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 ESTGeneral Performance: SYSMark 2007
Our journey starts with SYSMark 2007, the only all-encompassing performance suite in our review today. The idea here is simple: one benchmark to indicate the overall performance of your machine. SYSMark 2007 ends up being more of a dual-core benchmark as the applications/workload show minimal use of more than two threads.
The 2600K is our new champion, the $317 chip is faster than Intel's Core i7 980X here as SYSMark 2007 doesn't really do much with the latter's extra 2 cores. Even the 2500K is a hair faster than the 980X. Compared to the Core i5 750, the upgrade is a no brainer - Sandy Bridge is around 20% faster at the same price point as Lynnfield.
Compared to Clarkdale, the Core i3 2100 only manages a 5% advantage howeer.
Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance
To measure performance under Photoshop CS4 we turn to the Retouch Artists’ Speed Test. The test does basic photo editing; there are a couple of color space conversions, many layer creations, color curve adjustment, image and canvas size adjustment, unsharp mask, and finally a gaussian blur performed on the entire image.
The whole process is timed and thanks to the use of Intel's X25-M SSD as our test bed hard drive, performance is far more predictable than back when we used to test on mechanical disks.
Time is reported in seconds and the lower numbers mean better performance. The test is multithreaded and can hit all four cores in a quad-core machine.
Once again, we have a new king - the 2600K is 9.7% faster than the 980X in our Photoshop CS4 test and the 2500K is just about equal to it. The Core i3 2100 does much better compared to the i3 540, outpacing it by around 30% and nearly equaling the performance of AMD's Phenom II X6 1100T.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
283 Comments
View All Comments
Rick83 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
I just checked the manual to MSI's 7676 Mainboard (high-end H67) and it lists cpu core multiplier in the bios (page 3-7 of the manual, only limitation mentioned is that of CPU support), with nothing grayed out and overclockability a feature. As this is the 1.1 Version, I think someone misunderstood something....Unless MSI has messed up its Manual after all and just reused the P67 Manual.... Still, the focus on over-clocking would be most ridiculous.
Rick83 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
also, there is this:http://www.eteknix.com/previews/foxconn-h67a-s-h67...Where the unlocked multiplier is specifically mentioned as a feature of the H67 board.
So I think anandtech got it wrong here....
RagingDragon - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Or perhaps CPU overclocking on H67 is not *officially* supported by Intel, but the motherboard makers are supporting it anyway?IanWorthington - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Seems to sum it up. If you want both you have to wait until Q2.<face palm>
8steve8 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
so if im someone who wants the best igp, but doesn't want to pay for overclockability, i still have to buy the K cpu... weird.beginner99 - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
yep. This is IMHO extremely stupid. Wanted to build a PC for someone that mainly needs CPU power (video editing). An overclocked 2600k would be ideal with QS but either wait another 3 month or go all compromise...in that case H67 probably but still paying for K part and not being able to use it.Intel does know how to get the most money from you...
Hrel - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
haha, yeah that is stupid. You'd think on the CPU's you can overclock "K" they use the lower end GPU or not even use one at all. Makes for an awkward HTPC choice.AkumaX - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
omg omg omg wat do i do w/ my i7-875k... (p.s. how is this comment spam?)AssBall - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
Maybe because you sound like a 12 year old girl with ADHD.usernamehere - Monday, January 3, 2011 - link
I'm surprised nobody cares there's no native USB 3.0 support coming from Intel until 2012. It's obvious they are abusing their position as the number 1 chip maker, trying to push Light Peak as a replacement to USB. The truth is, Light Peak needs USB for power, it can never live without it (unless you like to carry around a bunch of AC adapters).Intel wants light peak to succeed so badly, they are leaving USB 3.0 (it's competitor) by the wayside. Since Intel sits on the USB board, they have a lot of pull in the industry, and as long as Intel wont support the standard, no manufacturer will ever get behind it 100%. Sounds very anti-competitive to me.
Considering AMD is coming out with USB 3.0 support in Llano later this year, I've already decided to jump ship and boycott Intel. Not because I'm upset with their lack of support for USB 3.0, but because their anti-competitive practices are inexcusable; holding back the market and innovation so their own proprietary format can get a headstart. I'm done with Intel.