The Sandy Bridge Review: Intel Core i7-2600K, i5-2500K and Core i3-2100 Tested
by Anand Lal Shimpi on January 3, 2011 12:01 AM ESTFinal Words
In terms of absolute CPU performance, Sandy Bridge doesn't actually move things forward. This isn't another ultra-high-end CPU launch, but rather a refresh for the performance mainstream and below. As one AnandTech editor put it, you get yesterday's performance at a much lower price point. Lynnfield took away a lot of the reason to buy an X58 system as it delivered most of the performance with much more affordable motherboards; Sandy Bridge all but puts the final nail in X58's coffin. Unless you're running a lot of heavily threaded applications, I would recommend a Core i7-2600K over even a Core i7-980X. While six cores are nice, you're better off pocketing the difference in cost and enjoying nearly the same performance across the board (if not better in many cases).
In all but the heaviest threaded applications, Sandy Bridge is the fastest chip on the block—and you get the performance at a fairly reasonable price. The Core i7-2600K is tempting at $317 but the Core i5-2500K is absolutely a steal at $216. You're getting nearly $999 worth of performance at roughly a quarter of the cost. Compared to a Core i5-750/760, you'll get an additional 10-50% performance across the board in existing applications, and all that from a ~25% increase in clock speed. A big portion of what Sandy Bridge delivers is due to architectural enhancements, the type of thing we've come to expect from an Intel tock. Starting with Conroe, repeating with Nehalem, and going strong once more with Sandy Bridge, Intel makes this all seem so very easy.
Despite all of the nastiness Intel introduced by locking/limiting most of the Sandy Bridge CPUs, if you typically spend around $200 on a new CPU then Sandy Bridge is likely a better overclocker than anything you've ever owned before it. The biggest loser in the overclock locks is the Core i3 which now ships completely locked. Thankfully AMD has taken care of the low-end segments very well over the past couple of years. All Intel is doing by enforcing clock locks for these lower end chips is sending potential customers AMD's way.
The Core i3-2100 is still a step forward, but not nearly as much of one as the 2500K. For the most part you're getting a 5-20% increase in performance (although we did notice some 30-40% gains), but you're giving up overclocking as an option. For multithreaded workloads you're better off with an Athlon II X4 645; however, for lightly threaded work or a general purpose PC the Core i3-2100 is likely faster.
If this were a normal CPU, I'd probably end here, but Sandy Bridge is no normal chip. The on-die GPU and Quick Sync are both noteworthy additions. Back in 2006 I wondered if Intel would be able to stick to its aggressive tick-tock cadence. Today there's no question of whether or not Intel can do it. The question now is whether Intel will be able to sustain a similarly aggressive ramp in GPU performance and feature set. Clarkdale/Arrandale were both nice, but they didn't do much to compete with low-end discrete GPUs. Intel's HD Graphics 3000 makes today's $40-$50 discrete GPUs redundant. The problem there is we've never been happy with $40-$50 discrete GPUs for anything but HTPC use. What I really want to see from Ivy Bridge and beyond is the ability to compete with $70 GPUs. Give us that level of performance and then I'll be happy.
The HD Graphics 2000 is not as impressive. It's generally faster than what we had with Clarkdale, but it's not exactly moving the industry forward. Intel should just do away with the 6 EU version, or at least give more desktop SKUs the 3000 GPU. The lack of DX11 is acceptable for SNB consumers but it's—again—not moving the industry forward. I believe Intel does want to take graphics seriously, but I need to see more going forward.
Game developers need to put forth some effort as well. Intel has clearly tried to fix some of its bad reputation this go around, so simply banning SNB graphics from games isn't helping anyone. Hopefully both sides will put in the requisite testing time to actually improve the situation.
Quick Sync is just awesome. It's simply the best way to get videos onto your smartphone or tablet. Not only do you get most if not all of the quality of a software based transcode, you get performance that's better than what high-end discrete GPUs are able to offer. If you do a lot of video transcoding onto portable devices, Sandy Bridge will be worth the upgrade for Quick Sync alone.
