# Sandy Bridge - Biggest Disappointment of the Year



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2011)

*Sandy Bridge is the biggest disappointment of the year
January 2, 2011*

SANDY BRIDGE WAS shaping up to be the killer CPU of the year, a huge step forward in the 'uncore', decent graphics and big gains in the core as well. Instead, we got broken graphics, non-working feature sets, and a showstopper bug. What a shattering disappointment...............

LINK:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/01/02/sandy-bridge-biggest-disapointment-year/


----------



## sneekypeet (Jan 3, 2011)

wow January 3rd and he has had his worst of the year....lol


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 3, 2011)

sneekypeet said:


> wow January 3rd and he has had his worst of the year....lol



Give it time, I'm sure he will find something from nVidia to replace it shortly.

Plus, he bases his entire essesment of it "failing" on the fact that there are no GPU drivers for Linux yet.  Intel isn't that concerned with the less than 1% of people running linux, and aren't going to hold up a huge platform launch for it.

Basically the entire argument can be summed up as follows:


The USB3.0 chips used on the motherboard was slightly buggy during OS install, but there were plenty of USB2.0 ports that works just fine, so it really wasn't a problem.
There are no graphics drivers available for linux.
Rantings about how shitty performance is with no graphics drivers installed.
All of the graphical problems go away if you just us a $30 descrete card if you plan to use Linux, but that isn't an acceptable option.


----------



## sneekypeet (Jan 3, 2011)

right, exactly where I was going.  I'm sure old Charles will find way more issues this year, and likely they will have less mellow dramatic titles.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 3, 2011)

Super XP said:


> *Sandy Bridge is the biggest disappointment of the year
> January 2, 2011*
> 
> SANDY BRIDGE WAS shaping up to be the killer CPU of the year, a huge step forward in the 'uncore', decent graphics and big gains in the core as well. Instead, we got broken graphics, non-working feature sets, and a showstopper bug. What a shattering disappointment...............
> ...



we have bulldozer coming dont cry


----------



## Maban (Jan 3, 2011)

Charlie Demerjian - Biggest Disappointed Ever

Fixed.

But I do agree that SB is fairly disappointing. Having one clock generator for an entire platform is insane. I have other negatives but that's the biggest for me.


----------



## Lionheart (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't really care much for candy bridge anyways, my OCed i7 920 4ghz is still plenty for me now, I just need a new video card and Im set. Im looking more forward to AMD's bulldozer which should be more exciting


----------



## KieX (Jan 3, 2011)

Don't know about you guys, but I don't see anything disappointing about the i7 2600K having higher overclocks with less heat and power consumption than current i7.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 3, 2011)

KieX said:


> Don't know about you guys, but I don't see anything disappointing about the i7 2600K having higher overclocks with less heat and power consumption than current i7.



but they have effectively removed overclocking, limiting power to what they give you


----------



## cyriene (Jan 3, 2011)

KieX said:


> Don't know about you guys, but I don't see anything disappointing about the i7 2600K having higher overclocks with less heat and power consumption than current i7.



QFT. I don't see much disappointment at all. For mainstream use this is a win.  

Although not being able to OC the cheap parts might help AMD, most people (mainstream)  don't even know what overclocking is...



Bo$$ said:


> but they have effectively removed overclocking, limiting power to what they give you



You can still overclock, just have to buy the unlocked part. Though, I wish all the cpus were unlocked and not just the pricey ones. But as I just said, this is a mainstream part. The enthusiast parts for us TPU users will be coming later in the year to replace x58 so we'll see what Intel does with that.


----------



## KieX (Jan 3, 2011)

What you have is two segments, the enthusiast and the mainstream.

Mainstream SandyBridge without the "K" denomination offer similar perfomance at less power use. They are not intended for OC, fair enough, this is not what we should be looking at. At this level the older 1156 and 1366 is better choice for enthusiast.

For enthusiast, you get a "K" series CPU that allows you to overclock beyond 4.3GHz on AIR. And uses less power to do so. And if the £250 suggested by TechRadar is true that's about right for that level of performance.


----------



## Bo$$ (Jan 3, 2011)

cyriene said:


> QFT. I don't see much disappointment at all. For mainstream use this is a win.
> 
> Although not being able to OC the cheap parts might help AMD, most people (mainstream)  don't even know what overclocking is...
> 
> ...



oh, thats fine, i heard from on of my buddies that it is the X58 replacement


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 3, 2011)

Yes, I too expect things to work perfectly without proper drivers. By every metric SB beats x58. Only in rare instances does the 980 beat a k. Is it really so important that nobody feel like their system is outdated that they have to go twist things around like this? I for one am getting SB, selling my H70 (SB does fine on stock!!), and enjoying my efi and the other latest features. That and actually being able to run my ram at full spec. I expect the whole thing to only cost me $100.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2011)

http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=87044&postcount=9

Fixed the clockgen issue check hwbots home page for more 5.5ghz and higher overclocks


----------



## parelem (Jan 3, 2011)

cdawall said:


> http://hwbot.org/forum/showpost.php?p=87044&postcount=9
> 
> Fixed the clockgen issue check hwbots home page for more 5.5ghz and higher overclocks



5.4ghz at 1.188v wow, that's pretty full of win right there.


