# Intel Sandy Bridge Quad-Core Processor Tested



## btarunr (Jun 10, 2010)

At this year's Computex event, some of the most unexpected exhibits were socket LGA1155 motherboards based on Intel 6-series chipsets, across the board, from virtually every major motherboard vendor. Unexpected, because it's been less than an year since released mainstream derivatives of the Nehalem/Westmere architectures that use the LGA1156 socket. LGA1155 will form the base for performance, mainstream, and value segments of processors based on the upcoming Sandy Bridge architecture, which is a generation successor of Nehalem. With so many motherboard vendors showing off their creations in release-grade conditions, it is obvious that engineering samples of processors to go with them are already on the loose and will land in some enthusiast's hands. It did, in the skillful hands of Coolaler, who wasted no time in putting it through a quick run through popular benchmarks. 

Coolaler tested an LGA1155 quad-core processor operating at 2.5 GHz, which CPU-Z can't name but marks it as a Sandy Bridge engineering sample. Among the little that's known about this processor, is that it has a base clock speed of 100 MHz (Nehalem/Westmere processors use BClk of 133 MHz), which means that to achieve 2.5 GHz, it uses a multiplier value of 25. It has all the instruction sets of Westmere including SSE 4.2 and AES acceleration, but also features AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions), a successor to SSE 4.2 which expands the processor's number crunching abilities, and increases performance per MHz. The cache structure up to the second level is the same (32 KB L1I, 32 KB L1D, 256 KB /core L2), but uses a smaller L3 cache at 6 MB (compared to 8 MB on Lynnfield). HyperThreading technology provides the OS with 8 logical CPUs to deal with. 



 

 

 




The setup was aided with 4 GB of DDR3 memory and ATI Radeon HD 5800 series graphics. The processor crunched Super Pi 1M in 16.349 s, it scored 371 points in CPU Mark. In the multi-threaded Cinebench R11.5 benchmark, the 2.5 GHz chip scored a little under Core i7 860 (reference score). In the Everest CPU Queen, it's about as fast a Core i5 750 from what we could say, but in the Photoworxx test, it outperformed the Core i7 965 XE. In a separate set of tests run on the same hardware albeit in Windows XP, the processor was eight times faster than any other processor in the AES test (because of its native AES extensions), and edged the Core i7 965 XE in memory bandwidth despite having a narrower dual-channel DDR3 IMC. 



 

 

 

 

While the results don't show a revolutionary processor, it is intended to be one. Right now it's eligible for the benefit of doubt. The real benefits will be for those models which come with embedded graphics, since the IGP and memory controller will be present on the same die, instead of the present design where the package is an MCM for two dies: CPU and northbridge. When Sandy Bridge releases is a subject of immense speculation. Since motherboard makers unveiled such mature designs of LGA1155 motherboards as early as in June 2010, a market release of the platform may not be too far away.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 10, 2010)

"whats special about this processor?"

"it has our IGP built right in!"

*pattering of feet*  **DOOR SLAM**


----------



## mlee49 (Jun 10, 2010)

> Coolaler tested an LGA1155 quad-core processor operating at 2.5 GHz, which CPU-Z can't name but marks it as a Sandy Bridge engineering sample. Among the little that's known about this processor, is that it has a base clock speed of 100 MHz (Nehalem/Westmere processors use BClk of 133 MHz), which means that to achieve 2.5 GHz, it uses a multiplier value of 25. *It has all the instruction sets of Westmere including SSE 4.2 and AES acceleration, but also features AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions), a successor to SSE 4.2 which expands the processor's number crunching abilities, and increases performance per MHz*. The cache structure up to the second level is the same (32 KB L1I, 32 KB L1D, 256 KB /core L2), but uses a smaller L3 cache at 6 MB (compared to 8 MB on Lynnfield). HyperThreading technology provides the OS with 8 logical CPUs to deal with.



I like this!!!


----------



## gumpty (Jun 10, 2010)

My next computer will likely be based around this platform. Unless AMD can keep up with developments and remains competitive in the mid to high-end price/performance area.


----------



## monte84 (Jun 10, 2010)

mlee49 said:


> I like this!!!



Which part?


