpose hardware to specialized fixed-function logic:


Of course, there are more programs still lacking the requisite hooks—these have to employ general-purpose execution resources to get their workloads finished. As such, they reflect the performance of the CPU cores.

An upgrade to our iTunes benchmark makes us current yet again, but it’s really of little consequence since Apple still runs everything on a single thread. He who sits down to this table with the most aggressive turbo implementation wins.
Intel’s Core i3-2100 and Core i5-655K swap places compared to the Lame and WinZip charts on the previous page. Otherwise, they’re identical. Without more in the way of developer attention, that’s the way every single-threaded title is going to end.

Fortunately, not every application is as poorly optimized as iTunes. MainConcept uses as many processor threads as it can get its hands on. Moreover Sonic Solutions recently launched version 1.1 of its CUDA SDK, facilitating transcoding from MPEG-2, VC-1, or H.264 to H.264 in hardware. Hopefully, the company will update the software to exploit Quick Sync as well.
Intel’s Core i7-2600K is the lone processor to complete our test in under a minute. From there, the Lynnfield-based Core i7-875K takes second, followed by AMD’s Phenom II X6 1100T. Intel’s Core i5-2500K is just one second behind, tying the pricier Core i7-950, which operates on eight threads concurrently, but runs at a slower clock rate.

HandBrake also makes good use of parallelism, handing the Core i7-2600K a massive win. The Phenom II X6 1100T shows well, outmoding the Core i7-875K by one second for second place. From there, things look very similar to the MainConcept benchmark, with the Core i5-2500K, Core i7-950, and Core i5-2400 landing close together.
AMD’s quad-core Phenom II X4 970 trails further back, besting the aged Core 2 Quad. Naturally, the two dual-core models bring up the rear in any benchmark that emphasizes threading.
- Core i7-2600K, Core i5-2500K, Core i5-2400, And Core i3-2100 Reviewed
- Inside Of Sandy Bridge: Cores And Cache
- The System Agent And Turbo Boost 2.0
- Sandy Bridge’s Secret Weapon: Quick Sync
- Quick Sync Vs. APP Vs. CUDA
- Blu-ray Playback And Video Performance
- HD Graphics On The Desktop: Intel Trips Up
- Two New Platforms, More On The Way
- Overclocking: Sandy Bridge Changes The Game
- Meet Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs
- Hardware Setup
- Benchmark Results: PCMark Vantage
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark11
- Benchmark Results: SiSoftware Sandra 2011
- Benchmark Results: Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Metro 2033 (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: F1 2010 (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: Aliens Vs. Predator (DX11)
- Benchmark Results: Power Consumption
- Conclusion
Just this.
i think the author's saying he's a sexually active cyberphile
Fixed, thanks Money!
i think the author's saying he's a sexually active cyberphile
Just this.
Everytime there's a new contest, I see this line. =(
I don't know how AMD's going to fare but i hope their new architecture will at least compete with these CPU's, because for a few years now AMD has been at least a generation worth of speed behind Intel.
Also Intel's IGP's are finally gaining some ground in the games department.
I really wish this weren't the case fakie--and I'm very sorry it is. We're unfortunately subject to the will of the finance folks and the government, who make it hard to give things away without significant tax ramifications. I know that's of little consolation, but that's the reason
Best,
Chris
I believe that says it all. Sorry, Intel, your new architecture may be excellent, but unless the i3-2100 series outperforms anything AMD can offer at the same price range WHILE OVERCLOCKED, you will see none of my desktop dollars.
That is all.
As for overclocking, well it seems a bit odd in the way it is being implemented. But for $216, I can't complain too much about a quad-core with a base clock of 3.3 GHz. Some enthusiasts won't like the limited overclocking features, but others will welcome the simplified approach.
I will be building my brother a new gaming computer for graduation this summer and now I have another viable option to look at. I had planned on going with a P55 + i5 760, but now I will need to consider the P67 + i5 2500K.
Waiting on bulldozer...
Other than that its a great article, and I'm drooling over QuickSync!
QuickSync definitely looks interesting.
This is all very nice, but I'll keep my bclk control for now and maybe move up when I get out of college in seven months and the tech is set in stone and dropping in price a little.
Not a bad chip, and I'm excited to see where they go with it. =]
These things are as fast as the i7 980X and in some cases they're even faster!