----------



## francis511 (Jan 3, 2011)

The turbo feature = limited overclocking anyway but I must admit I was disappointed personally


----------



## overclocking101 (Jan 3, 2011)

yeah but most of these records are expected using ln2 and shit, hell i bet before long someone tops out the 5.7ghz limiter no prob to. but everyday users will be able to achieve 4.5ishghz with the same temps as users now at 4.1/4.2 so even though its a slight improvement, it is a improvement none the less


----------



## hv43082 (Jan 3, 2011)

So for us I7 920/930/950 owners, is Sandy Bridge worth the update or should we wait until the end of the year for the X58 equivalent?


----------



## erocker (Jan 3, 2011)

hv43082 said:


> So for us I7 920/930/950 owners, is Sandy Bridge worth the update or should we wait until the end of the year for the X58 equivalent?



Read the reviews. From what I gather, no.


----------



## qubit (Jan 3, 2011)

I'm wondering if our Charlie is on crack? He certainly appears to be delusional.

For those that remember, I used to support him in the past, as he knew what he was talking about (or at least seemed to) and was good at exposing sharp practices within the industry.

But now?

He was supplied prerelease hardware with drivers only for Windows. He's then surprised and aggrieved when the damned thing doesn't work on Linux. He doesn't _even mention_ Windows. That's such an elementary, cretinous mistake, that I don't know where to begin. Even the people in the comments take the piss out of him for this.

Look here, there's an update to the article:



> Editor's note:  Intel provided S|A with the following response.
> 
> *Intel: 'Charlie tested unreleased Sandybridge hardware without drivers.  No hardware can function properly without drivers on any operating system, and as such, these results are not valid.  We encourage Semiaccurate to retest the platform with the appropriate drivers in place'*
> 
> ...



I mean, duh!


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 3, 2011)

Yeah, effectively it is last years tech with lower price points (from anandtech*).  If you have a good core i7 now there really is no need to upgrade unless you really want to - which lets face it, a lot of us do for the hell of it.

But it's not like a gfx upgrade, it's the whole new mobo thing again as well....

* But Anand liked it - the k2600 was very good and overclocked like a breeze.


----------



## Dave65 (Jan 3, 2011)

Ill be keeping my 1156 for a while,it does all I need it to do,and it looks fricken great in my case


----------



## Frick (Jan 3, 2011)

I'm all for EFI, otherwise it's pretty much what I thought it was.

And charlie is actually right here: It probably work like crap on Linux. For a reason.


----------



## GSquadron (Jan 3, 2011)

Intel was sure to disappoint, because it has no need to amaze us, having no concurrent.


----------



## hv43082 (Jan 3, 2011)

Y'all gotta be impressed by the overclocking.  A simple bump in Vcore and multiplier get you 4.6-4.8 Ghz.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 4, 2011)

According to HardOCP's review they're amazing chips:http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review/1

Though they signify the death of hobbyist overclocking.


----------



## blu3flannel (Jan 4, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> According to HardOCP's review they're amazing chips:http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review/1
> 
> Though they signify the death of hobbyist overclocking.



If Intel keeps up with this K series thing, I may have to switch to AMD. :shadedshu


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 4, 2011)

I have to ask how is sandy bridge the biggest disappointment of the year when only the mid range parts have been released?


----------



## Delta6326 (Jan 4, 2011)

I see nothing wrong with the new Intel they look sweet  The new I7 2600k looks sweet for its cheap price


----------



## 20mmrain (Jan 4, 2011)

hv43082 said:


> Y'all gotta be impressed by the overclocking.  A simple bump in Vcore and multiplier get you 4.6-4.8 Ghz.



While sure it can do that.... That is all it can do too! My 860 Can clock fairly high and compete with these chips. And I have full control over every little bit of it too.

Intel has done a few things here is appears. 

1st. It looks like they made some chips that run very cool and can clock very high.

2nd. They also seem to have made Overclocking something a Dummy can do now!

3rd. They also seem to have castrated the shit out of overclocking too! With putting so many restrictions on it.

I am going to wait a little while longer to see how things develop to make up my full mind. I asked a question earlier today asking if I should upgrade to a SB CPU. After reading the last article in the last post on this thread. I am not impressed! While there are pro's to Sandy Bridges.... There are allot more Cons then Pros right now. 

If things start developing a different way I might change my tune.... But as it stands today.... the 5% to 10% increase I would get with these when overclocked is not worth the money. I am waiting for Bulldoze FX or  Ivy Bridge to release.

I don't think it's a disappointment.... I just think it's no big deal right now.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 4, 2011)

blu3flannel said:


> If Intel keeps up with this K series thing, I may have to switch to AMD. :shadedshu



I agree.

They're using a pretty limited system overall, where you really have to buy a K series to do any kind of overclocking as all other chips can barely push past it's 100MHz BCLK and be stable so everything has to essentially be done with the multi, and if your multi is locked, well it's a sad day for you. The up side is of course that it's easy as hell to overclock on these chips, you can get above 4GHz in no time.