----------



## DarthCyclonis (Jun 10, 2010)

I think intel is making a mistake moving from 1156 to 1155 so soon.  I know the reason why but think its going to burn those who just moved to 1156


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

DarthCyclonis said:


> I think intel is making a mistake moving from 1156 to 1155 so soon.  I know the reason why but think its going to burn those who just moved to 1156



1156 will be two year old by the time SB comes out. That's quite old.


----------



## erocker (Jun 10, 2010)

1156 & 1366 processors are powerful enough to last quite a while yet. It is ridiculous that the socket needs to be changed already.


----------



## Static~Charge (Jun 10, 2010)

erocker said:


> 1156 & 1366 processors are powerful enough to last quite a while yet. It is ridiculous that the socket needs to be changed already.



Intel licenses the socket design to manufacturers. Changing the socket means more royalty money for Intel (and more pissed-off users, too). :shadedshu


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

Static~Charge said:


> Intel licenses the socket design to manufacturers. Changing the socket means more royalty money for Intel (and more pissed-off users, too). :shadedshu



People pretend that they need to upgrade sockets when a new one comes out. The brutal truth is they don't they just like to bash companies because they're new toy isn't suddenly new. That's why they are angry. I won't be changing from socket 1366 for maybe 2 new generations.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> 1156 will be two year old by the time SB comes out. That's quite old.



Socket 775 is 6 years and AM2/AM3 is 4 years old.  There is no reason for a 2 year life span on a socket, that is way too short.



erocker said:


> 1156 & 1366 processors are powerful enough to last quite a while yet. It is ridiculous that the socket needs to be changed already.



I don't see a reason that the socket needs to be changed, other than to get people to buy new motherboards.

No skin off my back though, I'll take advantage of the great 1156 deals as it goes out, like the 875K.



DrPepper said:


> People pretend that they need to upgrade sockets when a new one comes out. The brutal truth is they don't they just like to bash companies because they're new toy isn't suddenly new. That's why they are angry. I won't be changing from socket 1366 for maybe 2 new generations.



Yep, that is exactly why I'm still running 775, because it more than meets my needs, I'll be taking advantage of the deals on 1156 stuff though.


----------



## a_ump (Jun 10, 2010)

um....how's it going to burn current nehalem/westmere owners? judging from what we've seen it's not any better than current nehalem/westmere architecture. Sure it has better instructions, but the performance difference in applications between Core iX and sandy bridge isn't going to be like Core2duo/quad to Core iX. If there is a difference i'd bet money it's not going to be significant; about as significant as the difference between using a single GPU when playing games with a core2 or core iX cpu.....in otherwords hardly noticable.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

Edit: See here: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1924385&postcount=16


----------



## Frick (Jun 10, 2010)

There are more, below that one and on the opposite side..


----------



## theubersmurf (Jun 10, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> My first instinct was to find the missing contact:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100610/42b.jpg
> 
> I think I got it.


I can't believe you put the effort in. lol


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

Here we go:







Red (1) was removed, and black (2) were moved.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Socket 775 is 6 years and AM2/AM3 is 4 years old.  There is no reason for a 2 year life span on a socket, that is way too short.



1156 hasn't really became a mainstream I've seen it mainly as an enthusiast overclocking system. The reason 1155 exists is because of the integrated graphics. I believe if intel could have they'd have kept 1156 and brought out a new chipset.


----------



## filip007 (Jun 10, 2010)

Only 100Mhz bus speed?

AVX or should i say AltiVec that was only 128bit SSE.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

I'm glad they're going to a nicer number for bclk. 133 is confusing. 200 was nice in 775 platforms.


----------



## mlee49 (Jun 10, 2010)

mlee49 said:


> > Coolaler tested an LGA1155 quad-core processor operating at 2.5 GHz, which CPU-Z can't name but marks it as a Sandy Bridge engineering sample. Among the little that's known about this processor, is that it has a base clock speed of 100 MHz (Nehalem/Westmere processors use BClk of 133 MHz), which means that to achieve 2.5 GHz, it uses a multiplier value of 25. *It has all the instruction sets of Westmere including SSE 4.2 and AES acceleration, but also features AVX (Advanced Vector Extensions), a successor to SSE 4.2 which expands the processor's number crunching abilities, and increases performance per MHz*. The cache structure up to the second level is the same (32 KB L1I, 32 KB L1D, 256 KB /core L2), but uses a smaller L3 cache at 6 MB (compared to 8 MB on Lynnfield). HyperThreading technology provides the OS with 8 logical CPUs to deal with.
> 
> 
> 
> I like this!!!





monte84 said:


> Which part?




