# Sandy Bridge-E Model Numbers, Clock Speeds Surface



## btarunr (Jul 18, 2011)

Here are details of the first three models of Intel's "Sandy Bridge-E" Core i7 processors in the LGA2011 package. Some of these details were made public as early as mid-April. It was then analyzed that Intel was driving two distinct lines of LGA2011 client processors: Enthusiast and Performance, and within Performance, there were BClk multiplier-unlocked six-core, and locked quad-core chips. With the new series, Intel will move to the 3000 series of processor model numbering, indicating that the new processors will be part of Intel's 3rd generation Core processors, even though they're based on the Sandy Bridge architecture. 

Before we move to the model numbers, here's a quick run up of the brand extenders. "X" denotes Extreme Edition, "K" denotes "Unlocked" (BClk multipler unlocked). Leading the pack will be Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition. This six-core (6 cores, 12 threads with HTT) chip has a nominal clock speed of 3.30 GHz, Turbo Boost speed of up to 3.90 GHz, and features the full 15 MB of L3 cache present on the Sandy Bridge-E silicon. Expect this chip to have a four figure price-tag.






Next up, is the Core i7-3930K, with 6 cores, 12 threads, a nominal clock speed of 3.20 GHz, and Turbo Boost speed of 3.80 GHz; but 12 MB of L3 cache compared to 15 MB on the Extreme Edition chip. This chip features an unlocked BClk multiplier, making overclocking it possible. 

The most affordable LGA2011 chip will be Core i7-3820, with 4 cores, 8 threads, nominal clock speed of 3.60 GHz, Turbo speed of 3.90 GHz, and just 10 MB of L3 cache. Unlike the other two, this one has its BClk multiplier locked. All three models feature quad-channel DDR3 memory controllers, but it is likely that the lower-end models could also have lower DRAM multiplier limits. All three chips will have other features in common, including a PCI-Express 3.0 root complex that gives out two x16 links to drive graphics.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## lukcic (Jul 18, 2011)

*neah...*

wait....what's the TDP? Oh yes...  130W ?


----------



## pantherx12 (Jul 18, 2011)

Those 6 cores will be mad @ 5 ghz XD

Shame about price.


----------



## v2.0HeLLBRinGeR (Jul 18, 2011)

Core i7-3820 is like the 920 for 1366, do anyone have any ideas how long it will take for the other basic models will come out? Like the 930/950/960/etc. for the 1366.


----------



## Lu(ky (Jul 18, 2011)

Really doesn't matter because  the i7-2600K 4/8 comes very close to a 980X 6/12 on benches, and not to mention the 2600K overclocks like mad compared to the 1366 platform.. If you are running a x58/1366 with a 920 don't waste your money on the 6 core just stay with your 4/8 tell you move to the new 1155 socket. Go to  Anandtech and go to CPU bench and see for yourself..


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 18, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Expect this chip to have a four figure price-tag.



Remember a while back when you people said that even without AMD and the competition they bring we would never see four figured consumer CPU's again? Well there you go. Every fan of Intel better PRAY Bulldozer is a success if they ever want to afford a new CPU here in a few years.


----------



## razaron (Jul 18, 2011)

The highest model of Intels new (sub?)architecture being the same price as the highest models of all their other architectures, how surprising...


----------



## TheLaughingMan (Jul 18, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember a while back when you people said that even without AMD and the competition they bring we would never see four figured consumer CPU's again? Well there you go. Every fan of Intel better PRAY Bulldozer is a success if they ever want to afford a new CPU here in a few years.



Behold! A four figure price tag on a CPU: Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33G...

This is nothing new for Intel. I wouldn't be surprised is the bottom of these 3 is $800, the next one up is $950, and the top dog is $1100.


----------



## Anusha (Jul 18, 2011)

just wondering if 2600K would be better than the 3820 because of its unlocked multiplier. i hope so. 

probably the 6-core CPUs won't reach 2600k speeds when overclocked with reasonable Vcore; reasonable meaning below or at 1.35V. while 2600k might reach 4.8-5GHz with comfort, the Vcore required to get there is not comfortable at all. 4.8GHz needs 1.4V or more. 5GHz needing almost 1.5V. Of course people will get higher benchmark scores, and will run suicide runs just to show what they are capable of, but how many people will risk going past 1.35V for 24/7 operation with their $500-1000 CPUs is something to think about. Probably the 2500/2600K (OCed) will remain as the better gaming chip? Time will tell.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Jul 18, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember a while back when you people said that even without AMD and the competition they bring we would never see four figured consumer CPU's again? Well there you go. Every fan of Intel better PRAY Bulldozer is a success if they ever want to afford a new CPU here in a few years.



Extreme edition CPUs have been sold at four figure prices by retailers since the days of the Prescott Pentium IV, I don't see how it is any different now... 

Granted, I wouldn't buy one of these procs if there's more value and a better price to performance ratio in lower priced model offerings, which as noted in this article, will be plenty available  

It's clear to me that this are going to be enthusiast parts, and socket 1155 parts will fill other price ranges.


----------



## devguy (Jul 18, 2011)

So, I would expect many considering LGA2011 to be looking at the Core i7-3820, as the hex-cores will likely be outrageously expensive.  But, will overclocking the Core i7-3820 be as difficult as overclocking the locked Core i7 2600?  These Bclk locked cores with so much of the chipset integrated in make overclocking by the reference clock extremely difficult (Sandy Bridge, Brazos, Llano, etc).

If that's the case, I see people only opting for 2011 if they have the dough for a hex-core, or if they buy prebuilt and want the best they can get.  Otherwise, the i5 2500k (and likely the FX series) will attract most of us overclockers.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 18, 2011)

Yeah and AMD Athlon 64 FX series sold for 4 digits as well. The one with the fastest chip will always ask for as much as it can, if the performance advantage is enough. i.e having 2 or 3 chips that are "untouchable" by the competitor.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 18, 2011)

This should be a monstrous platform. And probably pretty expensive, but hey, those who can pay for the best, will.


