Support NeoGAF

[brain_stew]

I think he, like me, is referring to the 13".

No OpenCL support for Intel's integrated graphics as it stands (and without it, Apple won't use them, regardless of performance) and the performance is lower than their current GPU. Its not a clear upgrade at all, so I wouldn't expect it to be a certainty to happen.

 

[Azzurri]

Any place in the US selling SB Mobo's and CPU online before the release date?

 

[scorcho]

Time to put my Q6600 to rest.

same here. let's clink glasses!

 

[Mr_Brit]

Speaking as a gamer, I'm seeing nothing that warrants an upgrade from my 3.42ghz q6600 tbh. Its still incredibly rare that I'm CPU bottlenecked.

I just couldn't make an upgrade these days without an increase in core count either. That's where the big performance gains have been coming recently.

Well people still using C2Q with a high end GPU should see a good size jump by moving to SB.

 

[Macattk15]

Well people still using C2Q with a high end GPU should see a good size jump by moving to SB.

It's what I'm hoping to see with my HD 5870. I'm not getting near the amount of performance out of it as I expected I would. I've always been assuming it's my CPU which has been holding it down ... which I'm guessing is accurate.

I've been wanting to upgrade the 6600 for a while though. This new i5-2500K is finally pushing me to do so.

 

[brain_stew]

Well people still using C2Q with a high end GPU should see a good size jump by moving to SB.

They should?

There's only Starcraft 2 and possibly Civ 5 in that whole raft of game benchmarks where you'd ever notice any difference. The OCed Q6600 is still enough to get you past that 60fps threshold in damn near every game on the market.

It doesn't even matter if you're "bottlenecking" a high end GPU at that point, as long as your CPU is delivering a consistent 60fps, you're simply not going to benefit from an upgrade.

At the very least I'd want a few extra cores (or at least hyper threading) for my money, so I was safe in the knowledge there'll be a huge gap developing in future, because as it stands, that's all you're really buying it for anyway. Possible increases in performance in the future.

If the 2600k was around the ~$200 mark, my interest would be piqued, but its not and it carries a totally unreasonable premium.

It's what I'm hoping to see with my HD 5870. I'm not getting near the amount of performance out of it as I expected I would. I've always been assuming it's my CPU which has been holding it down ... which I'm guessing is accurate.

I've been wanting to upgrade the 6600 for a while though. This new i5-2500K is finally pushing me to do so.

If its a stock Q6600, then yes you're holding it back quite a bit. If you've got it clocked past 3ghz, then you're not going to notice much difference at all.

Given that, you might as well save yourself $500+ and just OC your current chip.

 

[LCGeek]

Much greater OC headroom, you can get 1GHZ on stock cooling. Memory bandwidth isn't even close to being an issue on dual channel setups so I don't see how you can claim that being a downside. Bus overclocking was a waste of time anyways, multiplier OCing is quicker and easier and gets you pretty much exactly the same results and also means that you don't have to OC every other component on your PC when OCing your CPU which means you don't have to stability test any other components and also means that you can get cheaper memory instead of splurging on 'Hyper 1337zzzzz hacking 2000MHZ memory'.

This and while I don't have a shitty mobo OC'ing becomes an issue when you get in to fsb issues and stability. If intel is making this simple a lot of people who decide to can do a few things and have a much cpu. My friend had a crap mobo and couldn't change the ram timings so his anything we do would just mean a post a fail on boot when it went in to windows.

 

[Firestorm]

No OpenCL support for Intel's integrated graphics as it stands (and without it, Apple won't use them, regardless of performance) and the performance is lower than their current GPU. Its not a clear upgrade at all, so I wouldn't expect it to be a certainty to happen.

I remember seeing something about a workaround but can't find it again with all the new news pushing it off the first few pages of Google =P

IvyBridge for desktops is Q3 2011 or so right? My desktop is busted and I'm thinking of upgrading instead of RMAing my motherboard when I get back home. I don't know if that will be better or not... Got a C2Q 9550 so I'd need to upgrade mobo + cpu + ram.