The part about enhanced instruction set that increases performance per MHz. Thats great news!


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> 1156 hasn't really became a mainstream I've seen it mainly as an enthusiast overclocking system. The reason 1155 exists is because of the integrated graphics. I believe if intel could have they'd have kept 1156 and brought out a new chipset.



It hasn't gone mainstream because it hasn't had enough time to take over from 775.  Lets face it, for anything to become mainstream, the pre-built manufacturers have to start using it in a large number of their models.  And for the pre-built manufacturers to use it in a large number of their models, it has to support integrated graphics, which 1156 has only done since January, which is why 775 was the mainstream Intel socket up until then.  Lets face it, 6 months is hardly enough time for anything to become mainstream.

Now that 1156 has integrated graphics, I don't see any good reason why 1155 is necessary.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

It's become mainstream for our community, though 

I do welcome the integration of SATA 3, and hopefully all these boards have USB3 as well, but while I agree it is slightly upsetting that there is a new socket, I see their reasoning.

These processors operate on a completely different bclk. They wouldn't want anybody trying to put a 133bclk CPU into a 100bclk motherboard, or vice versa.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> It's become mainstream for our community, though
> 
> I do welcome the integration of SATA 3, and hopefully all these boards have USB3 as well, but while I agree it is slightly upsetting that there is a new socket, I see their reasoning.
> 
> These processors operate on a completely different bclk. They wouldn't want anybody trying to put a 133bclk CPU into a 100bclk motherboard, or vice versa.



That makes no sense, the motherboard should be able to detect and adjust the Bclk.  Just like every other socket can.  If I put a 333 in my 775 motherboard, it automatically uses 333, if I put a 200 in the same board it uses 200 automatically.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

That's absolutely true. Maybe that doesn't work with the Core iX platform, since all bclks have been 133 across the board.

Or maybe they're just a big, money hungry company that wants us all to buy new boards.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> It hasn't gone mainstream because it hasn't had enough time to take over from 775.  Lets face it, for anything to become mainstream, the pre-built manufacturers have to start using it in a large number of their models.  And for the pre-built manufacturers to use it in a large number of their models, it has to support integrated graphics, which 1156 has only done since January, which is why 775 was the mainstream Intel socket up until then.  Lets face it, 6 months is hardly enough time for anything to become mainstream.
> 
> Now that 1156 has integrated graphics, I don't see any good reason why 1155 is necessary.



That's my point the OEM's didn't invest their time on it so they aren't hurting anyone by changing the socket.


----------



## Kantastic (Jun 10, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> It hasn't gone mainstream because it hasn't had enough time to take over from 775.  Lets face it, for anything to become mainstream, the pre-built manufacturers have to start using it in a large number of their models.  And for the pre-built manufacturers to use it in a large number of their models, it has to support integrated graphics, which 1156 has only done since January, which is why 775 was the mainstream Intel socket up until then.  Lets face it, 6 months is hardly enough time for anything to become mainstream.
> 
> *Now that 1156 has integrated graphics, I don't see any good reason why 1155 is necessary.*



The rapid release of so many platforms as confused even you. 1155 has integrated graphics, 1156 doesn't.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

1156 does have integrated graphics. Look at the i5 650.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> 1156 does have integrated graphics. Look at the i5 650.



Indeed but they are pathetic compared to the competition.


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

Are Sandy Bridge's integrated graphics going to be drastically better?

They're plenty to get anybody by that doesn't game. What is the "competition" you speak of? These are on-CPU, not on board, remember.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> Are Sandy Bridge's integrated graphics going to be drastically better?
> 
> They're plenty to get anybody by that doesn't game. What is the "competition" you speak of? These are on-CPU, not on board, remember.