----------



## Trackr (Jul 18, 2011)

Nah.

I'm not upgrading for a hexacore.

Wake me up when they have octocores on S2011.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

devguy said:


> So, I would expect many considering LGA2011 to be looking at the Core i7-3820, as the hex-cores will likely be outrageously expensive.  But, will overclocking the Core i7-3820 be as difficult as overclocking the locked Core i7 2600?  These Bclk locked cores with so much of the chipset integrated in make overclocking by the reference clock extremely difficult (Sandy Bridge, Brazos, Llano, etc).
> 
> If that's the case, I see people only opting for 2011 if they have the dough for a hex-core, or if they buy prebuilt and want the best they can get.  Otherwise, the i5 2500k (and likely the FX series) will attract most of us overclockers.



3820 is locked so no one will be buying it.  Intel should have made it a k and sold it for 399


----------



## Millennium (Jul 18, 2011)

I'm not at all interested in this platform. No value here. Going to be waiting for bulldozer and later ivy bridge s1155


----------



## newfellow (Jul 18, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Behold! A four figure price tag on a CPU: Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33G...
> 
> This is nothing new for Intel. I wouldn't be surprised is the bottom of these 3 is $800, the next one up is $950, and the top dog is $1100.



got to just agree with this. It's just mafia actions intel is currently taking like before we will see high price and kill the old and new isn't exactly any better.


----------



## boogerlad (Jul 18, 2011)

even if 3820 is multiplier locked, s2011 isn't bclk locked.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

Wheres my 8 core chip , 12 threads is so 2010.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

boogerlad said:


> even if 3820 is multiplier locked, s2011 isn't bclk locked.



Yes it is. Bclk overclocking is dead. SB-E is just like SB. It routes everything through the BCLK


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Yes it is. Bclk overclocking is dead. SB-E is just like SB. It routes everything through the BCLK



I would wait for a review of a hands on overclock before making that kind of claim.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I would wait for a review of a hands on overclock before making that kind of claim.









The "Limited Unlocked" in that chart means the turbo speed can be changed but if you must wait for a review its all good.


----------



## Disparia (Jul 18, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Wheres my 8 core chip , 12 threads is so 2010.



There will be LGA 2011 Xeons with 8 cores.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

Jizzler said:


> There will be LGA 2011 Xeons with 8 cores.



With locked Multi's


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 18, 2011)

Jizzler said:


> There will be LGA 2011 Xeons with 8 cores.



I was under the impression they would be out come Q2 2012, and not only in Xeon form but at K and X models.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

Pulled from another forum. The source quotes 6 and 8 core processors for 2011 starting at 480+ Euro's. The quad's start out at 250 Euro.

480 Euro = 675.98 Usd
250 Euro = 352.07 Usd



> Details of the first three Intel Sandy Bridge-E Processors have been revealed. The Sandy Bridge-E (LGA 2011) platform will replace the older LGA1366 Core i7 Processors. According to our previous roadmap details (here), Sandy Bridge-E will fall under “Extreme” and “Premium Performance” branding.
> 
> 
> The “Extreme” variants will be 6-8 Core models with 480 €+ Price range while the Premium CPU’s will come with 4-6 Cores and fall somewhere near the 250 € price. Intel also plans to release 8-12 Core variants of Sandy Bridge-E Processors but those will be kept limited to Server usage until desktop release is required.
> ...


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 18, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Pulled from another forum. The source quotes 6 and 8 core processors for 2011 starting at 480+ Euro's. The quad's start out at 250 Euro.
> 
> 480 Euro = 675.98 Usd
> 250 Euro = 352.07 Usd



 Why do people still convert euros to dollars? It does not work that way. (not mad at you, only at the fact so many people do that)

Here's the actual prices for a 2600k:

US: $315 Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge 3.4GHz (3.8GHz Tu...

EU: 284 € http://www.alternate.es/html/produc...rocesadores+(CPU)&l2=Sobremesa&l3=Socket+1155


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Why do people still convert euros to dollars? It does not work that way. (not mad at you, only at the fact so many people do that)
> 
> Here's the actual prices for a 2600k:
> 
> ...



Was just throwing it out there bro.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 18, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Was just throwing it out there bro.



Yeah, I know, it's just that making the conversion is completely misleading*. If they will trully start at 480 €, you can assume $500-ish on North America, not $700-ish.

It just gets to my nerves. 

* Plus remembers me how badly we are shafted every single time.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah, I know, it's just that making the conversion is completely misleading*. If they will trully start at 480 €, you can assume $500-ish on North America, not $700-ish.
> 
> It just gets to my nerves.
> 
> * Plus remembers me how badly we are shafted every single time.



If the lower end 6 core is going to be around 699 then i'll be a very happy man.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jul 18, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> If the lower end 6 core is going to be around 699 then i'll be a very happy man.



Really?, that's still very expensive to most. Hell even $400 for a CPU is too much for me. lol


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 18, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> If the lower end 6 core is going to be around 699 then i'll be a very happy man.



I think that like in most of latest high-end platform releases, they are going with a $300, $500, $1000 approach or something similar.

A lower-end 6 core at much more than $500 would look horrible in the perf/price department compared to the 2600k. But I'm mostly basing it on previous releases. It worked for them so why change the strategy? The only way I see it changing is to lower prices, and only if Bulldozer is competitive with SB E.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 18, 2011)

Ok Intel we now you will beat AMD in performance but what about the prices? Can you win in this round like last time?


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> I think that like in most of latest high-end platform releases, they are going with a $300, $500, $1000 approach or something similar.
> 
> A lower-end 6 core at much more than $500 would look horrible in the perf/price department compared to the 2600k. But I'm mostly basing it on previous releases. It worked for them so why change the strategy? The only way I see it changing is to lower prices, and only if Bulldozer is competitive with SB E.



Agreed. I'm not sure why Intel didn't give 1155 a 6 core K model with no HT for 599.99. I would have bought that right up.


----------



## radaja (Jul 18, 2011)

boogerlad said:


> even if 3820 is multiplier locked, s2011 isn't bclk locked.





