The Sandy Bridge Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi on August 27, 2010 2:38 PM ESTWindows 7 Gaming Performance
Our Bench suite is getting a little long in the tooth, so I added a few more gaming tests under Windows 7 with a new group of processors. We'll be adding some of these tests to Bench in the future but the number of datapoints is obviously going to be small as we build up the results.
Batman is an Unreal Engine 3 game and a fairly well received one at that. Performance is measured using the built in benchmark at the highest image quality settings without AA enabled.
Gaming performance is competitive, but we don't see any huge improvements under Batman.
Dragon Age Origins is another very well received game. The 3rd person RPG gives our CPUs a different sort of workload to enjoy:
Dragon Age on the other hand shows an 11.6% gain vs. the i5 760 and equal performance to the Core i7 880. Given that the i5 2400 is slated to be cheaper than the i5 760, I can't complain.
World of Warcraft needs no introduction. An absurd number of people play it, so we're here to benchmark it. Our test favors repeatability over real world frame rates, so our results here will be higher than in the real world with lots of server load. But what our results will tell you is what the best CPU is to get for playing WoW:
Performance in our WoW test is top notch. The i5 2400 is now the fastest CPU we've ever run through our WoW benchmark, the Core i7 980X included.
We've been working on putting together Starcraft II performance numbers, so here's a quick teaser:
A 12% advantage over the Core i7 880 and an 18% improvement over the Core i5 760.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
200 Comments
View All Comments
Touche - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link
And the naming...OMG!There will be i7 processors that require three (3 !!!) different sockets! Maybe even 4 when 2011 comes. Intel can't get their naming right for quite some time now, but they've outdone themselves this time.
ereavis - Monday, August 30, 2010 - link
Processor names really should mean something, even if AMD and Intel don't agree. It's annoying that I have to wikipedia a processor (or memorize a thousand processors) to know what it is. We are still getting quotes for three year old Opterons and Xeons (that we're using as desktops no less), those only add to the annoyance.What ends up happening - good for Intel bad for technology advancement - is non IT type people buying computers are buying DDR2-667 based three-year old desktop processors.
BSMonitor - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link
Ummm, but Bulldozer comes with AM3-r2... Just a sketchier way of saying new MB needed.At least this new Intel isn't trying to BS you. Significant revisions to the architecture require different pin layouts/counts... It is inevitable with processor evolution.
Touche - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link
Actually, it should be AM3 compatible:http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/bulldozer-bobc...
Even if it's not, AM2/AM3 lasted quite some time.
"At least this new Intel isn't trying to BS you. Significant revisions to the architecture require different pin layouts/counts... It is inevitable with processor evolution."
They know in advance what they need and could design a socket to support multiple processors. And i7/i5/i3 definitely don't need different ones.
BSMonitor - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link
"Even if it's not, AM2/AM3 lasted quite some time."Not all AM2 processors were compatible with AM2+ MB or vice versa, not all AM3 processors compatible on AM2+ MB.
It's still 3 different sockets.
Marketing buddy, marketing.
By the time 1366 is replaced, it will have been on the market for 4 years.
stmok - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
Eh, no its not. Bulldozer does NOT work with non-AM3+ mobosAMD engineers made a decision not to make it backward compatible for three reasons.
(1) No one but enthusiasts upgrade their CPUs. People in the real world upgrade their whole computer.
(2) Bulldozer introduces new features that won't work with existing Socket AM3 mobos. (Isn't it bloody obvious when they have to introduce a new socket specification?)
(3) It would cost more money and delays if they were to make a backward compatible version of Bulldozer.
As a result, they made a compromise:
You can take your existing AM3 CPU to AM3+ mobos, while you wait for Bulldozer to arrive. BUT, you can NOT upgrade your existing AM3 based system to Bulldozer.
Simply put...
AM3+ CPU and AM3+ mobo = OK
AM3 CPU and AM3+ mobo = OK
AM3+ CPU and AM3 mobo = Sorry. No.
So it doesn't matter if AMD "Bulldozer" or Intel "Sandy Bridge". You will need a new mobo.
Ard - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link
AMD seriously has their work cut out for them with Bulldozer. The lowest end Sandy Bridge processor absolutely trounced the competition. It's insane what Intel is pulling off here, especially in the integrated graphics arena. Really makes me hope Larrabee comes back as a discrete product in the next few years.dgz - Saturday, August 28, 2010 - link
poor kid, you don't realize 2400 is not nearly lowest end.Finally - Sunday, August 29, 2010 - link
Doesn't that make him a "(filthy) rich kid"?Quodlibet - Friday, August 27, 2010 - link
- based on the shown roadmap, the replacement for the i5 760 is actually the i5 2500(K).- i7 will have even better performance with 8 MB L3 Cache and higher graphics turbo. So there is even more performance potential in the SandyBridge die that Intel could unlock for lower SKUs if needed.