Onboard and on-cpu it doesn't matter.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jun 10, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> That's my point the OEM's didn't invest their time on it so they aren't hurting anyone by changing the socket.



True, if they need to do a socket change, I'd rather them do it early then later.  I just hope they stick with the new socket for a good long time.

However, I don't see why they would need to do a socket change, if there are problems with the original 1156 socket, then fix them, but keep the socket and make future boards backwards compatible, like they did with 775.



Kantastic said:


> The rapid release of so many platforms as confused even you. 1155 has integrated graphics, 1156 doesn't.



Confused me?



DrPepper said:


> Indeed but they are pathetic compared to the competition.



All integrated graphics are pathetic.



DanishDevil said:


> Are Sandy Bridge's integrated graphics going to be drastically better?
> 
> They're plenty to get anybody by that doesn't game. What is the "competition" you speak of? These are on-CPU, not on board, remember.



In the end, it doesn't matter if it is on the CPU or on the motherboard, integrated is integrated.  The fact that it is on the CPU just means that there will be less competition, which means suckier products.  

And in the end, I agree with you, all integrated graphics suck, they are good for basic office tasks only, and web browsing, and playing back HD video.  As long as it can do that, they are all the same to the large majority of end users.  Anything more than those tasks, and a dedicated card should be used.


----------



## Kantastic (Jun 10, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> 1156 does have integrated graphics. Look at the i5 650.



Damn I was thinking P55, H55 completely slipped my mind.

*Walks into corner*


----------



## DanishDevil (Jun 10, 2010)

Now put on the hat of shame! Oh wait...you already have it on in your avatar


----------



## btarunr (Jun 10, 2010)

DanishDevil said:


> Here we go:
> 
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100610/42b070.jpg
> 
> Red (1) was removed, and black (2) were moved.



Details here: http://www.techpowerup.com/?120581

Components were moved, relocated, and so the pin-map changed.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> True, if they need to do a socket change, I'd rather them do it early then later.  I just hope they stick with the new socket for a good long time.
> 
> However, I don't see why they would need to do a socket change, if there are problems with the original 1156 socket, then fix them, but keep the socket and make future boards backwards compatible, like they did with 775.
> 
> All integrated graphics are pathetic.



However unlikely I hope that this new socket is around for longer. Also very basic 3D graphics at least being able to play all games low graphics with enough frames is what I'd love to see,


----------



## a_ump (Jun 10, 2010)

laptops are the only area of computers that i've found decent integrated gpu's. desktops.....can't say i've ever found one that can play more than starcraft satisfactorily.


----------



## TVman (Jun 10, 2010)

"lets rearrange the pins so we can fool the dummies into buying this new and improved motherboard"-Intels 2010/11 board meeting  riiight


----------



## Zubasa (Jun 10, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> However unlikely I hope that this new socket is around for longer. Also very basic 3D graphics at least being able to play all games low graphics with enough frames is what I'd love to see,


I wouldn't say all games, but I think IGPs needs to be powerful enough to be playable in MMOs.


----------



## DrPepper (Jun 10, 2010)

TVman said:


> "lets rearrange the pins so we can fool the dummies into buying this new and improved motherboard"-Intels 2010/11 board meeting  riiight



New and improved cpu's actually. Lets face it these new cpu's simply aren't compatible end of story. If the difference was 100pins people wouldn't kick up the same fuss.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jun 10, 2010)

TBH the invention and implementation of QPI should allow the return to multiple socket processor systems with asymetic capabilities, like the days of 386 + 387.

Intel would do well to have a highly efficient main core CPU with the other sockets being able to be populated with HPC or IGP or knights corner targeted instruction sets.  We, the user, could then populate the sockets with the feature sets we wanted: more cores, or knights corner, or IGP, or AVX

I find Sandy Bridge tiresome, boring and annoying and a return to overly-proprietary systems or socket formats creating redundancy, increasing wastage, and carbon footprint.  If Intel want proprietary profits, I'm fine with that; but not at the expense of waste.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jun 10, 2010)

DarthCyclonis said:


> I think intel is making a mistake moving from 1156 to 1155 so soon.  I know the reason why but think its going to burn those who just moved to 1156



Like me. A few weeks ago Bta posted some new motherboards. I was like, "oh yay more to choose from... research research research"

AH CRAP - wtf is 1155!?!?!?"


