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 ESTGaming Performance
There's simply no better gaming CPU on the market today than Sandy Bridge. The Core i5 2500K and 2600K top the charts regardless of game. If you're building a new gaming box, you'll want a SNB in it.
Our Fallout 3 test is a quick FRAPS runthrough near the beginning of the game. We're running with a GeForce GTX 280 at 1680 x 1050 and medium quality defaults. There's no AA/AF enabled.
In testing Left 4 Dead we use a custom recorded timedemo. We run on a GeForce GTX 280 at 1680 x 1050 with all quality options set to high. No AA/AF enabled.
Far Cry 2 ships with several built in benchmarks. For this test we use the Playback (Action) demo at 1680 x 1050 in DX9 mode on a GTX 280. The game is set to medium defaults with performance options set to high.
Crysis Warhead also ships with a number of built in benchmarks. Running on a GTX 280 at 1680 x 1050 we run the ambush timedemo with mainstream quality settings. Physics is set to enthusiast however to further stress the CPU.
Our Dragon Age: Origins benchmark begins with a shift to the Radeon HD 5870. From this point on these games are run under our Bench refresh testbed under Windows 7 x64. Our benchmark here is the same thing we ran in our integrated graphics tests - a quick FRAPS walkthrough inside a castle. The game is run at 1680 x 1050 at high quality and texture options.
We're running Dawn of War II's internal benchmark at high quality defaults. Our GPU of choice is a Radeon HD 5870 running at 1680 x 1050.
Our World of Warcraft benchmark is a manual FRAPS runthrough of a lightly populated server with no other player controlled characters around. The frame rates here are higher than you'd see in a real world scenario, but the relative comparison between CPUs is accurate.
We run on a Radeon HD 5870 at 1680 x 1050. We're using WoW's high quality defaults but with weather intensity turned down all the way.
For Starcraft II we're using our heavy CPU test. This is a playback of a 3v3 match where all players gather in the middle of the map for one large, unit-heavy battle. While GPU plays a role here, we're mostly CPU bound. The Radeon HD 5870 is running at 1024 x 768 at medium quality settings to make this an even more pure CPU benchmark.
This is Civ V's built in Late GameView benchmark, the newest addition to our gaming test suite. The benchmark outputs three scores: a full render score, a no-shadow render score and a no-render score. We present the first and the last, acting as a GPU and CPU benchmark respectively.
We're running at 1680 x 1050 with all quality settings set to high. For this test we're using a brand new testbed with 8GB of memory and a GeForce GTX 580.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
283 Comments
View All Comments
mosu - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
If I want to spend every year a big lot of money on something I'll sell on eBay at half price a few months later and if I'd like crappy quality images on my monitor, then I would buy Sandy Bridge... but sorry, I'm no no brainer for Intel.nitrousoxide - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
It really impressed me as I do a lot of video transcoding and it's extremely slow on my triple-core Phenom II X3 720, even though I overclocked it to 4GHz. But there is one question: the acceleration needs EU in the GPU, and GPU is disabled in P67 chipset. Does it mean that if I paired my SNB with a P67 motherboard, I won't be able to use the transcoding accelerator?nitrousoxide - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Not talking about SNB-E this time, I know it will be the performance king again. But I wonder if Bulldozer can at least gain some performance advantage to SNB because it makes no sense that 8 cores running at stunning 4.0GHz won't overrun 4 cores below 3.5GHz, no matter what architectural differences there are between these two chips. SNB is only the new-generation mid-range parts, it will be out-performed by High-End Bulldozers. AMD will hold the low-end, just as it does now; as long as the Bulldozer regain some part that Phenoms lost in mainstream and performance market, things will be much better for it. Enthusiast market is not AMD's cup of tea, just as what it does in GPUs: let nVidia get the performance king and strike from lower performance niches.strikeback03 - Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - link
I don't think we'll know until AMD releases Bulldozer and Intel counters (if they do). Seems the SNB chips can run significantly faster than they do right now, so if necessary Intel could release new models (or a firmware update) that allows turbo modes up past 4GHz.smashr - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
This review and others around the web refer to the CPUs as 'launching today', but I do not see them on NewEgg or other e-tailer sites.When can we expect these babies at retail?