They also put in a system where it downclocks itself and decreases performance if it hits temps below -20c and that high end coolers will actually perform worse then retail stock cooling at times due to performance scaling, so that's going to be tough to extreme cooling.



> With previous generation cpus, improvements such as high end air cooling, water cooling or more extreme forms like LN2 in addition to extreme voltage increases could potentially provide increases in clock speeds on a continual ramp until the limits of the CPU were reached. This is not the case with K series on the P67 chipset.



I still think they're great for the money though, especially for me being a not so crazy overclocker.


----------



## 20mmrain (Jan 4, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> I agree.
> 
> They're using a pretty limited system overall, where you really have to buy a K series to do any kind of overclocking as all other chips can barely push past it's 100MHz BCLK and be stable so everything has to essentially be done with the multi, and if your multi is locked, well it's a sad day for you. The up side is of course that it's easy as hell to overclock on these chips, you can get above 4GHz in no time.
> 
> ...



I wonder what that means for water cooling and the like? Does that mean we're screwed too?


----------



## qubit (Jan 4, 2011)

Isn't it odd how the latest generations of CPUs and GPUs over the last year or so have been so underwhelming? I can only put it down to two main factors:

- Lack of competition from the other side. Both companies need to have products at the same performance level to go head to head on price and start a price war. This will also spur innovation to outdo each other with better hardware.

- Engineering brick walls. Mainly in the form of power consumption and the amount of heat generated. This problem actually started years ago when the clock speed could not realistically be ramped higher to the same degree as before. Sure, it's still going up a bit each generation with overclocking, but the _stock_ speeds aren't going up. We can now get 5+ Ghz out of Sandy Bridge on a K-series overclock. Not really that impressive when you think how long it's taken to get to 5GHz - and it's not a stock speed either. We had 3.8GHz rated Pentium 4's in 2003 remember. A measly 1 point something gigahertz extra overclocked is nothing to shout about. Yes, I know about the instructions per clock going up to compensate and extra cores, but that's not the point. We are still stuck when it comes to the most important raw performance enhancement.

I think this trend in diminishing returns is unfortunately going to continue, unless radical new technology is developed such as optical chips, perhaps.


----------



## 20mmrain (Jan 4, 2011)

qubit said:


> Isn't it odd how the latest generations of CPUs and GPUs over the last year or so have been so underwhelming? I can only put it down to two main factors:
> 
> - Lack of competition from the other side. Both companies need to have products at the same performance level to go head to head on price and start a price war. This will also spur innovation to outdo each other with better hardware.
> 
> ...



Nicely explained I agree! I read something a little disconcerting the other day. It was an article by Fudzilla exclaiming that we have reached a point in time (They theorize) That the time has come were all enthusiast products must be water cooled or exotic cooled.

While I don't exactly agree we are there yet... I can see there point were if stuff doesn't change soon... That is were we will have to be.


----------



## qubit (Jan 4, 2011)

20mmrain said:


> Nicely explained I agree! I read something a little disconcerting the other day. It was an article by Fudzilla exclaiming that we have reached a point in time (They theorize) That the time has come were all enthusiast products must be water cooled or exotic cooled.
> 
> While I don't exactly agree we are there yet... I can see there point were if stuff doesn't change soon... That is were we will have to be.



Thanks 20mm, the power brick wall is looming large indeed.

Oh and you might wish to requote me, because I added a bit.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 4, 2011)

sneekypeet said:


> wow January 3rd and he has had his worst of the year....lol



its semiaccurate, you should expect to get semi accurate information from them. Similar to Fudzilla i always thought their articles were written by kiddies


----------



## segalaw19800 (Jan 4, 2011)

Take that to the nuts Intel.. Epic Fail


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Jan 4, 2011)

segalaw19800 said:


> Take that to the nuts Intel.. Epic Fail



okay fanboy or troll. 

Dont get to excited now. They have only released the mid end parts, and even if we can't overclock to much the performance at stock is pretty nice.

I wonder want X68(LGA2011 or whatever the number was) has in store for us though.


EDIT: however i dont feel im going to need to upgrade my i7 920 for the next 2+ years


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 4, 2011)

segalaw19800 said:


> Take that to the nuts Intel.. Epic Fail



Take what to the nuts?

They put out some great chips, both the 2500K and 2600K are great performers and can push actually near almost 980x numbers in some cases and pushes around regular i7 numbers for a LOT less cash. I can only imagine what the higher end LGA 2011 chips will offer.

Only real issues so far with Sandy is the overclocking standard has changed with this series and imo they have heavily locked out the enthusiasts with the system they decided to go with on these chips.


----------



## hellrazor (Jan 4, 2011)

I've never been a fan of Intel, but this whole article is crap.

I still get the need to go over to the local sandbox, make a bridge and run through it with my toy bulldozer, though


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 4, 2011)

read article then.....


----------



## Over_Lord (Jan 4, 2011)

^^ Thats only on the 400$ CPU, yes i7 2600k retails at 400$...