Pestilence said:


> Yes it is. Bclk overclocking is dead. SB-E is just like SB. It routes everything through the BCLK



this slide says different,but still just speculation


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 18, 2011)

radaja said:


> this slide says different,but still just speculation
> 
> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4074/4826605653_18f46ec6d0_b.jpg



I'd be glad to be wrong.


----------



## xenocide (Jul 19, 2011)

I have no issues with bclk ocing going away.  And to be honest the price doesn't really bother me that much.  Once AMD releases something even remotely close in performance Intel will chop the price down, but until that happens, why not snag upwards of $1000 per CPU from early adopters with deep pockets?  I think the current SB CPU's were excellently priced, so if Intel wants to dump a bunch of super expensive CPU's for people willing to spend that much money, more power to them.


----------



## WarraWarra (Jul 19, 2011)

*Including a PCI-Express 3.0 root complex that gives out two x16 links to drive graphics.*
Very nice Intel. +1 for Intel.

Prices usually works at 480 Euro to 480 USD or close to this even though the Euro is worth a lot more on paper and in reality even with half of EU wanting to go belly up.

Why would anyone pay USD480 for the USD310 bracket product ? 
"Q9550/i7-920/i7-2600K/i7-3930K"
i7-3960X is supposed to replace the i7-990X for the same USD1000.

Just because Intel created a USD500 bracket does not mean that anyone gives a flying  about this bracket or recognizes that it exists. 
It is not like the USD500 bracket items is a laptop 100C cpu that can be used in a desktop and properly overclocked with decent cooling or something special.

What is up with the 15M level 3 cache on 6/12 cores ?


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

WarraWarra said:


> What is up with the 15M level 3 cache on 6/12 cores ?



The CPU is starved on the Cache side

Small L1s, Small L2s, and a shared BIG L3

i7 2600K
L1 32KBx4
L2 256KBx4
L3 8MB/4

i7-3930K
L1 32KBx6
L2 256KBx6
L3 12MB/6

I don't get why the i7-3820 isn't a K or an X Processor

LGA 2011 first tier LETs make it be above a K product and below a K product trololololol

i7-3930K LGA 2011
*i7-3820 LGA 2011 TROLOLOLOLOLOL*
i7 2600K LGA 1155

I would wait for the release regardless(to see if what is true and what is not) but sometimes these leaks on the Intel side are mostly fact

i7-3960
i7-3820

Should both be extreme products(since there is a disparity between the L3 Caches of K and X products 10MB/4 15MB/6 both come out to be 2.5MB per core)

Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33G...
4C Extreme
Intel Core i7-990X Extreme Edition Gulftown 3.46GH...
6C Extreme


----------



## xenocide (Jul 19, 2011)

It's probably not a K so it can just get dropped into Cyberpower PC's, or Alienware's.  Any of those well known custom-build companies would love to have those to encourage people to spend more on getting a pre-overclocked higher-priced setup.  At least that's how I see it.  That or they just wanted something as an entry-level product to the platform...


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 19, 2011)

:d


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> The CPU is starved on the Cache side
> 
> Small L1s, Small L2s, and a shared BIG L3
> 
> ...



Its not cache starved at all. When you compare Bloomfield against westmere which had 12mb of L3 clock fir clock there were no differences in performance


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jul 19, 2011)

I'de be very tempted by a $500(not 599) 6core 2011


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Its not cache starved at all. When you compare Bloomfield against westmere which had 12mb of L3 clock fir clock there were no differences in performance



Sandy Bridge is

Nehalem -> Bloomfield
Westmere -> Gulftown

Nehalem -> Westmere
is a die shrink





As shown in this

You will see on Sandy Bridge the increase of L3 Cache is a booster in performance

The 10MB and 15MB will out perform the 8MB and 12MB products

and Nehalem/Westmere doesn't have 10MB 15MB products
So you can't tell


----------



## Trackr (Jul 19, 2011)

bostonbuddy said:


> I'de be very tempted by a $500(not 599) 6core 2011



Yeah, see? That's how they get you.

You pay twice as much for 50% more cores because of all the other extras, like four DDR3 slots.

If eVGA ever come out with an SR-3 capable of dual-8-core Xeons, I'm in.

Otherwise, I'm waiting for Ivy Bridge.


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

Trackr said:


> Yeah, see? That's how they get you.
> 
> You pay twice as much for 50% more cores because of all the other extras, like four DDR3 slots.
> 
> ...



It is 33% more cores

A $90 premium isn't bad on that core increase

Unlocked, PCI-e 3.0, Intel name and much more

It's a done deal, and I need to change my system specs


----------



## phill (Jul 19, 2011)

I wonder if I'd notice much of a difference upgrading to one of these setups rather than a Sandy Bridge thats out now?


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

phill said:


> I wonder if I'd notice much of a difference upgrading to one of these setups rather than a Sandy Bridge thats out now?



What do you do on your PC?

and at what resolution?

What CPU are you using?


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> It is 33% more cores
> 
> A $90 premium isn't bad on that core increase
> 
> ...



It's 50% more cores. 6/4 = 1.5 x 100 = 150%

And I don't know where you get the $90 increase either. The cheaper one is 4 cores/8T. The 6 cores will probably start at $500. $200+ more than 4 cores.

Now if it's worth it at all depends on everyone's wallets. On a perf/price basis it is never worth the premium of highest-end CPUs.


----------



## phill (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> What do you do on your PC?
> 
> and at what resolution?
> 
> What CPU are you using?



I game and do the odd bit of photgraphic work and video work - rather rare at the moment...

Minimum resolution is 2560 x 1600, sometimes 8064 x 1600

I have two systems, both with i7 920's in at 4.2Ghz each with HT turned on and 6Gb's of ram.  If you would like anything more, please say!


----------



## btarunr (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember a while back when you people said that even without AMD and the competition they bring we would never see four figured consumer CPU's again? Well there you go. Every fan of Intel better PRAY Bulldozer is a success if they ever want to afford a new CPU here in a few years.