JumpingJack - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
They are already selling in Malaysia, but if you don't live in Malasia then your are SOL :) ... I see rumors around that the NDA was suppose to expire on the 5th with retail availability on the 9th... I was thinking about making the leap, but think I will hold off for more info on BD and Sk2011 SB.slickr - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Intel has essentially shoot itself in the foot this time. Between the letters restrictions, the new chipset and crazy chipset differentiations between a P and a H its crazy.Not to mention they lack USB 3.0, ability to have an overclock mobo with integrated graphics and the stupid turbo boost restrictions.
I'll go even more and say that the I3 core is pure crap and while its better than the old core I3 they are essentially leaving the biggest market the one up the $200 dollars wide open to AMD.
Those who purchase CPU's at $200 and higher have luck in the 2500 and 2600 variants, but for the majority of us who purchase cpu's bellow $200 its crap.
Essentially if you want gaming performance you buy I3 2100, but if you want overall better performance go for a phenom II.
Hopefully AMD comes up with some great CPU's bellow the $200 range that are going to be with 4 cores, unlimited turbo boost and not locked.
Arakageeta - Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - link
It seems that these benchmarks test the CPUs (cores) and GPU parts of SandyBridge separately. I'd like to know more about the effects of the CPU and GPU (usually data intensive) sharing the L3 cache.One advantage a system with a discrete GPU is that the GPU and CPUs can happily work simultaneously without largely affecting one another. This is no longer the case with SandyBridge.
A test I would like to see is a graphics intensive application running while another another application performs some multi-threaded ATLAS-tuned LAPACK computations. Do either the GPU or CPUs swamp the L3 cache? Are there any instances of starvation? What happens to the performance of each application? What happens to frame rates? What happens to execution times?
morpheusmc - Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - link
To me it seems that marketing is defining the processors now in Intel rather than engineering. This is always the case but I think now it is more evident than ever.Essentially if you want he features that the new architecture brings, you have to sell out for the higher end models.
My ideal processor would be a i5-2520M for the desktop: Reasonable clocks, good turbo speeds (could be higher for the desktop since the TDP is not that limited), HT, good graphics etc. The combination of 2 cores and HT provides a good balance between power consumption and perfromance for most users.
Its desktop equivalent price-wise is the 2500, wich has no HT and a much higher TDP because of the four cores. Alternatively, maybe the 2500S, 2400S or 2390T could be considered if they are too overpriced.
Intel has introduced too much differentiation in this generation, and in an Apple-like fashion, i.e. they force you to pay more for stuff you don't need, just for an extra feature (eg. VT support, good graphics etc) that practically costs nothing since the silicon is already there. Bottomline, if you want to have the full functionality of the silicon that you get, you have to pay for the higher end models.
Moreover, having features for specific functions (AES, transcoding etc) and good graphics makes more sense in lower-end models where CPU power is limited.
This is becoming like the software market, where you have to pay extra for licenses for specific functionalities.
I wouldn't be surprised if Intel starts selling "upgrade licenses" sometime in the future that will simply unlock features.
I strongly prefer AMD's approach where all the fatures are available to all models.
I am also a bit annoyed that there is very little discusison about this problem in the review. I agree that technologically Sandy Bridge is impressive, but the artificial limiting of functionality is anti-technological.
ac2 - Tuesday, January 4, 2011 - link
Agreed, but, apart from the K-series/ higher IGP/ motherboard mess up (which I think should be shortly cleared up), all the rest of it is just smart product marketing...It irritates readers of AnandTech, but for the most people who buy off-the-shelf it's all good, with integrators patching up any shortcomings in the core/ chipset.
The focus does seem to be mobile, low-power and video transcode, almost a recipe for macbook!!