 

[Wazzim]

What does the integrated GPU mean? Can you use the processor with and without it (using a seperate GPU ofcourse)?

 

[Meeru]

What does the integrated GPU mean? Can you use the processor with and without it (using a seperate GPU ofcourse)?

...

 

[Mr_Brit]

What does the integrated GPU mean? Can you use the processor with and without it (using a seperate GPU ofcourse)?

Same as it's always meant, it's a weak GPU built into the CPU die. You can use it as a graphics card if you don't have a separate one.

 

[Mr_Brit]

It's what I'm hoping to see with my HD 5870. I'm not getting near the amount of performance out of it as I expected I would. I've always been assuming it's my CPU which has been holding it down ... which I'm guessing is accurate.

I've been wanting to upgrade the 6600 for a while though. This new i5-2500K is finally pushing me to do so.

If it's a stock CPU then yes you're right, you're being heavily CPU limited.

 

[brain_stew]

Same as it's always meant, it's a weak GPU built into the CPU die. You can use it as a graphics card if you don't have a separate one.

Ehm, it hasn't always meant that.

 

[Macattk15]

They should?

There's only Starcraft 2 and possibly Civ 5 in that whole raft of game benchmarks where you'd ever notice any difference. The OCed Q6600 is still enough to get you past that 60fps threshold in damn near every game on the market.

It doesn't even matter if you're "bottlenecking" a high end GPU at that point, as long as your CPU is delivering a consistent 60fps, you're simply not going to benefit from an upgrade.

At the very least I'd want a few extra cores (or at least hyper threading) for my money, so I was safe in the knowledge there'll be a huge gap developing in future, because as it stands, that's all you're really buying it for anyway. Possible increases in performance in the future.

If the 2600k was around the ~$200 mark, my interest would be piqued, but its not and it carries a totally unreasonable premium.




If its a stock Q6600, then yes you're holding it back quite a bit. If you've got it clocked past 3ghz, then you're not going to notice much difference at all.

Given that, you might as well save yourself $500+ and just OC your current chip.

I can't get the OC on my Q6600 to hold anywhere above 2.8GHz (in part due to my shitty MOBO nForce 680i). I figure if I'm gonna get a new motherboard ... I might as well get a new processor.

 

[brain_stew]

I can't get the OC on my Q6600 to hold anywhere above 2.8GHz (in part due to my shitty MOBO nForce 680i). I figure if I'm gonna get a new motherboard ... I might as well get a new processor.

Then fair enough, you could do with a faster processor.

 

[Wazzim]

...

*It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! It's not stupid to ask something! *

Same as it's always meant, it's a weak GPU built into the CPU die. You can use it as a graphics card if you don't have a separate one.

Thanks.

 

[Owzers]

Now that there are brain sightings in this thread, i looked back at an old brain sandy bridge laptop thread and how these sandy bridge laptops would be good for gaming, is that still the case?

 

[Mr_Brit]

Now that there are brain sightings in this thread, i looked back at an old brain sandy bridge laptop thread and how these sandy bridge laptops would be good for gaming, is that still the case?

If you're fine with HD5400 level performance then yes. For everyone else SB changes nothing, you'll still need a dedicated GPU if you want to play at decent settings/resolution.

 

[Mr_Brit]

Ehm, it hasn't always meant that.

I can't remember a strong integrated GPU being released in the last few years but if yiu have any examples then go ahead.

 

[PjotrStroganov]

Can the onboard GPU be used as dedicated physx processor? Would be nice.

 

[brain_stew]

I can't remember a strong integrated GPU being released in the last few years but if yiu have any examples then go ahead.

It hasn't always meant its "built into the CPU die" in fact, this is the very first modern CPU where that is the case. Its traditionally been part of the chipset and I think calling it "weak" is a little disingenuous. Its only a ~100m transistor part which you don't pay any extra premium for and yet its beating out discrete ~$50 GPUs.

The 320m in the 13" MBPs is hardly "weak" either, its the exact same GPU core used in the discrete GPUs found in their $2k+ 15" and 17" models.

Can the onboard GPU be used as dedicated physx processor? Would be nice.

