Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs: The Sandy Bridge Review

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

aaron88_7

Distinguished
Oct 4, 2010
609
0
19,010
[citation][nom]rhino13[/nom]Sooo...You used a 580 on all these setups.Does that disable the onboard graphics?[/citation]
I highly doubt the onboard GPU can be used simultaneously with another GPU. I wouldn't know how you would use it if you wanted to try.
 
Ouch AMD, ouch...

But I know this will mean cheaper Hardware from them 8D!

Like Mr. Chris said, take note AMD folks; Intel screw up in major points ('cept performance) with SB. Give us a 32nm OC-able Processor with kick ass integrated graphics muscle (could be a 28nm HD7k perhaps =O!). I know you guys can!

Cheers!
 

dealcorn

Distinguished
Jun 12, 2008
73
0
18,630
Intel is getting smart about reducing sku's. With a K series chip you get your choice of either over clocking or better graphics. A P67 m/b gives you over clocking or a H67 m/b gives you better graphics. The $11 or $23 price delta looks reasonable whichever you choose. Is the author suggesting that there is a big market that wants to pay extra to get both features.
 
1. The i5-2500K is really sitting pretty on a sweet spot for price/performance, AND power use. It will be my #1 contender in June...
2. ...unless Bulldozer makes a similar splash, then who knows? Will it? I hope so, because AMD looks pretty sad across the board right now...
3. ...except that all of you/us running our games just fine with CPU "X" on platform "Y" did NOT suddenly experience a slowdown, compelling us to rush out and buy. If I were a video pro, I'd be calling every supplier I know to find out when I can get one, but I'm not, so I'll just observe that my frame rates are still pegged at 60 and hold my horses.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]rhino13[/nom]Sooo...You used a 580 on all these setups.Does that disable the onboard graphics?[/citation]

Technically, it's the P67 platform that disables onboard graphics. H67 is required in order to utilize the HD Graphics 2000/3000.
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]Ubrales[/nom]Excellent review with a lot of good information! I will use this article as reference material. Thanks to Chris![/citation]

Very welcome, glad you enjoyed it!!
Chris
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]winner4455[/nom]"But after running the the numbers I’ve run on Sandy Bridge,"Page 1, under road map.[/citation]

Fixed, thanks winner!
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]baracubra[/nom]On page 5 last paragraph, the text reads 6970 while the attached image is using a 6870... just saying Otherwise great review, this is why we keep coming to Tom's[/citation]

Fixed, thanks Baracubra!
 

cangelini

Contributing Editor
Editor
Jul 4, 2008
1,878
9
19,795
[citation][nom]hixbot[/nom]Great review! It would be nice to see a follow up showing clock-for-clock performance with turbo boost shut off, memory bandwidths all the same, just to see if the cores are more efficient.[/citation]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/sandy-bridge-core-i7-2600k-core-i5-2500k,2833-2.html

Already done--Turbo disabled, same clock rate, both quad-core chips. There's your proof that Sandy Bridge is, clock-for-clock, significantly faster =)

All the best,
Chris
 

davewolfgang

Distinguished
Aug 30, 2010
454
0
18,860
Most of us aren't Intel "fanbois", but just wanting the best out there. The reason we think that AMD is in trouble is that these are Intel's bottom and middle of the road line - NOT their top of the line. If these bottom and middle of the road CPU's are already kicking AMD's butt - and Bulldozer isn't a big jump - AMD will really be behind.

Yes, they still might have the price, but OEM's will be wanting to put that "i3, 5 and 7" Intel Logo on their ads and packaging because all the geeks like us will know what's faster, and word does trickle out to the less knowledgeable people who hear from family and friends about these benchmarks - that Intel "beats" AMD CPU's. Yeah, they might not know the difference between the i3, 5, and 7, but they will know that one is "considered" better by geeks. ;-) If BD can't get this kind of improvement over the current AMD's, then we consumers won't see a good price war because Intel won't "have" to lower their prices to be competitive.
 
Great article. Very interesting transcoding times. I'm wondering if that's the reason the K series desktop CPUs have the HD 3000 onboard. Unless I completely misunderstood how Quick Sync works.
 

rdawise

Distinguished
Apr 18, 2008
225
0
18,680
Of course Sandy Bridge is an improvement since it uses better manufacturing tech, but how is this killing AMD when their niche is at or below the $150 price point? You will still pay more for Intel chip + mobo than an AMD chip + mobo. If you don't care, then you are out AMD's market no loss there.

Anyway, these look pretty good. Late Christmas gift FTW!!!!!
 

mdsiu

Distinguished
Oct 1, 2010
448
0
18,860
[citation][nom]davewolfgang[/nom]Most of us aren't Intel "fanbois", but just wanting the best out there. The reason we think that AMD is in trouble is that these are Intel's bottom and middle of the road line - NOT their top of the line. If these bottom and middle of the road CPU's are already kicking AMD's butt - and Bulldozer isn't a big jump - AMD will really be behind. Yes, they still might have the price, but OEM's will be wanting to put that "i3, 5 and 7" Intel Logo on their ads and packaging because all the geeks like us will know what's faster, and word does trickle out to the less knowledgeable people who hear from family and friends about these benchmarks - that Intel "beats" AMD CPU's. Yeah, they might not know the difference between the i3, 5, and 7, but they will know that one is "considered" better by geeks. ;-) If BD can't get this kind of improvement over the current AMD's, then we consumers won't see a good price war because Intel won't "have" to lower their prices to be competitive.[/citation]

Thank you Captain Obvious.
 

masterasia

Distinguished
Feb 9, 2009
1,128
0
19,360
I'm in for one i7-2600K. bulldozer will probably perform close, but won't beat it. Most people who buy this thing will be overclocking it to 4GHz+ anyways.
 

milktea

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2009
599
0
18,980
Quick Sync makes me want to upgrade my computer. It is a very attractive piece of tech. Now, if Intel could just beef up their GPU performance, then I would be able to say 'bye bye' to ATI/AMD and Nivida. :)
 

killerclick

Distinguished
Jan 13, 2010
1,563
0
19,790
[citation][nom]Soldier37[/nom]AMD is dead...really, lol what are you smoking intel fanboys? I game just fine with my quad 955 and 5970 at 2560 x 1600 res in every game. Screw Intel fanboys![/citation]

Well if gaming is your thing then I guess you have a point, however a lot of us use our computers for a lot more than gaming and AMD CPUs just don't cut it anymore, they even lost the price/performance crown.
 

pinkfloydminnesota

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2010
181
0
18,680
Great article, but reading through the charts is headache inducing. How simple is it to introduce some color to the left hand column to make it easier to follow a processor from chart to chart?
 

g00fysmiley

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2010
2,175
0
19,860
hmm 32nm quads finally :D

its odd that they didn't release the flagship/halo products first... but very impressive and priced well... wonder how amd will cut prices to compete here's hoping bulldozer can bridge the gap
 
Status
Not open for further replies.