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
overzealot - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Now, that's a name I've not heard in a long time. A long time.mapesdhs - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Seems to be Intel is slowly locking up the overclocking scene because it has no
competition. If so, and Intel continues in that direction, then it would be a great
chance for AMD to win back overclocking fans with something that just isn't
locked out in the same way.
Looking at the performance numbers, I see nothing which suggests a product that
would beat my current 4GHz i7 860, except for the expensive top-end unlocked
option which I wouldn't consider anyway given the price.
Oh well, perhaps my next system will be a 6-core AMD.
Ian.
LuckyKnight - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Do we have something more precise about the release date? Q1 is what - Jan/Feb/March/Apri?Looking to upgrade a core 2 duo at the moment - not sure whether to wait
mino - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Q1 (in this case) means tricle amounts in Jan/Feb, mainstream availability Mar/April and worth-buying mature mobos in May/June timeframe.tatertot - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Intel has already announced that shipments for revenue will occur in Q4 of this year. So, January launch.They've also commented that Sandy Bridge OEM demand is very strong, and they are adjusting the 32nm ramp up to increase supply. So January should be a decent launch.
Not surprising-- these parts have been in silicon since LAST summer.
chrsjav - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Do modern clock generators use a quartz resonator? How would that be put on-die?iwodo - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Since you didn't get this chip directly from Intel , i suspect there were no reviews guideline for you to follow, like which test to run and what test not to run etc.Therefore those benchmark from Games were not a results of special optimization in drivers. Which is great, because drivers matter much more then Hardware in GPU. If these are only early indication of what Intel new GPU can do, i expect there are more to extract from drivers.
You mention 2 Core GPU ( 12 EU ) verus 1 GPU ( 6 EU ), Any Guess as to what "E" stand for? And it seems like a SLI like tech rather then actually having more EU in one chip. The different being SLI or crossfire does not get any advantage unless drivers and games are working together. Which greatly reduces the chances of it working at full performance.
It also seems every one fail to realize one of the greatest performance will be coming from AVX. AVX will be like MMX again when we had the Pentium. I cant think of any other SSE having as great important to performance as AVX. Once software are specially optimize for AVX we should get another major lift in performance.
I also heard about rumors that 64bit in Sandy Bridge will work much better. But i dont know if there are anything we could test this.
The OpenCL sounds like a Intel management decision rather then a technical decision. May be Intel will provide or work with Apple to provide OpenCL on these GPU?
You also mention that Intel somehow support PCI -Express 2.0 with 1.0 performance. I dont get that bit there. Could you elaborate? 2.5GT/s for G45 Chipset??
If Intel ever decide to finally work on their drivers, then their GPU will be great for entry levels.
Are Dual Channel DDR3 1333 enough for Quad Core CPU + GPU? or even Dual core CPU.
Is GPU memory bandwidth limited?
Any update on Hardware Decoder? And what about transcoding part?
Would there be ways to lock the GPU to run at Turbo Clock all the time? Or GPU gets higher priority in Turbo etc..
How big is the Die?
P.S - ( Any news on Intel G3 SSD? i am getting worried that next Gen Sandforce is too good for intel. )
ssj4Gogeta - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
I believe EU means execution units.DanNeely - Sunday, August 29, 2010 - link
"You also mention that Intel somehow support PCI -Express 2.0 with 1.0 performance. I dont get that bit there. Could you elaborate? 2.5GT/s for G45 Chipset??"PCIE 2.0 included other low level protocol improvements in addition to the doubled clock speed. Intel only implemented the former; probably because the latter would have strangled the DMI bus.
"Are Dual Channel DDR3 1333 enough for Quad Core CPU + GPU? or even Dual core CPU."
Probably. The performance gains vs the previous generation isn't that large and it was enough for anything except pathological test cases (eg memory benchmarks). If it wasn't there'd be no reason why Intel couldn't officially support DDR3-1600 in their locked chipsets to give a bit of extra bandwidth.
chizow - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
@AnandCould you please clarify and expand on this comment please? Is this true for all Intel chipsets that claim support for PCIe 2.0?
[q]The other major (and welcome) change is the move to PCIe 2.0 lanes running at 5GT/s. Currently, Intel chipsets support PCIe 2.0 but they only run at 2.5GT/s, which limits them to a maximum of 250MB/s per direction per lane. This is a problem with high bandwidth USB 3.0 and 6Gbps SATA interfaces connected over PCIe x1 slots. With the move to 5GT/s, Intel is at feature parity with AMD’s chipsets and more importantly the bandwidth limits are a lot higher. A single PCIe x1 slot on a P67 motherboard can support up to 500MB/s of bandwidth in each direction (1GB/s bidirectional bandwidth).[/q]
If this is true, current Intel chipsets do not support PCIe 2.0 as 2.5GT/s and 250MB/s is actually the same effective bandwidth as PCIe 1.1. How did you come across this information? I was looking for ways to measure PCIe bandwidth but only found obscure proprietary tools not available publicly.
If Intel chipsets are only running at PCIe 1.1 regardless of what they're claiming externally, that would explain some of the complaints/concerns about bandwidth on older Intel chipsets.