Stupid frigging intel.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jun 10, 2010)

Definitly not buying this, as some have said, 1366 is a beast of a platform. My current i7 CPU should last me a good couple years. I could care less about intergrated graphics no matter how good they are with Sandy Bridge.

Intels needs to stop changing sockets every 2 seconds and focus more on making there current ones even better.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 10, 2010)

It is important to note that Windows 7 will support AVX only after updating to Service Pack 1, and that Coolaler is testing this chip on Windows 7 pre-SP1.


----------



## fochkoph (Jun 10, 2010)

Hopefully all this outrage at 1156 and 2011 puts some pressure on AMD to retain AM3 for Bulldozer if they haven't decided yet.


----------



## v12dock (Jun 10, 2010)

Terrible name


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jun 10, 2010)

phanbuey said:


> "whats special about this processor?"
> 
> "it has our IGP built right in!"




price maybe


----------



## DaC (Jun 10, 2010)

A friend of mine will buy a new computer and wants something relative fast but not expensive... I'll make him stick with 775 E5300/E7400......
I own a i5-750 myself and really don't see any reason of why going to iX family or even leaving  PII-545, as I did, unless you're an enthusiast.... 
I would recommend you people to not backup this ridiculous socket change if it proves not to have a big performance difference.... 
So recommend to your friends that are regular users to stick with 775 or am3 socket.... 
Don't buy it!  :shadedshu


----------



## hat (Jun 11, 2010)

Hell, I didn't even use AM3 in my last build... I used AM2+


----------



## Flanker (Jun 11, 2010)

might consider it if it will give a lot more performance per watt, otherwise i'll stick with my E8400


----------



## HillBeast (Jun 11, 2010)

filip007 said:


> Only 100Mhz bus speed?
> 
> AVX or should i say AltiVec that was only 128bit SSE.



It's not 100MHz bus, it's 100MHz BCLK. They may seem the same but they aren't. The BCLK is just a reference for the components in the CPU/NB/RAM to use with the multipliers. It means on specific component doesn't have to run past it's limitations so you can overclock another. You just bump the BCLK and fiddle with the multipliers to make them the right speed for your liking.

As for my opinion on the matter, sure the scores are an improvement, but the still are no match for my 3.6GHz i7 930, so here are my upgrade plans for when Sandy Bridge comes out:

* New hard drives
* More RAM.

Done. 1366 is epic and will still be epic for a while to come.


----------



## HillBeast (Jun 11, 2010)

btarunr said:


> It is important to note that Windows 7 will support AVX only after updating to Service Pack 1, and that Coolaler is testing this chip on Windows 7 pre-SP1.



Wouldn't AVX also require software support as well as OS support? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe when SSE2 and SSE3 came out it didn't give a boost to older programs. I'm probably wrong on that but if that's the case, then we may not see a boost until developers incorporate it into their software.


----------



## 34.50 (Jun 11, 2010)

SRSLY Intel WTF. I built a 1156 system in October, and I thought 1156 would stick around for quite some time like 775, and this is my first real desktop, outdated and not really upgradable since I have the i7 860 (which for me is more than enough of a CPU atm). Now I'm pissed that I have no upgrade path, thanks Intel.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 11, 2010)

HillBeast said:


> Done. 1366 is epic and will still be epic for a while to come.



LGA-1366 is also going to get a replacement around the same time. It's called LGA-2011 (on-die 32-lane PCI-E for 2~4 graphics cards; Quad-Channel DDR3 IMC; single-chip PCH-type chipset).


----------



## a_ump (Jun 11, 2010)

dam, i bet S2011 with the on die PCI-E lanes will improve multi-card scaling some, less bottleneck.


----------



## HillBeast (Jun 11, 2010)

btarunr said:


> LGA-1366 is also going to get a replacement around the same time. It's called LGA-2011 (on-die 32-lane PCI-E for 2~4 graphics cards; Quad-Channel DDR3 IMC; single-chip PCH-type chipset).