No.

 

[jmdajr]

looking back I owned a pentium1, athlon(pentium 3 period), and now core 2 machine.

I basically skipped out on pentium 2, pentium 4..and I plan to skip out on the whole core i phase.

 

[Mr_Brit]

It hasn't always meant its "built into the CPU die" in fact, this is the very first modern CPU where that is the case. Its traditionally been part of the chipset and I think calling it "weak" is a little disingenuous. Its only a ~100m transistor part which you don't pay any extra premium for and yet its beating out discrete ~$50 GPUs.

Oh right I thought you meant that something else. Weren't the 32nm i5s/i3s built with GPUs on their dies? It's impressive what they've managed to do with the space/transistors they have but in the grand scheme of things it is still weak, certainly not enough to play games with good settings at a good resolution.

 

[brain_stew]

Oh right I thought you meant that something else. Weren't the 32nm i5s/i3s built with GPUs on their dies? It's impressive what they've managed to do with the space/transistors they have but in the grand scheme of things it is still weak, certainly not enough to play games with good settings at a good resolution.

They were part of the same package, but the GPU was on a separate die. It was a MCM.

 

[GhaleonEB]

You must be proud!

Honestly, I've learned more about the product from these reviews than from supporting the development. I still think of it as P1268. :lol

 

[YourMaster]

Oh right I thought you meant that something else. Weren't the 32nm i5s/i3s built with GPUs on their dies? It's impressive what they've managed to do with the space/transistors they have but in the grand scheme of things it is still weak, certainly not enough to play games with good settings at a good resolution.

No, but if you are into puzzle games and pc classics, it will get you a long way.

 

[Littleberu]

Maybe I missed it, but does somebody know where they are going to release it?

I heard Jan 9, is it still that date?

 

[Chiggs]

They should?

There's only Starcraft 2 and possibly Civ 5 in that whole raft of game benchmarks where you'd ever notice any difference. The OCed Q6600 is still enough to get you past that 60fps threshold in damn near every game on the market.

Bingo. People that expect CPU upgrades to bring them FPS increases across the board are in for a surprise. GPUs being bottlenecked by a processor is such a myth (save for Crossfire/SLI setups).

 

[Dennis]

This is a dilemma.

The 2600K is the best Quadcore right now and much cheaper than the 6-core 980X. The performance in games are about the same but I actually use programs that can benefit from 6+ cores.

I am really, really, really super pissed Intel isn't releasing an 8-core Sandy Bridge CPU right now.

That would have made the decision to buy a new rig now easy.

Now I have to choose between a 2600K or 980X now, or wait almost a year (!!!) for the 8-core. FUCK IT SO MUCH.

 

[Mr_Brit]

This is a dilemma.

The 2600K is the best Quadcore right now and much cheaper than the 6-core 980X. The performance in games are about the same but I actually use programs that can benefit from 6+ cores.

I am really, really, really super pissed Intel isn't releasing an 8-core Sandy Bridge CPU right now.

That would have made the decision to buy a new rig now easy.

Now I have to choose between a 2600K or 980X now, or wait almost a year (!!!) for the 8-core. FUCK IT SO MUCH.

There's also Bulldozer.

Why were you banned and how long was it for?

 

[prodystopian]

Speaking as a gamer, I'm seeing nothing that warrants an upgrade from my 3.42ghz q6600 tbh. Its still incredibly rare that I'm CPU bottlenecked.

I just couldn't make an upgrade these days without an increase in core count either. That's where the big performance gains have been coming recently.

I'm on a Q9550, and I agree. SB is definitely impressive, but not enough for me to jump on the desktop.

After reading Anand's review on the mobile set, though, I'm seriously considering selling my UL80VT if someone comes out with a SB based laptop with a quality screen for ~$1k.

Bingo. People that expect CPU upgrades to bring them FPS increases across the board are in for a surprise. GPUs being bottlenecked by a processor is such a myth (save for Crossfire/SLI setups).

It isn't a myth, but it is overestimated. For most quality CPUs they aren't bottlenecking much. Now if you are pairing a top of the line GPU with a mediocre dual core CPU...