So you want consumers to be a part of a socialist scheme of making AMD a success, just so Intel lowers its prices. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 19, 2011)

You should see an substntial improvement, yes. SB is better at gaming and SB-E is not going to be worse on that department, rather the opposite. For video 6 cores will definately help. For photochop not so much I think.

Considering your gaming resolution(s) I'm not even going to discuss if it's worth the upgrade or not, price wise.


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> It's 50% more cores. 6/4 = 1.5 x 100 = 150%
> 
> And I don't know where you get the $90 increase either. The cheaper one is 4 cores/8T. The 6 cores will probably start at $500. $200+ more than 4 cores.
> 
> Now if it's worth it at all depends on everyone's wallets. On a perf/price basis it is never worth the premium of highest-end CPUs.



$320 i7 2600K 4c/8t
$500 i7 3930K 6c/12t

Use your math to figure it out

For you it is a $20 premium

For my math it is a $90 premium



phill said:


> I game and do the odd bit of photgraphic work and video work - rather rare at the moment...
> 
> Minimum resolution is 2560 x 1600, sometimes 8064 x 1600
> 
> I have two systems, both with i7 920's in at 4.2Ghz each with HT turned on and 6Gb's of ram.  If you would like anything more, please say!



At the higher resolution the more GPU dependent the system becomes(Games)

Video work = More cores equals more power(Video,Photo)

Depending on the resolution of the work the more ram also helps(Video,Photo)


----------



## Benetanegia (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> $320 i7 2600K 4c/8t
> $500 i7 3930K 6c/12t
> 
> Use your math to figure it out
> ...



Ok. I was understanding a different meaning for premium. I guess that you'd get what you pay for in that case, assuming the 2600k will not become cheaper by when SB-E is released. It probably will.

Anway, sorry to say it so bluntly, but your math regarding % sucks. 6 is 50% more than 4. OR if you prefer 4 is 33% *less* than 6 or also 4 is 66% of 6. You have to choose which method to use, you cannot do what you did. Using the second method (substractive) for calculating the core count and then using the other (additive) for calculating price: since 4 is 66% of 6, then 66% of $500 is, $335, so once again you'd be paying for what you get, more or less.


----------



## seronx (Jul 19, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Anway, sorry to say it so bluntly, but your math regarding % sucks. 6 is 50% more than 4. OR if you prefer 4 is 33% *less* than 6 or also 4 is 66% of 6. You have to choose which method to use, you cannot do what you did. Using the second method (substractive) for calculating the core count and then using the other (additive) for calculating price: since 4 is 66% of 6, then 66% of $500 is, $335, so once again you'd be paying for what you get, more or less.



I did do the math wrong woopsy 



Sorry

I am getting jumbled with other math formulas

You have to hope for other people to correct you lol


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 19, 2011)

btarunr said:


> So you want consumers to be a part of a socialist scheme of making AMD a success, just so Intel lowers its prices. Makes perfect sense.



Socialist scheme? lol WTF are you talking about man and I mean that respect.


----------



## phill (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> At the higher resolution the more GPU dependent the system becomes(Games)
> 
> Video work = More cores equals more power(Video,Photo)
> 
> Depending on the resolution of the work the more ram also helps(Video,Photo)



Thank you for the reply 

I'm hoping to be getting two 3Gb 580's one for each rig, but when I can afford to do so, I'll buy the newer 6xx series or whatever ATI are throwing out at the time (depending on performance and memory size) for the other rig which I might put in three or four cards in, depends if three will be enough to run all three screens 

Video work I havent done in ages, so I'm not overly worried if it takes a minute or two longer in honesty   Well most of the videos I put together will be at least 720P and as for the photo, that just depends on what my Canon 40D manages to be honest.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

seronx said:


> Nehalem -> Westmere
> is a die shrink



You don't say.... 











As i had stated lastnight. When i went from Bloomfield to Westmere the 4Mb of L3 cache bump that westmere has did nothing for performance. What i was trying to say is that i doubt the cache increase on SB-E is going to make a huge difference at all. What will make a difference is the increased memory bandwidth of quad channel memory over SB's Dual channel.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 19, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> You don't say....
> 
> http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww252/2MCHBoost/IMG00278-20100402-1607.jpg
> http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww252/2MCHBoost/settings2.png
> ...



It is a different architecture, my guess the increase in L3 will help with HT and multi threaded apps (of which there aren't many).


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> It is a different architecture, my guess the increase in L3 will help with HT and multi threaded apps (of which there aren't many).



If you look at a 2600K with HT disabled vs a 2500K with 2mb less of L3. They perform about the same. I guess we'll see when SB-E gets released.

I was hoping the 6 core had 20 megs of L3.


----------



## DarkUltra (Jul 19, 2011)

This information was presented at Anandtech months ago.

www.anandtech.com/show/4291/additional-details-on-sandy-bridgee-processors-x79-and-lga2011

They expect the same pricing as todays corresponding 1366 cpu classes, $299, $550 and $999. I hope they are wrong, i'd like an eight core cpu, but i guess there's no room until next die shrink.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

DarkUltra said:


> This information was presented at Anandtech months ago.
> 
> www.anandtech.com/show/4291/additional-details-on-sandy-bridgee-processors-x79-and-lga2011
> 
> They expect the same pricing as todays corresponding 1366 cpu classes, $299, $550 and $999. I hope they are wrong, i'd like an eight core cpu, but i guess there's no room until next die shrink.



8 core will be on SB-EP and should work in X79 mobo's like the X79 WS revolution


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 19, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> 8 core will be on SB-EP and should work in X79 mobo's like the X79 WS revolution



I hope so.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 19, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> I hope so.



We all do. I'm hoping its in the 1200 dollar range and not 1450-1600 like some are forecasting.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 19, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> We all do. I'm hoping its in the 1200 dollar range and not 1450-1600 like some are forecasting.



IMO  it would depend on scaling, if it was a 20-30% performance increase then I would see the justification in price increase.


