SPCR

I found it interesting, and worth reading. Link to article at Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/the- ... s-in-a-row

Right now, totally not liking the predicted price point for the Core i7-2600K. $562 just seems excessive. Here's to hoping it will drop in closer to $340 1Ku same as the i7-875K.

New naming is too long, the "525K" instead of "i5-2500K". New arch is excellent, hyperthreading and overclocking are a luxury, but not worth it. As for new socket and chipset, hoping to see some miniitx 1155 fast and undervolt.

I think calling it a "525K" will cause even more confusion. That would imply it's slower than a Core i3-530. Trying to fit it inside the current Core nomenclature is also difficult. With Lynnfield already at i7-880, there really aren't that many numbers left. Intel's current naming actual makes sense (assuming they'll follow it for the next generations). We already have a similar naming scheme from ATI. NVIDIA, too, until they reached the GeForce 9000 series.

At least Sandy Bridge will have relatively clear segmentation (barring the awkward i5-2390T):
Core i7 = 4c/8t 8MB L3 Turbo
Core i5 = 4c/4t 6MB L3 Turbo
Core i3 = 2c/4t 3MB L3

Right now we have the following:
Core i7 = 4c/8t 8MB L3 Turbo, 6c/12t 12MB L3 Turbo
Core i5 = 4c/4t 8MB L3 Turbo, 2c/4t 4MB L3 Turbo
Core i3 = 2c/4t 4MB L3

35W TDP for the lowest power version is excellent.

Actually, I find the 45W quad-core to be more noteworthy. Couldn't have been easy to get it that low while maintaining a 2+ GHz clock. Everything's inclusive of iGPU, too.

Looks like we'll be getting Sandy Bridge on-time Q1'10/Q1'11. I wonder when we'll even get to see Fusion.

ilovejedd wrote:Right now, totally not liking the predicted price point for the Core i7-2600K. $562 just seems excessive. Here's to hoping it will drop in closer to $340 1Ku same as the i7-875K.

It's not. Just beacuse it's the fastest LGA 1155 CPU, it doesn't mean it's the successor to the 875K.
It will be much faster, and replace the i7 950, which costs that much, is slower, and locked.
You have to realize that this will be their fastest desktop CPU for maybe 9 months.

Intel have made $1000 CPU's for many years. I'm actually surprised that this one will cost only half of that, especially since it will be faster than the $1000 i7 980X.

Besides, there's no competition for this one.

Actually, it's going to be more of a replacement to the Core i7-880 if it's at $500. We'd need to wait for LGA-2011 for a Core i7-950 replacement. However, since Intel introduced the i7-875K at ~$340, it's a bit difficult to stomach what seems like a "replacement" at $160 more.

Addendum:
Upon further study of the Intel roadmap, I have a strong feeling the i7-2500K would actually be close to the $350 price point. Case in point, the i7-960 is already available at $562 and presumably, replaces the i7-950. Add to that, Intel's supposed to be slashing prices for the i7-950 to $300 by next week while we're still in Q3'10. In the roadmap, the processors in the Performance section are the i7-880 ($562), i7-960 ($562) and i7-970 ($885). The i7-950 is grouped in the high end Mainstream section along with processors in the $280~340 range.

I said it was a replacement for the 950 because of the roadmap, and I don't think we'll see any <$500 CPU's for LGA 2011.
The fastest LGA 1155 is simply more high end than the fastest LGA 1156, and not only faster.
LGA 2011 is going to be a more exclusive, extreme only socket than 1366 ever was, most likely to make more money from it.
The 1156 and 1366 is competing with each other, and that's not good for Intel.

I would be interested in a quad core 32nm.

Why is there no idle power consumption improvements? Wonder what i3 is like.

tutu wrote: Why is there no idle power consumption improvements? Wonder what i3 is like.

There is idle power improvement. Anand compares this part (CPU+GPU) to CPU-only ICs and it's the same. oops - my bad. The other systems have an ATI 5450.

While his article didn't specifically address the mobile computing market, I think that's where this chip will dominate. I've never been able to use laptops as my primary use computers since they were always significantly slower for the money than a desktop computer. Now, with 2.5" SSD's, a big part of the speed difference vanishes entirely, and with Sandy Bridge, the new on-board GPU and "turbo" it looks like even the computational gap is going to be very small.

With Sandy Bridge, it's expected that the 35W parts will do 2.5ghz or more with two cores loaded, and over 3ghz for single-threaded apps. The integrated graphics are 2 or 3 times faster than the old generation IGP's too. No word on what we'll see for CULV versions of Sandy Bridge, but for myself, I could probably do just fine with a laptop with shorter battery life in exchange for performance that may very well exceed my current desktop PC anyway in everything but gaming graphics.

When I look at how I use my desktop, the only really intensive app I run is X-Plane, which genuinely does make full use of the graphics card and does hit the CPU pretty hard too, albeit mainly single-threaded. I might keep a desktop with a big video card around for X-Plane, but it seems more and more likely that for everything else I do, a Sandy Bridge laptop will easily get the job done and feel just as fast as a desktop PC.

CA_Steve wrote:

tutu wrote: Why is there no idle power consumption improvements? Wonder what i3 is like.

There is idle power improvement. Anand compares this part (CPU+GPU) to CPU-only ICs and it's the same.

Nice. Think I will wait for the new i3 then for my HTPC build!! The GPU performance will be worth waiting.

Assuming they have bothered to fix the true 24fps issue.

CPU:I7 2600K 3.4Ghz(100x34)
M/B:MS-7681(PCB1.0) P67A-GD55
MEM:A-DATA DDR3 2000 Gamming
VGA:MSI R6850-PM2D1GD5/OC
HDD:7200.12 1TB
COOLER:HDT1283
PSU:Enhance 600W帝海影隼80PLUS
OS Win7 x64



OC 4Ghz machine under the standby power consumption (V-CORE casual tone 1.3v) 62w

Source

Why is there no idle power consumption improvements? Wonder what i3 is like.

I'm interested in this too. I can't see that Sandy Bridge offers any significant improvement in idle power over Clarkdale, although there are leaps in performance and efficiency under load.

There are also likely to be significant differences between boards with the same CPU, e.g the Socket 1156 mini-ITX boards from Intel and ECS draw less power than the Zotac and Gigabyte boards. I'm looking forward to reviews that compare between boards, as well as between CPUs

The new B3 motherboards are already in stock at many vendors.
Oh crap, I'm getting the 'Sandy Bridge itch' again...