Conclusion
Intel's new Sandy Bridge processor architecture and H67 platform are impressive both in terms of performance and power efficiency. Together, they easily outperform the competition in terms of performance per watt. That include the existing Core i3/i5/i7 lineup employing LGA 1156 and AMD's fastest Socket AM3 product portfolio.
We considered several AMD processor options for a broad efficiency comparison, but an apples-to-apples comparison is hard: not many AMD CPUs below a Phenom II X4 would be appropriate if you want to compare in a similar price corridor, and anything below the Phenom II X6 just isn’t capable of competing with Sandy Bridge.
It is important to understand that the Sandy Bridge architecture will fuel almost the entire Intel consumer portfolio in 2011, making this a critical product for the firm. Six- and eight-core processors will launch into the Xeon space later as well. Many people don’t like the fact that Intel is switching from the LGA 1156 to the LGA 1155 platform after only a year, but the significant changes in power consumption lead to massively varying currents. In the end, the voltage regulators have to be able to instantly, reliably, and durably switch from low to very high currents. In this light, the platform switch appears comprehensible and the fact that LGA 775 will be replaced by LGA 1155 in H2'11 underlines that this platform could be here to stay for a while.
What matters for consumers is that Sandy Bridge delivers at least four threads on Core i3 and four real, physical cores with Core i5 into the mainstream, at common price points and with top-notch features. Sure, AMD has been doing this aggressively as well. But with Sandy Bridge, we’re now looking at a performance level that can actually only be matched with six of AMD's Phenom II cores. At the same time, Sandy Bridge also matches the idle power consumption levels that so far were only reached by low-power processors or Atom-based systems. We’re talking about 30 W idle power paired with state-of-the-art quad-core performance.
If you don’t care for power consumption, then you will look at maximum performance per dollar, which remains important. There are great and, more importantly, much more affordable options in AMD’s portfolio. However, power consumption on Sandy Bridge is actually low enough to make even hardcore enthusiasts think twice. Isn’t it cool to have a machine capable running almost 5 GHz on air cooling that can actually switch off the CPU fan when the processor idles?
The good news for AMD is that there is still enough room to play the value card, especially since Intel severely limits the flexibility of its Core i3 CPUs. The truth is that performance is available in abundance for the majority of all users, and Intel basically confirmed this during a Sandy Bridge briefing when a journalist wanted to know when Intel would stop building dual-core processors. "We don’t see that." Hence, maximizing value by bringing power down and features up should help. There are opportunities to build in the future there with USB 3.0 and PCI Express 3.0.
Related Stories :
- Intel Phases Out Most Remaining Mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs
- Intel Adds 9 New Ivy Bridge, 11 New Sandy Bridge CPUs
- Intel Moves Sandy Bridge Into Embedded Market
- Intel Phases Out 10 More Mobile Sandy Bridge Processors
- Intel Phases Out More Sandy Bridge CPUs
- Intel Discontinues Four Mobile Sandy Bridge CPUs
- Intel's Ivy Bridge Hotter Than Sandy Bridge When Overclocked
- Overclocking: Can Sandy Bridge-E Be Made More Efficient?
- Intel Adds Seven New Sandy Bridge Processors
- Intel Xeon E5-2690 Sandy Bridge-EP Performance Revealed
Very good late night read
AMD has some serious catching up to do! I hope bulldozer can keep it competitive!
Wow, Sandy Bridge 50% faster on average with 50% less power draw than the Phenom II X4's and X6's. AMD really needs to deliver with BD, offering performance that is close, but at a lower price point.
AMD better step up their game because these results are worrying.
If AMD don't deliver this year I'm straight for Intel.
Looks like AMD better use their last lifeline (Bulldozer) well; otherwise, it's off to the races for Intel. By now, there's no way AMD's ever going to catch up to Intel (since they're already behind now, and Intel's going to be even further ahead by the time Bulldozer's out)
Bulldozers new cores will not see a significant IPC improvement to allow it to come anywhere near SB, so AMD's major drawcard still remains in the low end of the market with fuzion products delivering a better quality IGP (on die) than SB ... albeit, from the previous article and anandtech's tests, SB has a pretty good alternative with the 3000 series graphics core.
SB also has a ULP version which will compete with Fuzion, a faster cpu and a comparable GPU solution, so Intel are not leaving the portable end of the market to AMD either.
AMD's focus on real cores whilst commendable, isn't a serious competitor to Intel now they have a much faster, wider executing processor, running on a smaller, cooler, more cost effective process.
AMD would have to pull three cats of of the bag to come near to catching up ... I don't see that happening.
I mentioned previously about AMD's ability to make better use of the GPU ondie, to do things like encoding and decoding, and Intels fast response hase been the Quick synch engine. Note this only works if you have the IGP enabled, but it delivers. AMD has not been able to respond again ... when this is an area they have expertise.
I see AMD's stock starting to plummet one these start volume production, as they have no real market niche to retreat to ... other than "value" ... at the very real loss of profits as a consequence.
Where is NVidia in all of this?