I think we could already hit about 4.4GHz on the 300$ Core i7 950

And the COre i7 2500k is 300$ retail, but the BIGGEST BUMMER, no Hyperthreading


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 4, 2011)

thunderising said:


> ^^ Thats only on the 400$ CPU, yes i7 2600k retails at 400$...
> 
> I think we could already hit about 4.4GHz on the 300$ Core i7 950
> 
> And the COre i5 2500k is 300$ retail, but the BIGGEST BUMMER, no Hyperthreading



fixed


----------



## KieX (Jan 4, 2011)

thunderising said:


> ^^ Thats only on the 400$ CPU, yes i7 2600k retails at 400$...
> 
> I think we could already hit about 4.4GHz on the 300$ Core i7 950
> 
> And the COre *i5* 2500k is 300$ retail, but the BIGGEST BUMMER, no Hyperthreading



Fixed that for ya.

And yes you can hit 4.4GHz on i7 950 but it consumes a lot of power to do so and you need to have very decent cooling. You can do 4.4 on stock heatsink with the new i7 2600k. Not to mention clock for clock it's still faster.

In this thread there appears to be a few people who only read what they want to read from a review.


----------



## (FIH) The Don (Jan 4, 2011)

KieX said:


> In this thread there appears to be a few people who only read what they want to read from a review.



this ^^^^^spot on


----------



## segalaw19800 (Jan 4, 2011)

nvidiaintelftw said:


> okay fanboy or troll.
> 
> Dont get to excited now. They have only released the mid end parts, and even if we can't overclock to much the performance at stock is pretty nice.
> 
> ...





CDdude55 said:


> Take what to the nuts?
> 
> They put out some great chips, both the 2500K and 2600K are great performers and can push actually near almost 980x numbers in some cases and pushes around regular i7 numbers for a LOT less cash. I can only imagine what the higher end LGA 2011 chips will offer.
> 
> Only real issues so far with Sandy is the overclocking standard has changed with this series and imo they have heavily locked out the enthusiasts with the system they decided to go with on these chips.



Only time can tell ..


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2011)

Bo$$ said:


> we have bulldozer coming dont cry



Indeed you need to save your tears for bulldozer.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 4, 2011)

segalaw19800 said:


> Only time can tell ..



Read the review over at HardOCP and see for yourself: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review


----------



## afw (Jan 4, 2011)

As some have pointed out ... these are just midrange chips ... and they perform really well ... consumes less power ... plus the thermal levels are amazing ....  lets wait and see what intel has offer in the months to come ... 

And in many reviews I have seen reviewers overclock these chips past 4.5Ghz very easily (with stock cooler) ... If one uses a decent aftermarket cooler I'm pretty sure they'd be able to go past at least 4.8) ... so basically the overclocking is easy and grt ... I guess the only people who'll be disappointed would be the enthusiast overclockers ... 


Plus the sandy bridge mobile chips are just awesome ... check this -->http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1506/1/


----------



## Melvis (Jan 4, 2011)

I dont give a rats ass about how they overclock or overclocking performance, its all about stock clock performance for me. So if there not much better then the current I7's at stock clocks then meh, its good realy Because AMD then might be able to catch up and give us all cheaper i7's to buy? No? or CPU's in general.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2011)

As usual many people, seem to be convinced that these have already failed and AMD has already won, when there are no numbers.

Calm down, quit speculating when there's nothing to speculate about.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 4, 2011)

Why is it that people seem like they haven't read any of the reviews yet, they're all over the place.

They perform about as good as the standard i7's and almost as good as the 980x in some cases, and these are just the midrange chips mind you.

Here are some reviews to get you started:

http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/i7_2600k_i5_2500k_2300_1155_sandy_bridge_review/1

http://hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/01/03/intel-sandy-bridge-review/1

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/...e-i5-2600k-i5-2500k-and-core-i3-2100-tested/6


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2011)

cddude55 said:


> why is it that people seem like they haven't read any of the reviews yet, they're all over the place.
> 
> They perform about as good as the standard i7's and almost as good as the 980x in some cases, and these are just the midrange chips mind you.



^this


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 4, 2011)

CDdude55 said:


> Why is it that people seem like they haven't read any of the reviews yet, they're all over the place.
> 
> They perform about as good as the standard i7's and almost as good as the 980x in some cases, and these are just the midrange chips mind you.



I think a lot of people must have been expecting too much, the fact that the 2600k gets close to a stock 980x is pretty impressive considering its a quad core vs a dual threaded 6 core so 12 core effective but i would guess the fact the 980x overclocked pulls away from the 2600k when overclocked makes it seam a little less impressive to them.

Really a mid range part that cost less than half the price of the previous generation and gets close in speed is impressive yet most people here should be looking at the future high end CPU's Intel will be releasing later this year and i think that is where more will become impressed..... or in the case of die hard fan boys very quiet


----------



## qubit (Jan 4, 2011)

@bear jesus

I think it's just the totally locked down overclocking other than the premium priced K-series that's putting enthusiasts off. It puts me off, too and feels like a snub by Intel.

I mean, ya know, gone is the excitement and adventure of getting a £50 CPU perform like a £500 one as can be done now. Gone are the articles on tech sites like this where one can read all about it.

I guess there aren't enough of us for Intel to bother about any more, totally swamped by the "average" user that doesn't know squat. 