----------



## jpierce55 (Jul 19, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Remember a while back when you people said that even without AMD and the competition they bring we would never see four figured consumer CPU's again? Well there you go. Every fan of Intel better PRAY Bulldozer is a success if they ever want to afford a new CPU here in a few years.



Yes, BD needs to at least be somewhat competitive!


----------



## phill (Jul 19, 2011)

jpierce55 said:


> Yes, BD needs to at least be somewhat competitive!



Lets hope it is


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 19, 2011)

phill said:


> Lets hope it is



With Sandy bridge yeah, SB-E will slaughter it.


----------



## jpierce55 (Jul 19, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> With Sandy bridge yeah, SB-E will slaughter it.



I don't doubt that. My hopes is that it is head on with SB. AMD has been so far behind for years now that getting even with SB is even an upgrade. When we have to worry is when they keep sliding behind. I hope the new APU's bring a big success, and thinking that might be this generations biggest success for AMD.


----------



## phill (Jul 19, 2011)

I used to enjoy AMD's CPU's but sadly at the moment they just dont cut it which is a crying shame.  The fact we are in some ways made to buy Intel (if we so choose to do so) to get the faster performance is a shame.  I do remember the days of the AMD Althon XP's and how well they used to overclock and still used to beat Intels P4..

I hope they can come back soon and bring a pricing war with them!!


----------



## Wile E (Jul 20, 2011)

TheLaughingMan said:


> Behold! A four figure price tag on a CPU: Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33G...
> 
> This is nothing new for Intel. I wouldn't be surprised is the bottom of these 3 is $800, the next one up is $950, and the top dog is $1100.



The only reason AMD doesn't charge $1000 for their cpus is because they can't. When they were able to compete in performance, they also charged $1000 for their top FX cpus.


And, just like a few others have asked, where are the unlocked 8c/16t cpus Intel? I'm not moving to SB-E until you make it happen. It's just not a worthy upgrade to those of us that already have a 6c/12t cpu.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 20, 2011)

Wile E said:


> The only reason AMD doesn't charge $1000 for their cpus is because they can't. When they were able to compete in performance, they also charged $1000 for their top FX cpus.
> 
> 
> And, just like a few others have asked, where are the unlocked 8c/16t cpus Intel? I'm not moving to SB-E until you make it happen. It's just not a worthy upgrade to those of us that already have a 6c/12t cpu.



^ this


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 20, 2011)

This little bitch was 999.99


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 21, 2011)

Intel is at it again. they are such profiteering glutton. scamming the people by releasing overpriced products.

whats the point of releasing expensive products when only a few people can buy it?

i can barely afford a $300 CPU.

i would be very happy if Intel reports their loss in revenue. if it will ever happen........


----------



## n-ster (Jul 21, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> Intel is at it again. they are such profiteering glutton. scamming the people by releasing overpriced products.
> 
> whats the point of releasing expensive products when only a few people can buy it?
> 
> ...



If you can't afford the damn thing then don't buy it....

I can't afford a Bugatti Veyron, and yes, Bugatti must be making profits at 1.7m euros each and 100K euros per tire.

High end isn't meant for you, stop bitching about it and blaming it on the company! BooHoo they want to price their CPUs at the market price instead of undercutting everyone including themselves! *Also note that they didn't even release anything about prices, this is all speculation!*


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 21, 2011)

n-ster: then Intel just piss their customers off by being ignorant with their prices.

no wonder why you act like an ignorant person. Because you are a typical bloody high end user.


----------



## Anusha (Jul 21, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> Intel is at it again. they are such profiteering glutton. scamming the people by releasing overpriced products.
> 
> whats the point of releasing expensive products when only a few people can buy it?
> 
> ...


i'm sure they have better financial specialists than you and me


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 21, 2011)

whatever

actually i am a lawyer myself. i know about the law. 

Based on my findings, Intel committed many illegal moves. i can easily sue them and get millions.

one of their illegal move is the very high pricing tag for their cpus.

their high price tag dont justify for their products.

Intel should only make products for low end to med range users.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 21, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> whatever
> 
> actually i am a lawyer myself. i know about the law.
> 
> ...



Your a lawyer and your bitching about prices?


----------



## Tatty_One (Jul 21, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> n-ster: then Intel just piss their customers off by being ignorant with their prices.
> 
> no wonder why you act like an ignorant person. Because you are a typical bloody high end user.



He is not being ignorant, he is meerly stating his opinion as you are, if both of you agree that intel generally prices higher chip for chip, the only differences you have left is because you appear to think it's for greed where he thinks they make you pay for performance, whichever side of the fence you stand ignorance is not a factor, I happen to beleive it's probably a bit of both, however if I offerd you $100 for your Ram (supposing you were selling it) by PM, and just as you were going to reply and say "deal".... he PM's you and offered you $120 I will leave you to decide who you would sell to


----------



## PaulieG (Jul 21, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> Intel is at it again. they are such profiteering glutton. scamming the people by releasing overpriced products.
> 
> whats the point of releasing expensive products when only a few people can buy it?
> 
> ...





bigg34 said:


> n-ster: then Intel just piss their customers off by being ignorant with their prices.
> 
> no wonder why you act like an ignorant person. Because you are a typical bloody high end user.





bigg34 said:


> whatever
> 
> actually i am a lawyer myself. i know about the law.
> 
> ...





Pestilence said:


> Your a lawyer and your bitching about prices?



Considering the lawyer's fees I recently paid, I can't believe you couldn't afford a $300 chip.  It's amazing how much people bitch. I swear, you must not have been around 7-8 years ago, when a decent chip STARTED around that price, not to mention how pricey a good board and ram were. Hell, I paid almost $400 for an AMD 4000+ Clawhammer.

Oh, and please chill. This is a discussion, and not the place to be attacking other members.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 21, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> n-ster: then Intel just piss their customers off by being ignorant with their prices.
> 
> no wonder why you act like an ignorant person. Because you are a typical bloody high end user.



but they didn't even announce prices yet! and SB was very reasonably priced... better so than even AMD bang/buck wise. As I said before, these are HIGH END parts. if HIGH END parts were the same price as md-high end, how would that make any sense for them? Sure not everyone can afford it, but high end parts are NOT supposed to be affordable by anyone!