I know. My point still stands, 1366 is going to still be epic.


----------



## btarunr (Jun 11, 2010)

HillBeast said:


> I know. My point still stands, 1366 is going to still be epic.



It doesn't. It's nearing the end of the line for LGA-1366, the last model will a Gulftown based six-core chip (i7 970), after which LGA-2011 and its 8-core chips will take over. After that your Core i7 Extreme will be as "epic" as Core 2 Extreme is now (it's not).


----------



## slyfox2151 (Jun 11, 2010)

IMO have a cry for all those who are bitching about intel changing sockets.



most people dont upgrade the cpu alone. they will also buy a new motherboard and maybe even ram.



technology moves forwards, there was clearly a hardware limitation with 1156 vs 1155, so out with the old in with the new.


----------



## rizla1 (Jun 11, 2010)

who here is honestly gona want intergrated gpu wasting space on a new 4-8 core cpu? 
this cpu/platform doenst really make sence. anyone who wants an office pc for basic stuff isnt going to be happy paying £400-500 just for there cpu/mobo.


----------



## Yellow&Nerdy? (Jun 11, 2010)

Jesus Christ... Another socket? Like we don't have enough. Actually, Intel is probably going to release two new sockets next year. The "performance/mainstream" socket, which is this one (LGA-1155) and the "über high-end" socket to replace LGA-1366, which will be the LGA-2011. TBH, I don't expect much from Sandy Bridge. I mean, just look at Intels attempts on a GPU... Larrabee was and still is a total failure, Intel IGPs have been a subject of ridicule for a long time and the IGPs on the Arrandale/Clarksdale CPUs are pathetic. I personally am looking forward to AMDs attempt on a "CPU/GPU merging", since they atleast know everything about GPUs after merging with ATI. Now that on a laptop would be pretty awesome 

I don't think integrated GPUs will take off in the enthusiast section anytime soon. But for e.g. laptops and HTPCs they would be pretty awesome. I don't see any reasons why Intel would try to retire the LGA-1156, which is only a year or two old. And I don't see any point in the LGA-2011 either. It will have quad-channel memory, 8 more PCIe lanes and support 8-core CPUs. But the problem is, for 90% of the users, the current sockets offer more than they need. There are few applications that fully utilise multi-core processing and Hyperthreading, and 4 or 6 GBs of RAM is enough for the most. And not that many games can use more than 2 cores.

Honestly, when these sockets come out, and you're concidering to update your LGA-1156 or LGA-1366, don't. Save your money, or spend it on some nice SSDs, RAM or a graphics card. That will definately give a more noticalbe increase in performance than upgrading your CPU or motherboard.


----------



## Flanker (Jun 11, 2010)

the igp's don't impress me either, i mean, without the igp, the chips would probably be cheaper, and for us who use discrete graphics, it is a complete waste


----------



## DaC (Jun 11, 2010)

Intel's IGP is just a bad taste joke..... they just want to say that they are in track with the future, just like AMD..... the truth is..... amd though about Fusion a long time ago, and time shows this bet was right..... and a great cpu with a even better igp from amd is on the way...... intel just wants to show that it can do it too.... but man..... old 945 igp on this ubber new cpus...... FAIL to me.


----------



## HillBeast (Jun 11, 2010)

btarunr said:


> It doesn't. It's nearing the end of the line for LGA-1366, the last model will a Gulftown based six-core chip (i7 970), after which LGA-2011 and its 8-core chips will take over. After that your Core i7 Extreme will be as "epic" as Core 2 Extreme is now (it's not).



It doesn't matter how many cores a computer gets, it's not going to make the games I play run any nicer. EVERY game I play runs above 60FPS. By definition it's epic. All the additional cores are doing is wasting my money. I have no intention of spending over $2000 just to get a new motherboard and CPU which I won't use to it's limits. By definition 1366 is epic.

Also Core 2 Extremes are still epic chips. i7 runs faster but in games, most games will make do just fine on a Core 2 Extreme, or even a Quad or a Duo. Most games barely use 4 cores properly.


----------



## NeSeNVi (Jun 11, 2010)

What a shame they didn't test power consumption, temperature either.