Quite frankly they are gone ... unless the company shrinks to "boutique" level, trying to compete with AMD on high end discrete graphics. No chipset market, and Tegra2 chews too much power.
Intel will rise now to the point where all opposition is likely to be crushed into oblivion.
That's not a nice place to be when your a consumer.
Ask the electronics and car industries what it is like to be held to ransom by the Chinese rare earth mines ...
Nice but why the i5-750 and not the 760?
I'd rather want to see the $100-$150 chips. For a regular user on a budget those are much more interesting -> cheaper CPU = more $$ for a better video card. Who cares about 10 seconds/minute, when encoding or archiving, really? Not me.
Cheap quads and cheap good mobos, that's what we need, Intel. Also the ability to replace our dual/quad with a 6 or 8 core CPU on the same mobo.
in the test system page, the lga 1155 platform has lga 1156 processor
There should be a comparison between Intel Sandy Bridge vs AMD Fusion.
Was that the standard Intel cooler you were using on the SB platform? and if you'll use a (good) after-market cooler , will the turbo boost stay on continually? Did you check what clock rates the cores were at with the multi-threaded applications?
...and what about overclocking SB? why haven't we seen anything about that?
great article for the rest, its amazing to see that Intel has twice the efficiency score of AMD..
Eagerly awaiting some overclocking articles!
AMD's current architecture isn't really bad, it's just outdated. They just haven't done enough from K7 (1999) to K10.5. So BD really needs to be quite radical.
I'm still hoping BD will be competitive. If not, CPUs that cost "only" $999 will be considered cheap, while performance of low-end and mid-range CPUs would stagnate at current levels. No need to lower your profit margins and bring out something faster when there's no competition. Maybe a small speed bump every couple of years to make people upgrade, but they'd essentially only be competing against themselves.
Waiting for 'Zacate' Bench... before I decide...
nice..
Bulldozers new cores will not see a significant IPC improvement to allow it to come anywhere near SB, so AMD's major drawcard still remains in the low end of the market with fuzion products delivering a better quality IGP (on die) than SB ... albeit, from the previous article and anandtech's tests, SB has a pretty good alternative with the 3000 series graphics core.SB also has a ULP version which will compete with Fuzion, a faster cpu and a comparable GPU solution, so Intel are not leaving the portable end of the market to AMD either.AMD's focus on real cores whilst commendable, isn't a serious competitor to Intel now they have a much faster, wider executing processor, running on a smaller, cooler, more cost effective process.AMD would have to pull three cats of of the bag to come near to catching up ... I don't see that happening.I mentioned previously about AMD's ability to make better use of the GPU ondie, to do things like encoding and decoding, and Intels fast response hase been the Quick synch engine. Note this only works if you have the IGP enabled, but it delivers. AMD has not been able to respond again ... when this is an area they have expertise.I see AMD's stock starting to plummet one these start volume production, as they have no real market niche to retreat to ... other than "value" ... at the very real loss of profits as a consequence.Where is NVidia in all of this?Quite frankly they are gone ... unless the company shrinks to "boutique" level, trying to compete with AMD on high end discrete graphics. No chipset market, and Tegra2 chews too much power.Intel will rise now to the point where all opposition is likely to be crushed into oblivion.That's not a nice place to be when your a consumer.Ask the electronics and car industries what it is like to be held to ransom by the Chinese rare earth mines ...
Quite frankly I will be buying a bulldozer chip. My athlon ii x4 has done what it needed to and I am a gamer so therefore AMD still has me as a customer. I am also a Nvidia customer (so basically I get screwed in terms f sli) If you think Nvidia is close to dead then you really are ignorant. Also bulldozer low wattage chips consume very little power consumption same with the gaming chips. All I am going to say wait for bulldozer before you speak.
AMD don't have enough money to compete in production technology...
If AMD would make SP "copy" with their factories in 45nm production technology, it would not be so good CPU, because Intel has better production technology at this moment.
Hard situation for customers indeed... I still remember time when Intel CPU's were very expensive because of no/little competition...
AMD needs to have good 32nm transition and good architecture upgrade (bulldoser) at the same time. Hard trick to do (Intell do it one step at time / tick tock...), but I really hope that AMD can do it. In gpu part there should not be problem. SB GPU is not so impressive, but if Intel production technology allow faster clockspeed in smaller space, even superior GPU technology would in trouble.
I will kept my fingers crossed that AMD pulls the rabbit out of the hat and bulldoser cause some sweat to Intel. It would be more than healthy!
Quite frankly I will be buying a bulldozer chip. My athlon ii x4 has done what it needed to and I am a gamer so therefore AMD still has me as a customer. I am also a Nvidia customer (so basically I get screwed in terms f sli) If you think Nvidia is close to dead then you really are ignorant. Also bulldozer low wattage chips consume very little power consumption same with the gaming chips. All I am going to say wait for bulldozer before you speak.
So you're going to buy a bulldozer regardless even if Intel wipes the floor with it? Fanboy to the core?
Why don't you include the i7 980x in the benchmarks?
Ouch. The trashing continues...