You are basically saying that anything that is high-end is a scam. Every car over 50K$ is a scam? Is every 5 star restaurant that make you pay 40+$ per dish a scam? Is a good quality binder at 11$ a scam? NO.... why? because high end stuff costs some money.

My computer may be "high end", doesn't mean I payed a huge amount for it. I bought it used off PaulieG and then swapped every piece, one by one, selling in Canada and getting better stuff for the same amount of money in the US! Computers have become my passion, and that is why I decided to get a high-end machine. And TBH, the lga 1366 setup that I bought was top dog back then, and I payed something like 400~450$ for the CPU+Mobo+RAM. New would have cost me like 500~550$. There was basically no processor that beat the i7 920 once OCed, yet I find it was priced very reasonably.

Bottom line is that High-end parts have their place in the PC world, whether you like it or not. So far, I find intel's pricing to be right on the dot, which also explains why they are doing so well. High-end stuff exists, you'll just have to deal with it...


----------



## phill (Jul 21, 2011)

Paulieg said:


> Considering the lawyer's fees I recently paid, I can't believe you couldn't afford a $300 chip.  It's amazing how much people bitch. I swear, you must not have been around 7-8 years ago, when a decent chip STARTED around that price, not to mention how pricey a good board and ram were. Hell, I paid almost $400 for an AMD 4000+ Clawhammer.
> 
> Oh, and please chill. This is a discussion, and not the place to be attacking other members.



I work on this basis...  If I want it, I'll buy it regardless of the price..
Sometimes might be easy to buy others might require a little more saving up thats all 

If they seriously bring out an 8 core CPU with HT, I dont think I'd even consider anything else.  I mean SB is alright and yeah it runs cool and uses low power and so on, but i get that from running an AMD 64 that I have sat here next to me or if I wanted to gain power, I'll use one of my i7's (well, when the other one is done!!) 

Its all about what you want and what you wanna spend..


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 21, 2011)

phill said:


> I work on this basis...  If I want it, I'll buy it regardless of the price..
> Sometimes might be easy to buy others might require a little more saving up thats all
> 
> If they seriously bring out an 8 core CPU with HT, I dont think I'd even consider anything else.  I mean SB is alright and yeah it runs cool and uses low power and so on, but i get that from running an AMD 64 that I have sat here next to me or if I wanted to gain power, I'll use one of my i7's (well, when the other one is done!!)
> ...



8c/16ht Intel SB-E monster is rumored for Q1 12 and cost around 1250 dollars and did you really just compare Sandy Bridge to an AMD 64?


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 21, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> 8c/16ht Intel SB-E monster is rumored for Q1 12 and cost around 1250 dollars and did you really just compare Sandy Bridge to an AMD 64?



I was wondering that myself. . . anyone else smell BS being shoveled in their direction in large quantity's?


----------



## phill (Jul 21, 2011)

I just use this AMD rig for internet, so am I really gonna notice much of a difference to how fast Explorer or Google Chrome is gonna open??  

I said my AMD 64 runs cool and uses low power, I never said it was faster than SB nor did I imply it 

If thats what an 8 core CPU will cost then, I might still consider it.  Christ, these two EVGA Classified board cost me the best part of £500 each and I've hardly used those in the two plus years I've had them!!  Who cares?  Its only money and if you want to spend it on that, you will!!  My only thought is that at least I'll have something to show for it


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 21, 2011)

phill said:


> I just use this AMD rig for internet, so am I really gonna notice much of a difference to how fast Explorer or Google Chrome is gonna open??



SSD is going to make that biggest difference if your worried about that.


----------



## phill (Jul 21, 2011)

I'm not really bothered with SSD's at the moment.  I have my server drives for that and they are about as fast as I need to go   Again not much point in booting up a minute faster than someone else if your waiting for him/her in the game  

I think in one way, any of my AMD systems would be fricking awesome with an SSD so I might just have to try one when I have sorted out my more important systems


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 22, 2011)

i hope one day someone come up with an idea of a permanent CPU and GPU solution so that we dont have to worry about upgrading.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 22, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> i hope one day someone come up with an idea of a permanent CPU and GPU solution so that we dont have to worry about upgrading.



Never going to happen because as consoles demonstrate when you can't upgrade your stuck using 6 year old tech and tech is one thing that doesn't age well, and no one want stagnent tech.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 22, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> i hope one day someone come up with an idea of a permanent CPU and GPU solution so that we dont have to worry about upgrading.



that would kill the fun of computer building and choosing your parts  Also, that would mean that the world would be stalling in technological advancement, which is VERY VERY bad lol and would make many lose their jobs o.o

On-Topic: I am excited for when the die shrink comes! Eager to see the performance of these monsters... unfortunately I won't be able to afford them


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 22, 2011)

n-ster: i plan to upgrade to an i5 2500k. once i have enough money.

that should be enough for another 2 years ey? i mean for games.

i will overclock it too.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 22, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> n-ster: i plan to upgrade to an i5 2500k. once i have enough money.
> 
> that should be enough for another 2 years ey? i mean for games.
> 
> i will overclock it too.



A 2500K at 4.5Ghz is plenty for years to come


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 22, 2011)

yeah. you are right. unless games utilize more than four cores effectively and heavily.

i want to buy a budget motherboard that can overclock. im going to buy ASRock P67 Pro3.

i heard it can overclock pretty good.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 22, 2011)

If you do only gaming, the 2500K is probably the BEST bang/buck out there atm with a nice futureproofing as well

See? Intel's princing isn't that bad


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 22, 2011)

yeah. but AMD x6 core is way cheaper. lol. but sadly its way slower 

i got happy when i saw the AMD x6 has a low price. but after i read the reviewes i found that its slower than even the AMD x4.

i think its a good season for upgrading the CPU now. 

new games like Battlefield 3 are coming up that will require an i5 CPU.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 22, 2011)

You'd be surprised how close an i5 2500K setup is in terms of cost to a Phenom II x6 setup


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 22, 2011)

and it is evident that Battlefield 3 will require at least an i5.