Also, the bottleneck is significantly smaller at high resolutions and quality.

This is a dilemma.

The 2600K is the best Quadcore right now and much cheaper than the 6-core 980X. The performance in games are about the same but I actually use programs that can benefit from 6+ cores.

I am really, really, really super pissed Intel isn't releasing an 8-core Sandy Bridge CPU right now.

That would have made the decision to buy a new rig now easy.

Now I have to choose between a 2600K or 980X now, or wait almost a year (!!!) for the 8-core. FUCK IT SO MUCH.

Are the 8 cores not going to be the same socket?

 

[Dennis]

There's also Bulldozer.

Why were you banned and how long was it for?

For posting a GIF of a gentleman jumping off a balcony. Never saw the ban coming - I thought the GIF was hilarious. And the guy survived. About a week and a half ban.

eww, AMD CPUs...

 

[brain_stew]

This is a dilemma.

The 2600K is the best Quadcore right now and much cheaper than the 6-core 980X. The performance in games are about the same but I actually use programs that can benefit from 6+ cores.

I am really, really, really super pissed Intel isn't releasing an 8-core Sandy Bridge CPU right now.

That would have made the decision to buy a new rig now easy.

Now I have to choose between a 2600K or 980X now, or wait almost a year (!!!) for the 8-core. FUCK IT SO MUCH.

Wait for the high end socket.

You'll get the best of both worlds.

There's also Bulldozer.

Why were you banned and how long was it for?

I'd be surprised if Bulldozer matches the original core-i7s nevermind the latest refresh.

Its de-emphasising floating point performance as well, which isn't ideal for a gaming CPU.

Intel are just too far ahead at this point.

 

[Dennis]

Are the 8 cores not going to be the same socket?

No.

 

[Van Owen]

Another e8400 owner here. Probably gonna snag the new i5 before Witcher 2.

 

[Mr_Brit]

Wait for the high end socket.

You'll get the best of both worlds.

+PCI-E 3.0, 16x/16x bandwidth, USB 3.0, more SATA 6 ports and no integrated GPU taking up valuable die space.

 

[Durante]

Much greater OC headroom, you can get 1GHZ on stock cooling.

Sure, but I've got my i7 running at 3.7 GHz. I just don't see anything where even more clock speed would help much.

Memory bandwidth isn't even close to being an issue on dual channel setups so I don't see how you can claim that being a downside.

There are real-world tasks were more memory BW is clearly beneficial, ie. compression and decompression: http://techreport.com/r.x/sandy-bridge/7-zip-decomp.gif
And that's one of the few occasions were I'm actually waiting for my PC and not the other way round.

Bus overclocking was a waste of time anyways, multiplier OCing is quicker and easier and gets you pretty much exactly the same results and also means that you don't have to OC every other component on your PC when OCing your CPU which means you don't have to stability test any other components and also means that you can get cheaper memory instead of splurging on 'Hyper 1337zzzzz hacking 2000MHZ memory'.

I don't know when you last tried bus OCing, but these days you can independently clock most components. Well, you could, until now.

 

[No_Style]

Will this finally mean the clearance of Core 2 Quad processors? I wanted to pick up Q9550 (or a Q9550S!) for super cheap for my brother's rig.

Or is this just wishful thinking?

 

[Chiggs]

I'd be surprised if Bulldozer matches the original core-i7s nevermind the latest refresh.

Its de-emphasising floating point performance as well, which isn't ideal for a gaming CPU.

Intel are just too far ahead at this point.

Here's the thing: AMD's Bulldozer is supposed to be a good performer. And if they can stay relatively close to Intel at a better price, while NOT SWITCHING GODDAMN SOCKETS EVERY YEAR, they have a great chance to succeed.

 

[Mr_Brit]

Sure, but I've got my i7 running at 3.7 GHz. I just don't see anything where even more clock speed would help much.

There are real-world tasks were more memory BW is clearly beneficial, ie. compression and decompression: http://techreport.com/r.x/sandy-bridge/7-zip-decomp.gif
And that's one of the few occasions were I'm actually waiting for my PC and not the other way round.