Gimme Sandy Bridge on Christmas


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 11, 2010)

Why is it that people think they need upgrading whenever something new is out? No one is forcing you to get the new platform at gunpoint.


----------



## rizla1 (Jun 11, 2010)

is this gona be 32nm? the only sandybridge chip that wll make sense will be the mobile chips. for performance this is just silly ,il be happy waiting for amd 32nm 8 core for £100!! hopefully am3 support. even then there new mobos will be half the price of these.


----------



## phanbuey (Jun 11, 2010)

pr0n Inspector said:


> Why is it that people think they need upgrading whenever something new is out? No one is forcing you to get the new platform at gunpoint.



gotta keep up with the joneses


----------



## TheScavenger (Jun 11, 2010)

Nobody likes to to see their baby get old (ie outdated). Its frustrating.


----------



## Frick (Jun 11, 2010)

Two different sockets for high/lowend was bad enough, this is just silly. Sure it's new tech and all that, but this is too much,


----------



## CDdude55 (Jun 11, 2010)

btarunr said:


> It doesn't. It's nearing the end of the line for LGA-1366, the last model will a Gulftown based six-core chip (i7 970), after which LGA-2011 and its 8-core chips will take over. After that your Core i7 Extreme will be as "epic" as Core 2 Extreme is now (it's not).





HillBeast said:


> It doesn't matter how many cores a computer gets, it's not going to make the games I play run any nicer. EVERY game I play runs above 60FPS. By definition it's epic. All the additional cores are doing is wasting my money. I have no intention of spending over $2000 just to get a new motherboard and CPU which I won't use to it's limits. By definition 1366 is epic.
> 
> Also Core 2 Extremes are still epic chips. i7 runs faster but in games, most games will make do just fine on a Core 2 Extreme, or even a Quad or a Duo. Most games barely use 4 cores properly.



It's all about what you need/want out of a system, not everyone needs an ub3r 8-core socket 2011 rig to be ''epic''. It is true that 1366 is still a beast of a socket, it should last a few good years just like the Core 2's have been doing. An ''epic'' part is a part that does what you need it to do for a years and yet still maintains great performance today as it did when it was first released, if you define ''epic'' as always having the best of the best, then you're dead wrong.

I personally don't give a $hit about the new sockets(maybe in a couple years i will), considering as a gamer, the 1366 socket is more then enough.(Hell, even a Core 2 Duo is enough)


----------



## Flanker (Jun 12, 2010)

NeSeNVi said:


> What a shame they didn't test power consumption, temperature either.


indeed. 
on wikipedia, there appears to be a 65W quad core coming out, and that will probably be the only cpu i may get...

oh, and more reason to refuse to get sandy bridge: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainbo...ng_PCI_Bus_with_Select_6_Series_Chipsets.html
no more PCI slots


----------



## JTS (Jun 12, 2010)

DrPepper said:


> I won't be changing from socket 1366 for maybe 2 new generations.



Unless there are _very significant_ performance reasons to do so - I have to agree.

The 2000 (?) 1366 socket replacement would have to show some serious improvements to entice me to buy yet another new mobo+processor+ram.

As for 1155 adding a IGP - that's fine and dandy for mums and dads/companies - but for enthusiasts, it's hardly a drawcard.

Native SATA/USB/PCI-E 3.0 is welcome - but it will be a while before there are enough mainstream devices available to warrant it the change so soon.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jun 12, 2010)

Flanker said:


> indeed.
> on wikipedia, there appears to be a 65W quad core coming out, and that will probably be the only cpu i may get...
> 
> oh, and more reason to refuse to get sandy bridge: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainbo...ng_PCI_Bus_with_Select_6_Series_Chipsets.html
> no more PCI slots



cheap on-board pci-e to pci bridge chip: problem solved.


----------



## HillBeast (Jun 12, 2010)

pr0n Inspector said:


> cheap on-board pci-e to pci bridge chip: problem solved.



Well originally I thought getting rid of PCI was going to be annoying, but really it's not too bad. I'm putting up with having less PCI slots just fine. Only things that need PCI these days are sound cards and TV cards, and both are going the way of PCI-e now.


----------