New upcoming games for this year that can be CPU demanding:


Deus Ex: Human Revolution
Driver: San Francisco
Dead Island
Call of Juarez: The Cartel
L.A. Noire
Serious Sam 3: BFE
Rage
Batman: Arkham City
Battlefield 3
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
Saints Row: The Third
Need for Speed The Run
Max Payne 3



n-ster: what games u plan to buy this year?


----------



## WarraWarra (Jul 22, 2011)

LMAO, Had to read this 3 times.
First I though how the hell does Intel get a pre release version of a AMD APU 3960X and thought AMD has Intel nailed to the wall with this "AMD 3960X" performance.
Then I saw the hyper-threading and how does AMD have hyper-threading ?
Next was damn it is not AMD winning for once.

Finally I got it, it is a Intel CPU with AMD APU style naming of 3960X that is 47% faster than the Intel 990x.

Great stuff Intel, you go girl. We knew you could.


----------



## n-ster (Jul 22, 2011)

WarraWarra said:


> LMAO, Had to read this 3 times.
> First I though how the hell does Intel get a pre release version of a AMD APU 3960X and thought AMD has Intel nailed to the wall with this "AMD 3960X" performance.
> Then I saw the hyper-threading and how does AMD have hyper-threading ?
> Next was damn it is not AMD winning for once.
> ...



I thought the i7 in front of the 3960 would have given it away?  TBH the naming is kind of the continuation of SB naming but with the combination of lga 1366 naming.... kinda resembles the naming of Xeon lga 1366 processors


----------



## phill (Jul 23, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> and it is evident that Battlefield 3 will require at least an i5.
> 
> New upcoming games for this year that can be CPU demanding:
> 
> ...



These are the ones I've got my eyes on  

I'm a big fan of Driver (even thought Driver 2 and 3 sucked!) 

Serious Sam is just a game everyone should have 

Battlefield and COD MW3 sounds like its going to be a great fight between the two.  I must admit never playing Battlefield much, I've enjoyed playing COD 1, 2 and 4 very much   Online is excellent fun!! ( even if I do spend more time re-spawning!!  )

I am trying to collect all the NFS series, I think they had one of the best games around to play when Underground 2 came out, sadly after that though, its gone a little downhill...

If any of these games need a better rig than an i7, I'll just have to upgrade to something!!


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 23, 2011)

phill said:


> These are the ones I've got my eyes on
> 
> I'm a big fan of Driver (even thought Driver 2 and 3 sucked!)
> 
> ...



If your a fan of Bad Company 2 your going to love BF3


----------



## phill (Jul 23, 2011)

I've got Battlefield Anthology, Vietnam and Battlefield 2 the complete collection and I've yet to get around to playing the whole way through!!  I'm so gonna have to spend more time gaming!!


----------



## n-ster (Jul 23, 2011)

I don't want to be a party pooper, but the discussion is getting really off-topic


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 23, 2011)

phill: lol. i dont think those games require i7. maybe an i5 at most. an i5 2500k should be enough for all games 

going to get ASRock P67 Pro3 this week for i5 2500k upgrade. 

should be enough for all those new games.


----------



## phill (Jul 23, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I don't want to be a party pooper, but the discussion is getting really off-topic





bigg34 said:


> phill: lol. i dont think those games require i7. maybe an i5 at most. an i5 2500k should be enough for all games
> 
> going to get ASRock P67 Pro3 this week for i5 2500k upgrade.
> 
> should be enough for all those new games.



No but if I say that, it keeps it on topic and it allows me to keep up to date with this SB-E setup   I just think 8 cores is just the way to go now..  I mean 6 cores are so last year......


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 23, 2011)

phill: no. lol. dont scare me .

i suggest you to stop promoting high end stuff.

i just about to upgrade to i5 2500k.

you are a very high end user and im a budget user. i dont think games will require more than that soon. 

and these days game developers dont tend to make their games overly demanding like before, which is a good thing for a budget user like me. lol.


----------



## phill (Jul 23, 2011)

Well I have two i7 rigs here and I've had them for over two years now with them hardly not being used.  Only just this morning I have managed to get my first 920 D0 running at a stable 4.4Ghz with HT turned on   Temps hit about 84C max and I've just ran with the same settings and done a loop of 3D Marks Vantage CPU tests and I've struggled to hit over 74C with those..  I'm very happy and so much so, I'm going to just try and see if I can get it to run again but with 2:10 ram timings so I can actually use the ram I bought for the right reasons!! 

I love looking and enjoy seeing any system low end middle end or ultra end and I wouldnt call myself a high end user when I see people running SR2's and so on   I'm just an enthusiast that I enjoy whatever I buy   Heck I still have some socket A rigs here   So they cant be that high end surely?? 

I think the 8 core CPU would be the only thing I'd consider because these 4 cores and a decent graphics card as you've just said run pretty much anything   I know I'll end up with SLI in both rigs with a Physx card as well, but its only because I've got hardware laying about the place!!  

I do plan on building a Sandy Bridge system with a 2600k CPU in, but not for what people might expect though   I just enjoy being different and I enjoy looking and learning what other people do with their rigs.  I'm nothing special, just someone that enjoys things a little too much


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 23, 2011)

phill: but to me u are a very high end user. lol 

because i never saw anyone having 2 cpus. that rig should be enough for you for another 10 years probably. lol


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2011)

phill said:


> These are the ones I've got my eyes on
> 
> I'm a big fan of Driver (even thought Driver 2 and 3 sucked!)
> 
> ...



MW3 will not be CPU intensive. Not even a little. Its the same engine they have been using for over 10 years now. If you can run any of the recent CoD then you can run this one. As a matter of fact MW3 isnt even in the same ballpark technologically speaking of any of those games bigg34 listed.


