The Sandy Bridge Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 27, 2010 2:38 PM ESTFinal Words
If Intel's roadmap and pricing hold true, then the Core i5 2400 should give you an average of 23% better performance than the Core i5 760 at a potentially lower point. If we compare shipping configurations, the Core i5 2400 should actually perform like a Core i7 880 despite not having Hyper Threading enabled. Clock for clock however, Sandy Bridge seems to offer a 10% increase in performance. Keep in mind that this analysis was done without a functional turbo mode, so the shipping Sandy Bridge CPUs should be even quicker. I'd estimate you can add another 3 - 7% to these numbers for the final chips. That's not bad at all for what amounts to a free upgrade compared to what you'd buy today. Power consumption will also see an improvement. Not only will Sandy Bridge be noticeably quicker than Lynnfield, it'll draw less power.
While Nehalem was an easy sell if you had highly threaded workloads, Sandy Bridge looks to improve performance across the board regardless of thread count. It's a key differentiator that should make Sandy Bridge an attractive upgrade to more people.
The overclocking prevention Intel is putting into Sandy Bridge sounds pretty bad at first. However if the roadmap and pricing stay their course, it looks like overclockers looking to spend as much as they did on Core i5 750/760s won't be limited at all thanks to the K SKUs in the mix. The real question is what happens at the low end. While I don't get the impression that the Core i3 2000 series will be completely locked, it's unclear how much rope Intel will give us.
Sandy Bridge's integrated graphics is good. It's fast enough to put all previous attempts at integrated graphics to shame and compete with entry level discrete GPUs. The fact that you can get Radeon HD 5450 performance for free with a Core i5 2400 is just awesome. As I mentioned before, you won't want to throw away your GTX 460, but if you were planning on spending $50 on a GPU - you may not need to with Sandy Bridge.
Assuming mobile Sandy Bridge performs at least as well as the desktop parts, we may finally be at the point where what you get with a mainstream notebook is good enough to actually play some games. I'm really curious to see how well the higher spec integrated graphics parts do once Sandy Bridge makes it a little closer to final (Update: it looks like we may have had a 12 EU part from the start). I should add that despite the GPU performance improvement - don't believe this is enough. I would like to see another doubling in integrated GPU performance before I'm really happy, but now it's very clear that Intel is taking integrated graphics seriously.
Architecturally, I'm very curious to see what Intel has done with Sandy Bridge. Given the improvements in FP performance and what I've heard about general purpose performance, I'm thinking there's a lot more than we've seen here today. Then there are the features that we were unable to test: Sandy Bridge's improved turbo and its alleged on-die video transcode engine. If the latter is as capable as I've heard, you may be able to have better transcoding performance on your notebook than you do on your desktop today. Update: Check out our Sandy Bridge Architecture article for full details on the CPU's architecture.
With Sandy Bridge next year you'll get higher clock speeds, more performance per clock and reasonable integrated graphics at presumably the same prices we're paying today. What's even more exciting is the fact that what we're looking at is just mainstream performance. The high end Sandy Bridge parts don't arrive until the second half of 2011 which add more cores and more memory bandwidth.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
200 Comments
View All Comments
AndreC - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Hi there.. I`m currently a freelance 3D generalist.. and I was going to upgrade my old Core 2 Quad QX6700 with a Core i7 980X. But now i`m not that confident. Sandy bridge looks amazing, I was sad seeing the new socket for sandy bridge, it does not compell me to buy a new motherboard now... does anyone know if the 1366 socket will stick with the nex gen High end market? I dont want to shoot myself in the foot here.AndreC - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Sorry dind`t read the last frase...Great Review btw. cheers
sdsdv10 - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
As noted in the Intel roadmap in the article, for at least part of 2011 they will be sticking with 1366 for the release of the Core i7 990X (to replace the 980X). However, after that the Intel performance platform will switch over to socket LGA-2011. Here is a quote from the articlea (page 3)."Original Nehalem and Gulftown owners have their own socket replacement to look forward to. In the second half of 2011 Intel will replace LGA-1366 with LGA-2011. LGA-2011 adds support for four DDR3 memory channels and the first 6+ core Sandy Bridge processors."
AndreC - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Yeah.. as I said "Sorry dind`t read the last frase..." but thx anyway..It`s a shame to be always changing sockets, but probabily a necessity to evolve the technology.
Kaihekoa - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Having the first chips target the mainstream market is a very smart move by Intel because that's where AMD makes it's money. I'm honestly not impressed by the performance numbers, but I am impressed by the overall performance, power consumption, and pricepoints for these next gen CPUs. What I'm really looking forward to is the performance segment of Sandy Bridge.mino - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Intel's mainstream is not where AMD's is.Especially in 2011.
Ontario:
. . . CPU - above Atom, under everything else
. . . GPU - 5450/Sandy class
Lliano:
. . . CPU - 2C Sandy class
. . . GPU - 5650 class (at least 3x Sandy)
Bulldozer Desktop(8C):
. . . CPU - 4C Sandy Class
. . . GPU - discrete 5750+ class
So basically AMD's platform in the Intel's "mainstream" $200+ class will be a Bulldozer with discrete GPU. Aka AMD's high end stuff.
silverblue - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Not sure I agree with that. From AMD's own figures, Bulldozer is significantly faster than STARS. It would be more realistic to expect Bulldozer to perform closely to Sandy Bridge, however we really need more benchmarks before we get a true idea. Bulldozer looks great on paper, but that's virtually all we have so far.In any case, you compared Bulldozer to "4C Sandy Class", which would be an 8-thread Sandy Bridge, and thus - at least relatively - high end. And I'm not getting into the core/module argument again... ;)
mino - Sunday, August 29, 2010 - link
What I wanted to point out is that Intel sees the 4C Sandy as a "mainstream" part.Reason being they are moving HUGE amounts (compared to AMD) of $150-$250 parts.
On the other hand, AMD sees the mainstream at $100-$200 and that is a Llano market.
For AMD, Zambezi is high-end that justifies discrete GPU.
And Yes, Bulldozer 8C should compare with 4C Sandy favorably, (it would mostly go to pricing).
tatertot - Sunday, August 29, 2010 - link
BD 8C is going to be up against 8C and 6C Sandy on LGA-2011 in the client space.mino - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link
am sure AMD WOULD like it that way. But no. Not really.8C Bulldozer versus 6C Sandy might actually be competitive.
However 32nm SOI is a new process so we might as well forget about 4GHz parts for now.
Also, Sandy 6C is Q4 part and 8C is most probably 2012 part.