For everyone else, Sandy Bridge is easily a no brainer. Unless you already have a high-end Core i7, this is what you'll want to upgrade to.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
283 Comments
View All Comments
nuudles - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Anand, im not the biggest intel fan (due to their past grey area dealings) but I dont think the naming is that confusing. As I understand it they will move to the 3x00 series with Ivy Bridge, basically the higher the second number the faster the chip.It would be nice if there was something in the name to easily tell consumers the number of cores and threads, but the majority of consumers just want the fatest chip for their money and dont care how many cores or threads it has.
The ix part tells enthusiasts the number of cores/threads/turbo with the i3 having 2/4/no, the i5 having 4/4/yes and i7 4/8/yes. I find this much simpler than the 2010 chips which had some dual and some quad core i5 chips for example.
I think AMD's gpus has a sensible naming convention (except for the 68/6900 renaming) without the additional i3/i5/i7 modifier by using the second number as the tier indicator while maintaining the rule of thumb of "a higher number within a- generation means faster", if intel adopted something similar it would have been better.
That said I wish they stick with a naming convention for at least 3 or 4 generations...
nimsaw - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
",,but until then you either have to use the integrated GPU alone or run a multimonitor setup with one monitor connected to Intel’s GPU in order to use Quick Sync"So have you tested the Transcoding with QS by using an H67 chipset based motherboard? The Test Rig never mentions any H67 motherboard. I am somehow not able to follow how you got the scores for the Transcode test. How do you select the codepath if switching graphics on a desktop motherboard is not possible? Please throw some light on it as i am a bit confused here. You say that QS gives a better quality output than GTX 460, so does that mean, i need not invest in a discrete GPU if i am not gaming. Moreover, why should i be forced to use the discrete GPU in a P67 board when according to your tests, the Intel QS is giving a better output.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
I need to update the test table. All of the Quick Sync tests were run on Intel's H67 motherboard. Presently if you want to use Quick Sync you'll need to have an H67 motherboard. Hopefully Z68 + switchable graphics will fix this in Q2.Take care,
Anand
7Enigma - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
I think this needs to be a front page comment because it is a serious deficiency that all of your reviews fail to properly describe. I read them all and it wasn't until the comments came out that this was brought to light. Seriously SNB is a fantastic chip but this CPU/mobo issue is not insignificant for a lot of people.Wurmer - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
I haven't read through all the comments and sorry if it's been said but I find it weird that the most ''enthusiast'' chip K, comes with the better IGP when most people buying this chip will for the most part end up buying a discreet GPU.Akv - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
It's being said in reviews from China to France to Brazil, etc.nimsaw - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Strangely enough i also have the same query. what is the point of better Integrated graphics when you cannot use them on a P67 mobo?also i came across this screen shot
http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Intel-Sandy-Br...
where on the right hand corner you have a Drop Down menu which has selected Intel Quick Sync. Will you see a discrete GPU if you expand it? Does it not mean switching between graphics solutions. In the review its mentioned that switchable graphics is still to find its way in desktop mobos.
sticks435 - Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - link
It looks like that drop down is dithered, which means it's only displaying the QS system at the moment, but has a possibility to select multiple options in the future or maybe if you had 2 graphics cards etc.HangFire - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
You are comparing video and not chipsets, right?I also take issue with the statement that the 890GX (really HD 4290) is the current onboard video cream of the crop. Test after test (on other sites) show it to be a bit slower than the HD4250, even though it has higher specs.
I also think Intel is going to have a problem with folks comparing their onboard HD3000 to AMD's HD 4290, it just sounds older and slower.
No word on Linux video drivers for the new HD2000 and HD3000? Considering what a mess KMS has made of the old i810 drivers, we may be entering an era where accelerated onboard Intel video is no longer supported on Linux.
mino - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
Actually, 890GX is just a re-badged 780G from 2008 with sideport memory.And no HD4250 is NOT faster. While some specific implementation of 890GX wthout sideport _might_ be slower, it would also be cheaper and not really a "proper" representative.
(890GX withou sedeport is like sayin i3 with dual channel RAM is "faster" in games than i5 with single channel RAM ...)