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
dgingeri - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
I have a really good reason for X58: I/OI have 2X GTX 470 video cards and a 3Ware PCIe X4 RAID controller. None of the P67 motherboards I've seen would handle all that hardware, even with cutting the video cards' I/O in half.
This chip fails in that one very important spot. if they had put a decent PCIe controller in it, with 36 PCIe lanes instead of 16, then I'd be much happier.
Exodite - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
That's exactly why this is the mainstream platform, while x58 is the enthusiast one, though. Your requirements aren't exactly mainstream, indeed they are beyond what most enthusiasts need even.sviola - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
You may want to look at the Gigabyte GA-P67A-UD5 and GA-P67A-UD7 as they can run your configuration.Nihility - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Considering the K versions of the CPUs don't have it.If I'm a developer and use VMs a lot, how important will VT-d be within the 3-4 years that I would own such a chip?
I know that it basically allows direct access to hardware and I don't want to get stuck without it, if it becomes hugely important (Like how you need VT-x to run 64 bit guests).
Any thoughts?
code65536 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
My question is whether or not that chart is even right. I'm having a hard time believing that Intel would disable a feature in an "enthusiast" chip. Disabling features in lower-end cheaper chips, sure, but in "enthusiast" chips?! Unless they are afraid of those K series (but not the non-K, apparently?) cannibalizing their Xeon sales?has407 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Relatively unimportant IMHO if you're doing development. If you're running a VM/IO-intensive production workload (which isn't likely with one of these), then more important.Remember, you need several things for Vt-d to work:
1. CPU support (aka "IOMMU").
2. Chip-set/PCH support (e.g., Q57 has it, P57 does not).
3. BIOS support (a number of vendor implementations are broken).
4. Hypervisor support.
Any of 1-3 might result in "No" for the K parts. Even though it *should* apply only to the CPU's capabilities, Intel may simply be saying it is not supported. (Hard to tell as the detailed info isn't up on Intel's ark site yet, and it would otherwise require examining the CPU capability registers to determine.)
However, it's likely to be an intentional omission on Intel's part as, e.g., the i7-875K doesn't support Vt-d either. As to why that might be there are several possible reasons, many justifiable IMHO. Specifically, the K parts are targeted at people who are likely to OC, and OC'ing--even a wee bit, especially when using VT-d--may result in instability such as to make the system unusable.
If Vt-d is potentially important to you, then I suggest you back up through steps 4-1 above; all other things equal, 4-2 are likely to be far more important. If you're running VM/IO-intensive workloads where performance and VT-d capability is a priority, then IMHO whether you can OC the part will be 0 or -1 on the list of priorities.
And while VT-d can make direct access to hardware a more effective option (again, assuming Hypervisor support), it's primary purpose is to make all IO more efficient in a virtualized environment (e.g., IOMMU and interrupt mapping). It's less a matter of "Do I have to have it to get to first base?" than "How much inefficiency am I willing to tolerate?" And again, unless you're running IO-intensive VM workloads in a production environment, the answer is probably "The difference is unlikely to be noticeable for the work [development] I do."
p.s. code65536 -- I doubt Intel is concerned with OC'd SB parts cannibalizing Xeon sales. (I'd guess the count of potentially lost Xeon sales could be counted on two hands with fingers to spare.:) Stability is far more important than pure speed for anyone I know running VM-intensive loads and, e.g., no ECC support on these parts is for me deal killer. YMMV.
DanNeely - Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - link
For as long as MS dev tools take to install, I'd really like to be able to do all my dev work in a VM backed up to the corporate lan to ease the pain of a new laptop and to make a loaner actually useful. Unfortunately the combination of lousy performance with MS VPC, and the inability of VPC to run two virtual monitors of different sizes mean I don't have a choice about running visual studio in my main OS install.mino - Wednesday, January 5, 2011 - link
VMware Workstation is what you need. VPC is for sadists.Even if your budget is 0(zero), and VPC is free, KVM/QEMU might be a better idea.
Also, Hyper-V locally and (via RDP) is pretty reasonable.
cactusdog - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
If we cant overclock the chipset how do we get high memory speeds of 2000Mhz+? Is there still a QPI/Dram voltage setting?Tanel - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
No VT-d on K-series? FFFFUUUU!So just because I want to use VT-d I'll also be limited to 6 EUs and have no possibility to overclock?
Then there's the chipset-issue. Even if I got the enthusiast targeted K-series I would still need to get the:
a) ...H67-chipset to be able to use the HD-unit and QS-capability - yet not be able to overclock.
b) ...P67-chipset to be able to overclock - yet to lose QS-capability and the point of having 6 extra EUs as the HD-unit can't be used at all.
What the hell Intel, what the hell! This makes me furious.