I don't know when you last tried bus OCing, but these days you can independently clock most components. Well, you could, until now.

There are dozens more applications where CPU speed makes a bigger difference than memory bandwidth available, just because you're limited by bandwidth rather than CPU speed doesn't make it a common scenario. Also in that chart you posted CPUs which should have identical bandwidth e.g. the 950 and 970 don't as the greater CPU frequency on the 970 proves that CPU frequency also makes a big difference. Multiplier OCing is better than bus OCing for end users in 99% of cases. If I had to choose one or the other for most people it'd be multiplier OCing.

 

[brain_stew]

Will this finally mean the clearance of Core 2 Quad processors? I wanted to pick up Q9550 (or a Q9550S!) for super cheap for my brother's rig.

Or is this just wishful thinking?

Processors never really go "on clearance" and they often increase after going EOL. Second hand prices will crash though, and that's where I'd look for a bargain

 

[Chiggs]

Will this finally mean the clearance of Core 2 Quad processors? I wanted to pick up Q9550 (or a Q9550S!) for super cheap for my brother's rig.

Or is this just wishful thinking?

Since it's Intel, this is wishful thinking. Which is a shame, because a good Core 2 Quad will be a great performer for years to come. :lol

 

[scorcho]

an unlocked i5 2500k for $216 that could hit 4.4ghz on the stock cooler seems like a fantastic value proposition even for someone on an overclocked Q6600.

i'm definitely in for this round of upgrades, though i'm sure the mobos won't be that cheap

 

[brain_stew]

Here's the thing: AMD's Bulldozer is supposed to be a good performer. And if they can stay relatively close to Intel at a better price, while NOT SWITCHING GODDAMN SOCKETS EVERY YEAR, they have a great chance to succeed.

Well they're doing precisely that and going down the multiple consumer socket route as well. I'm not seeing any reason for a high end gamer to hold out and everyone else is more than taken care of by old C2Qs or the $100 3ghz quads you can pick up these days.

The architecture might make a nice server chip, though.

 

[aeolist]

an unlocked i5 2500k for $216 that could hit 4.4ghz on the stock cooler seems like a fantastic value proposition even for someone on an overclocked Q6600.

i'm definitely in for this round of upgrades, though i'm sure the mobos won't be that cheap

The motherboard will be expensive for the socket 2011 chips later in the year. This stuff is Intel's midrange processor line so I'd expect to see boards for sale under $200.

 

[dr_rus]

Will wait for the 8-core. My Q9550 is still enough for my 1920x1200 resolution. Also don't want any Intel graphics in my hardware in any form.

 

[hyelife]

Here is the SB mobile processors review from AnandTech

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape

 

[x3sphere]

For gaming, I see little incentive to upgrade from an OC'd Q6600 or above right now. I'd wait for the eight core offerings. Going by benches even a stock Q6600 can get you above 60FPS in most titles.

 

[metsallica]

Been waiting for this... Just got a GTX 570, time to pick out a motherboard! Any recommendations?

Oh, and since everyone else was doing it, I'll be upgrading from an FX-53!

 

[Vanillalite]

They should?

There's only Starcraft 2 and possibly Civ 5 in that whole raft of game benchmarks where you'd ever notice any difference. The OCed Q6600 is still enough to get you past that 60fps threshold in damn near every game on the market.

It doesn't even matter if you're "bottlenecking" a high end GPU at that point, as long as your CPU is delivering a consistent 60fps, you're simply not going to benefit from an upgrade.

Problem is (I've only looked over the 2 stories posted in the OP) none of the games they benchmarked were the games they needed to be benchmarking these days or at the right settings. Crysis Warhead was benched, but not at enthusiast settings. Games that I hear people have trouble hitting 60fps these days would be GTAIV, Civ V, Metro 2033, Stalker:CoP, Crysis etc... at top settings.

Still some of that like Metro 2033 isn't really cpu limited, but probably GPU limited. Benchmarking Left 4 Dead isn't exactly the game to be benching in 2011 though.