Also, see my post earlier in this thread about the diminishing performance returns we're seeing on recent product generations. I think this what's behind this situation and is Intel's way of maintaining it's profit margin.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 4, 2011)

qubit said:


> @bear jesus
> 
> I think it's just the totally locked down overclocking other than the premium priced K-series that's putting enthusiasts off. It puts me off, too and feels like a snub by Intel.
> 
> ...



I agree I'm far from impressed with what Intel has done to the locked editions and the overclocking options of the chips and although I'm not too bothered about the price of the 2600k as it's relatively ok considering how close it can get to the i7 980x but really the 2600K is not the product i want as I'm interested in something in the higher end spectrum that i can put under water. 
It does make me wonder how expensive the K versions of the top end cpu's will be as i would assume they are placed between the locked CPU's and the extreme editions that surly will be $1000+ again.

I'm kind of on the fence as far as how big a jump this generation is as most reviews are comparing the new 4 core 4 thread cpu's against 2 core 4 thread, 4 core 8 thread and 6 core 12 thread CPU's so i find it harder to judge but the fact that this generations mid range is so close to last generations top end with less cores and threads gives me hope that the high end of this generation will be impressive.

If it's not a big jump then it's just inviting AMD to catch up and start eating into Intel's sales and although that would be great for us I'm quite sure Intel does not want that.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jan 4, 2011)

sneekypeet said:


> wow January 3rd and he has had his worst of the year....lol



thanx sneeky, if u check my profile u find January 3rd is my birthday


----------



## claylomax (Jan 4, 2011)

hayder.master said:


> thanx sneeky, if u check my profile u find January 3rd is my birthday



This is released for your birthday: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=663&Itemid=63


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jan 4, 2011)

•msrp: $195 usd 
 low price in comparison to intels


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jan 4, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> All this chip is, is a higher clocked 965BE. Not really worth the money since you can get a used I7 920 for less or a I7 950 for 199 at microcenter



Myself from another thread


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 4, 2011)

the biggest problem is that stores have to put more shelfs
for all the motherboars and cpu at the same time 775,1156,1155,1366
what  a mess this is the first time that you will find 4 types at the same time storage is pain in the ass .

manufacturing processes is smaller storage is bigger


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> Myself from another thread



If you neglect that performance wise it blows all 3 of those chips out of the water, then yes it's just as you said.:shadedshu



meirb111 said:


> the biggest problem is that stores have to put more shelfs
> for all the motherboars and cpu at the same time 775,1156,1155,1366
> what  a mess this is the first time that you will find 4 types at the same time storage is pain in the ass .
> 
> manufacturing processes is smaller storage is bigger




Socket 775 is pretty much dead, I haven't seen a retailer with a 775 board on their shelf's for over a year. Also this is the worst and attempt at an argument against Sandy Bridge I have ever seen. You do know at one point and sort of still do AMD had AM2, AM2+, and AM3, motherboards and processors, and will soon have AM3, yeah soo much more simplified.ohwell:


----------



## wolf (Jan 4, 2011)

I think the sandy bride CPU's are quite excellent really, the 2600K seems to par or beat the i7 975, while consuming ~40-45% less power doing so. overclocking, while needing a K model, seems to be a breeze with many reviewers hitting 4.2-4.4ghz on either the stock cooler, or non-elaborate air cooling. if you put a kickass air cooler or w/c on a 2600K, 4.6-5ghz would not be too much to ask IMO.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jan 4, 2011)

wolf said:


> I think the sandy *bride* CPU's are quite excellent really...



Yeah, well mine left me at the altar!


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> If you neglect that performance wise it blows all 3 of those chips out of the water, then yes it's just as you said.:shadedshu
> 
> 
> 
> ...



in many countries 775 is still sold, motherboards are needed for maintenance and and replacement.

i never had amd cpu its just irritating to pay for new motherboard every upgrade. intel is making a lot of money
from motherboards to much.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Socket 775 is pretty much dead, I haven't seen a retailer with a 775 board on their shelf's for over a year. Also this is the worst and attempt at an argument against Sandy Bridge I have ever seen. You do know at one point and sort of still do AMD had AM2, AM2+, and AM3, motherboards and processors, and will soon have AM3, yeah soo much more simplified.ohwell:



ever been to frys? they have a ton of G41 boards and some 790i stuff still. i agree that AMD is just as confusing however a good chunk offer backwards compatibility. 



meirb111 said:


> in many countries 775 is still sold, motherboards are needed for maintenance and and replacement.
> 
> i never had amd cpu its just irritating to pay for new motherboard every upgrade. intel is making a lot of money
> from motherboards to much.



one of those countries is the US lol and i agree every generation intel is making new sockets.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jan 4, 2011)

Melvis said:


> I dont give a rats ass about how they overclock or overclocking performance, its all about stock clock performance for me. So if there not much better then the current I7's at stock clocks then meh, its good realy Because AMD then might be able to catch up and give us all cheaper i7's to buy? No? or CPU's in general.



 Strange way of looking at things.  I think just about every other enthusiast is willing to overclock in order to get the most for their money.

Kind of crazy not to really.

These chips are reasonably priced and overclock like mad.  

Maybe not with as much difficulty as some would like, but they do clock well. 