----------



## phill (Jul 23, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> phill: but to me u are a very high end user. lol
> 
> because i never saw anyone having 2 cpus. that rig should be enough for you for another 10 years probably. lol



Well if you step over to EVGA forums, you'll be able to see a few of them over there!!  I did toy with the idea of having a dual CPU setup, but then I thought, whats the point?!  I just decided and stuck with having two PC's and that was good enough and best for me 



TheMailMan78 said:


> MW3 will not be CPU intensive. Not even a little. Its the same engine they have been using for over 10 years now. If you can run any of the recent CoD then you can run this one. As a matter of fact MW3 isnt even in the same ballpark technologically speaking of any of those games bigg34 listed.



Well I think it'll be more down to my GPU then not my CPU by the sounds of it!  

I cant wait for some new games to come out, I think with the new graphics card (and cards later on ) this rig will be transformed!

Are there any other games I should be keeping an eye out for that might make me have to upgrade??


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2011)

phill said:


> Well if you step over to EVGA forums, you'll be able to see a few of them over there!!  I did toy with the idea of having a dual CPU setup, but then I thought, whats the point?!  I just decided and stuck with having two PC's and that was good enough and best for me
> 
> 
> 
> ...



BF3
Metro 2034
Crysis 2: Upgrade mods.
Rage


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 23, 2011)

rage wont be demanding.

and its very unlikely those games will be hard on your rig. lol.

u are fine either way.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> rage wont be demanding.
> 
> and its very unlikely those games will be hard on your rig. lol.
> 
> u are fine either way.



DICE said there isnt a rig made today that can max out BF3 yet you say he will have no 
problem?

Metro 2033 was demanding as hell. Still is on most rigs out yet 2034 will be less demanding?

Rage wont be demanding? You have run the Tech 5 engine before have you? Thats funny because RAGE will be the first game to run Carmacks new engine. 

Crysis 2 with the update will bring most any system to its knees. 

I mean really where do you get your facts from?


----------



## phill (Jul 23, 2011)

I have Crysis 2 here, I can give that a go when I have my new cards and let you both know  

I hear Metro 2033 is a right hard nut of a game to run, so I will look out for that one 

In fact any game that I'd have to upgrade for I look forward too   Its what having a PC is all about!! :lol:


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2011)

phill said:


> I have Crysis 2 here, I can give that a go when I have my new cards and let you both know
> 
> I hear Metro 2033 is a right hard nut of a game to run, so I will look out for that one
> 
> In fact any game that I'd have to upgrade for I look forward too   Its what having a PC is all about!! :lol:



For Crysis 2 make sure you DL the new texture pack and such. It wont stress that rig you got unless you do. Also make sure you are using Nvidia's GeForce 275.50 at the minimum.

Heres a link for all the goodies.

http://www.mycrysis.com/dx11


----------



## n-ster (Jul 23, 2011)

I don't know which game stresses what parts, but aren't a few of those games going to be GPU limited more than CPU limited?


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 23, 2011)

n-ster said:


> I don't know which game stresses what parts, but aren't a few of those games going to be GPU limited more than CPU limited?



Did you look at his CPU's  Notice its plural?


----------



## phill (Jul 23, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> For Crysis 2 make sure you DL the new texture pack and such. It wont stress that rig you got unless you do. Also make sure you are using Nvidia's GeForce 275.50 at the minimum.
> 
> Heres a link for all the goodies.
> 
> http://www.mycrysis.com/dx11



Thank you very much for that   I will try to give it a go with my 8800GT just to see what its like but hopefully my new card will laugh at it and say, is that all you got??  
I have just checked and I will have to update my drivers as I'm currently running 275.33   Thank you for the information!!



TheMailMan78 said:


> Did you look at his CPU's  Notice its plural?



I have two CPU's but they are in separate systems!!


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78: where is the source that says there isnt any computer that can play B3 as of now?

can you link me to the official source?

because i doubt it very much and never heard it myself.

heres the verified specs for BF3. 

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/08/battlefield-3-system-requirements-revealed/

looks like i should be fine as i have a 460 1gb and will be having i5 2500k .


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 24, 2011)

verified specs for BF3 from DICE:

Minimum
Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
OS: Windows Vista or Windows 7
Processor: Core 2 Duo @ 2.0GHzRAM2GB
Video Card: DirectX 10 or 11 compatible Nvidia or AMD ATI card


Recommended
Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
OS: Windows 7 64-bit
Processor: Quad-core Intel or AMD CPURAM 4GB
Video Card: DirectX 11 Nvidia or AMD ATI card, GeForce GTX 460, Radeon Radeon HD 6850


source: http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/08/battlefield-3-system-requirements-revealed/


----------



## Anusha (Jul 24, 2011)

why don't they say how big of a card is required when you crank up all the gfx settings? they never say that! that's what most people with good video cards interested about.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 24, 2011)

bigg34 said:


> verified specs for BF3 from DICE:
> 
> Minimum
> Hard Drive Space: 15 GB for disc version or 10 GB for digital version
> ...



Those specs are fake man. Please come on over and hang out in the BF3 clubhouse. We got all the dirt in there. The epic news man Gully keeps us all in the loop.
http://battlefieldo.com/fake-bf3-system-requirements-circulating/



phill said:


> I have two CPU's but they are in separate systems!!



Then you may have a bottleneck on your hands. I don't know much about Intel to be 100% sure. I would ask around. Someone like Sneekypeet might be able to help ya.


----------



## bigg34 (Jul 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78: you cant say its demanding. because there is not official specs out yet.

but im betting i can play it on my overclocked 460 1gb and with an i5 2500k on high settings at 1920*1080 resolution well.

it wont be unplayable.

a gtx 460 1gb is still adequate for 99% of the games on high settings .

i played The Witcher 2 on ultra settings (without ubersampling) just fine until i bored from the game.

so dont be so negative and scared about the possible high system requirements and upgrading.

i am 100% sure that we are able to play future games on MAX settings just fine with our current computers .


----------



## erocker (Jul 24, 2011)

Keep on topic please.


----------