And compared with other chips overclocked, these benefit from it much more.  That makes them the best buy in my opinion.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2011)

meirb111 said:


> in many countries 775 is still sold, motherboards are needed for maintenance and and replacement.
> 
> i never had amd cpu its just irritating to pay for new motherboard every upgrade. intel is making a lot of money
> from motherboards to much.



Wait . . . so your beef is you think Intel is making too much money from motherboards . .. . nutkick:



cdawall said:


> ever been to frys? they have a ton of G41 boards and some 790i stuff still. i agree that AMD is just as confusing however a good chunk offer backwards compatibility.



I have 2 Fry's near my house, and neither carry 775, but both still carry AM2+ and AM2.

And unlike AMD where they recycle old slow technology, Intel makes new sockets to move technology forward.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Wait . . . so your beef is you think Intel is making too much money from motherboards . .. . nutkick:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes they could have find a way to use 1156 with sandy bridge but they will make less money from motherboard  if they did  that.
the marketing strategy is why sell one product if you can sell two its good for them not for the paying customer


----------



## cdawall (Jan 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> Wait . . . so your beef is you think Intel is making too much money from motherboards . .. . nutkick:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Both the frys in houston do


----------



## francis511 (Jan 4, 2011)

meirb111 said:


> yes they could have find a way to use 1156 with sandy bridge but they will make less money from motherboard  if they did  that.
> the marketing strategy is why sell one product if you can sell two its good for them not for the paying customer



I think there`s a question that p55 wouldn`t support the new architecture !


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 4, 2011)

meirb111 said:


> yes they could have find a way to use 1156 with sandy bridge but they will make less money from motherboard  if they did  that.
> the marketing strategy is why sell one product if you can sell two its good for them not for the paying customer



So don't buy their product's their clearly not for you.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 4, 2011)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> So don't buy their product's their clearly not for you.



you could work as a salesman


----------



## Frick (Jan 4, 2011)

meirb111 said:


> you could work as a salesman



He's right you know. By refusing to buy the product you make a pretty good stand. They might not notice, but you're not contributing to their cause.


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 4, 2011)

Frick said:


> He's right you know. By refusing to buy the product you make a pretty good stand. They might not notice, but you're not contributing to their cause.



yea and maybe via will become number 1 in cpu sells


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 4, 2011)

*Haters gonna hate no matter what*

Intel released a cpu at near amd level prices with near 980 level performance and its disapointing?   This anint their big gun.  This is average joe stuff. And almost overkill for average joe.  Intel raised the bar but we're overclockers, hackers and modders so we'll still find a way to get more performance out of it.  Its just a new challenge.   And as far as the price arguement goes.... If you want the power luxury and class of a Mercedes  you gotta pay for a Mercedes.  Other wise buy a Hyundia that just looks kinda sorta like one with Kmart leather and hamsters for an engine.


----------



## bear jesus (Jan 4, 2011)

wolf said:


> I think the sandy bride CPU's are quite excellent really, the 2600K seems to par or beat the i7 975, while consuming ~40-45% less power doing so. overclocking, while needing a K model, seems to be a breeze with many reviewers hitting 4.2-4.4ghz on either the stock cooler, or non-elaborate air cooling. if you put a kickass air cooler or w/c on a 2600K, 4.6-5ghz would not be too much to ask IMO.



I agree but have to point out one thing, it seams that the stock cooler for the 2600K is a heat pipe tower cooler like or the same as the one that comes with the 980x (unsure how many pipes the 980x cooler has) so it's way better than normal stock CPU heat sinks.


----------



## Lycos (Jan 4, 2011)

Why does Charlie Demerjian hate Intel (or everything thats not ATI/AMD) sooo much?


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 4, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Intel released a cpu at near amd level prices with near 980 level performance and its disapointing?   This anint their big gun.  This is average joe stuff. And almost overkill for average joe.  Intel raised the bar but we're overclockers, hackers and modders so we'll still find a way to get more performance out of it.  Its just a new challenge.   And as far as the price arguement goes.... If you want the power luxury and class of a Mercedes  you gotta pay for a Mercedes.  Other wise buy a Hyundia that just looks kinda sorta like one with Kmart leather and hamsters for an engine.



well the 2500k is the best price/performance and the i3 2100
is the worst.amd has to lower  prices for all phenoms but still intel motherboard price of the cheapest brand are twice of amd's cheapest


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jan 4, 2011)

meirb111 said:


> well the 2500k is the best price/performance and the i3 2100
> is the worst amd has to lower  prices for all phenoms but still intel
> motherboard price of the cheapest brand are twice of amd's cheapest



True But thats their target segment of consumers price range.  To be honest i'M SURPRISED The chip didn't cost more given what their capable of on air none the less.  This is cheap for intel. But thats unfortunately what we users gotta pay to play.  Latest and greatest = priceyist... that cant b spelled right


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jan 4, 2011)

meirb111 said:


> yes they could have find a way to use 1156 with sandy bridge but they will make less money from motherboard  if they did  that.
> the marketing strategy is why sell one product if you can sell two its good for them not for the paying customer



That's not really true. See you're looking at things from an enthusiast point of view and are thinking that everybody upgrades as soon as the new generation comes. But in fact most consumers follow update cycles of 3, 4 or even 5 years and will need to upgrade everything anyway. Intel are targeting that specific group of people with their current products.

In fact you could go as far as to say that they're actually loosing money now because many people would have otherwise updated if it was just a CPU change, will be put off from making a complete system update. Intel's strategy is in no way a bad strategy but it's not excellent - you can never make all the people happy. 

Maybe if somebody introduced an add in board that could convert the 1156 socket to 1155 like in the p3 days...


----------



## meirb111 (Jan 4, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> That's not really true. See you're looking at things from an enthusiast point of view and are thinking that everybody upgrades as soon as the new generation comes. But in fact most consumers follow update cycles of 3, 4 or even 5 years and will need to upgrade everything anyway. Intel are targeting that specific group of people with their current products.
> 
> In fact you could go as far as to say that they're actually loosing money now because many people would have otherwise updated if it was just a CPU change, will be put off from making a complete system update. Intel's strategy is in no way a bad strategy but it's not excellent - you can never make all the people happy.
> 
> Maybe if somebody introduced an add in board that could convert the 1156 socket to 1155 like in the p3 days...



i upgrade once every 3 years so i don't no how you think so
and about the 1155 your naive to think intel can't make it
work with 1156 when they designed it Where there's a Will, there's a way. intel has the way not the will


----------



## cdawall (Jan 4, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> That's not really true. See you're looking at things from an enthusiast point of view and are thinking that everybody upgrades as soon as the new generation comes. But in fact most consumers follow update cycles of 3, 4 or even 5 years and will need to upgrade everything anyway. Intel are targeting that specific group of people with their current products.
> 
> In fact you could go as far as to say that they're actually loosing money now because many people would have otherwise updated if it was just a CPU change, will be put off from making a complete system update. Intel's strategy is in no way a bad strategy but it's not excellent - you can never make all the people happy.
> 
> Maybe if somebody introduced an add in board that could convert the 1156 socket to 1155 like in the p3 days...



it cant be to hard AM2 boards can run the 1090t now. all intel did with 1155 was make it a pain to overclock which is stupid IMO


----------



## DigitalUK (Jan 4, 2011)

i read all of that and was waiting for him to get to windows performance and just didnt. im not planning on going blue but that review was stupid. trashed the whole cpu on the basis of not running some linux apps on launch day??. im sure the 4 people that wanted those apps with that cpu on that linux distro were gutted.


----------



## hv43082 (Jan 5, 2011)

cdawall said:


> it cant be to hard AM2 boards can run the 1090t now. all intel did with 1155 was make it a pain to overclock which is stupid IMO



The non K models are not overclockable.  All K models have unlocked multiplier and all have hit at least 4.4 Ghz on air by simply raising Vcore and multiplier alone (2 steps process that takes like 30 seconds).


----------



## HalfAHertz (Jan 5, 2011)

So you can only overclock on the P motherboards but only the CPU because you can't use the GPU with it and you can only overclock and use the GPU on the H motherboard, which can't be overclocked even with the K processors? Wow that's a headspinner...

The Intel engineers did a terrific job and made a great CPU but then management took a giant crap all over it:shadedshu


----------



## hv43082 (Jan 5, 2011)

meirb111 said:


> i upgrade once every 3 years so i don't no how you think so
> and about the 1155 your naive to think intel can't make it
> work with 1156 when they designed it Where there's a Will, there's a way. intel has the way not the will



It's not that they lack the will but it is their business model.  New process comes with new chipset and mobo.  You make more money selling them rather than processor alone.  It's certainly not cost saving for the end users/buyesr and less people will buy the new processors.  However, I am sure Intel profit analysis must have predicted that this is the best business model for them.


----------



## alucasa (Jan 5, 2011)

Well, there are always going to be this kind of threads whenever a new cpu is released. I mean there were similar threads when i7-920 was released also. And even when Conroe got released, but then that was by AMD fanboys.

We have the right to be concerned but I think it goes over the top way too often.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 5, 2011)

hv43082 said:


> The non K models are not overclockable.  All K models have unlocked multiplier and all have hit at least 4.4 Ghz on air by simply raising Vcore and multiplier alone (2 steps process that takes like 30 seconds).



So its a specific board specific chip to oc what's next specific ram and video cards heck let's throw some branding in to like fatality or something


----------



## hv43082 (Jan 5, 2011)

cdawall said:


> So its a specific board specific chip to oc what's next specific ram and video cards heck let's throw some branding in to like fatality or something



I think of them more like prebuilt vs. custom built.

Prebuilt: SB H mobo and non K processors.  Most computers from Dell, HP, Apple, etc. use non overclocking components and are sold at stock speed.  The majority of buyers use them.

Custom built: SB P mobo and K processors.  A select few (ie: us enthusiast) will buy them for overclocking purposes.  They do cost a little more but that's the price you pay for the enthusiast segment.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jan 5, 2011)

You guys leave Charlie Demerjian alone dammit. He serves the community in a valuable way. If it wasn't for him I would have to be the village idiot AND troll. Thats just to much responsibility for one man to have.


----------



## mikevs (Jan 5, 2011)

Not only is Intel getting crappy, Sandy Bridge is sticking to quad core with no word of a six or eight core models. I cannot wait another year for an eight core CPU. AMD is supposed to release a 32nm Bulldozer CPU with eight cores in the first half of this year. Furthermore, I believe with this whole new architecture, AMD will not only have a faster CPU than Intel Sandy Bridge crap quad core CPU's and $1000 six core, but it will be cheaper.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 5, 2011)

hv43082 said:


> I think of them more like prebuilt vs. custom built.
> 
> Prebuilt: SB H mobo and non K processors.  Most computers from Dell, HP, Apple, etc. use non overclocking components and are sold at stock speed.  The majority of buyers use them.
> 
> Custom built: SB P mobo and K processors.  A select few (ie: us enthusiast) will buy them for overclocking purposes.  They do cost a little more but that's the price you pay for the enthusiast segment.



But I enjoy overclocking cheap chips I don't want to pay extra for overclocking.


----------



## overclocking101 (Jan 5, 2011)

mikevs said:


> Not only is Intel getting crappy, Sandy Bridge is sticking to quad core with no word of a six or eight core models. I cannot wait another year for an eight core CPU. AMD is supposed to release a 32nm Bulldozer CPU with eight cores in the first half of this year. Furthermore, I believe with this whole new architecture, AMD will not only have a faster CPU than Intel Sandy Bridge crap quad core CPU's and $1000 six core, but it will be cheaper.



for once I agree with an opinion against intel. but not entirely. yes the 1155 switch was straight B/S they did not have to do that their p67 is not very different from P55 honestly. they could have done with sandy bridge what they did with conroe/wolfdale etc kept the same socket but they got greedy. I do think that bulldozer with make SB look terrible mainly due to it actually will have 8 real cores, will be cheaper , and it will have bus overclocking. do I think they will be faster with amd bulldozer have all but 1 core disabled and intel sandy bridge as well?? NO i think core for core SB will be faster but hyperthreaded cores are weaker then physical cores.


----------



## CDdude55 (Jan 5, 2011)

cdawall said:


> But I enjoy overclocking cheap chips I don't want to pay extra for overclocking.



I agree.

That's really the only thing i am disliking about Sandy Bridge at this moment, it's that they locked down overclockability to certain chip models and chipsets while crippling the other models so that it makes it impossible to get to the same speeds as the more expensive models. I have no problems with having only certain models with unlocked multipliers, but when you do that, the other less expensive chips should at least do us some good through the BCLK, but from what the reviews are saying, you'll be hard pressed to do much overclocking with a non K model, and i find that disappointing.

It's definitely a problem for us (which is most of us) that buy cheaper chips and intend on overclocking them to the higher speeds of the better chips. But hey, these are only the mid-range Sandy Bridge chips, so who knows, maybe the intentions were to focus on more of the mainstream market and not the overclockers and that they will do better with regards to overclocking with their LGA 2011 chips. But still, you should be able to overclock and change settings on the majority of chips they push out, not the minority, i don't want to have to cherry pick between two models and one chipset to get the best overclocking options.

But still i have to say that overall performance with Sandy Bridge has been good, they look like awesome performing chips for the money, and besides the overclocking grudge i currently have against it, they're very nice chips.


----------



## PopcornMachine (Jan 5, 2011)

People seem to hung up on some sort of principal argument, and not seeing bang for buck offered here.

Considering that a i5 2500k soundly out performs a Phenom II x6 1100T, I think it's easy to add up the cost of building a system and gauging the performance difference.

Say an 880G mobo with said Phenom cost around $370 (probably low).  Estimating a P67 mobo at $200 (probably high) and the chip listed at $216 comes to $416.

Now I think one should look at the gaming performance, at stock and overclocked, that has been well documented on many sites the last few days, and it shouldn't be hard to figure out what is the better buy.

You're all smart people here.  I know you can do it.


----------



## mikevs (Jan 5, 2011)

overclocking101 said:


> for once I agree with an opinion against intel. but not entirely. yes the 1155 switch was straight B/S they did not have to do that their p67 is not very different from P55 honestly. they could have done with sandy bridge what they did with conroe/wolfdale etc kept the same socket but they got greedy. I do think that bulldozer with make SB look terrible mainly due to it actually will have 8 real cores, will be cheaper , and it will have bus overclocking. do I think they will be faster with amd bulldozer have all but 1 core disabled and intel sandy bridge as well?? NO i think core for core SB will be faster but hyperthreaded cores are weaker then physical cores.




I am sure Sandy Bridge will destroy Bulldozer core for core no doubt. But thats if they come out with a next gen six core variant or eight core which I am defiantly hoping for. My point is that Intel is slacking Also, not only is there no concrete information in sight until at least next year with Ivy Bridge of another six core or eight core CPU but Sandy Bridge has other negative stuff as mentioned in this thread.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 5, 2011)

I don't understand the overclock argument at all. Overclocking cheap chips died with 775. There aren't any cheap 1156 chips like there were for 775. A G6950 is twice the price of a E3400. If you wanted a 1156 system you got a 750, now with 1155 you get a 2500k with greater overclocking ability and a clock for clock advantage. What is there to bitch and moan about?


----------

