• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

All the new CPUs are disappointing

bulldog147 said:
Compare this to 4.40Ghz i7 920 d0, who will win ? The i7 920 will beat i7 2600k 4.60Ghz in performance overall.
Click to expand...

In memory intensive tasks it is due to the higher bandwidth (I know, I've tested both chips myself). However overall the 2600k is the better performer, despite it not being entirely noticeable.

What is noticeable though is if I'd had my 920 running at that clock 24/7 I could have probably done without heating in the room this week for the voltage it'd need.

Here's a couple of good comparisons anyways. Although granted, not exactly clock for clock. The stock 2600k would be running at 3.4GHz with all core enabled, oc'd 920 at 3.6GHz:

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/01/03/intel_sandy_bridge_2600k_2500k_processors_review/3

More or less clock for clock:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
 
I am slightly disappointed too. Mainly due to intel blasting though sockets. I always have hated intels roadmaps with motherboards. Don't even get me started on time when they dropped IDE support out of the blue...... They basically know there in a phoney competitive industry where AMD is just kept around by them by gifting them price/performance mid range segments to keep the antitrust men away.

I actually think we are on the verge of a shake up. AMD may possibly attack from a non x86 chip angle with OpenCL to beat intel, meanwhile ARM attacks from the lower flank as they build more 'desktopable' CPU's with multiple cores and more powerful features.

Though that's tomorrow. As it is now it's a little 'meh' for most people with a core 2 who have overclocked. A SSD or a new GPU or even faster internet will give them more tangible joy/$ in the recession.

Also if you like games, the ageing "next gen" (why I specifically advocate avoiding that term) consoles are starting to hold things back.
 
Nice to see some one do a review like > hardocp, comparing CPU's at different speeds and overclocked gives you a better picture how the 2500k + 2600k perform. The thing l like about the Sandy's is the cooler temps on Air, be nice to see a H2o set up.

But the thing thats got me is owners of a i7920 at about 4.0GHz, buying a Sandy, yes its nice to see them reaching 5.0GHz and join the 5GHz club, its seems most Sandy's settle for about 4.4GHz for 24/7. But the i7920 had the 4.0GHz club and can run at that 24/7, when that was top gun.

So if your a owner of a i7920 at 3.6 > 4.2GHz and you compare it to the CPU's in the hardocp review it still performs very well over all and will last a couple of years yet, so whats the point of going Sandy.
 
I cant see why folks are knocking SandyBridge, for ANYONE wanting to save money on thier lecky bills they are absolute gems (i7 920s @ 4GHz take note).
Just my thoughts on SBs main strength.
Tom. ;)
 
I had no plan to go for sandybridge i7 2600k or i7 2500k as I don't care as my current i7 920 can do 4.0, 4.2 and 4.4 ghz and I am happy with it. There is no point to upgrade but I will upgrade to AMD in the future if my i7 920 had dying out (depend on lifespan left) as Intel is too expensive now for me. AMD is the cheaper bet for me.
 
love the way the OP has immediately dismissed AM3+ for some obscure reason, weird since there are absolutely no indications on their performance, at least not concrete ones. weird that! :D
 
What, why would you be disappointed by cpu's just because old i7's can still run everything well. New cpu's aren't going to make old cpu's run things worse. Surely what you're disappointed with is the progress of programs?
 
What about the base clock? I've only seen the new intel CPU's do a clock upto 100Mhz, where as I'm currently ay 200Mhz.

I'm sure I've heard that overclocking your base clock improves performance a lot, compared to having a high multi.
 
bulldog147 said:
Compare this to 4.40Ghz i7 920 d0, who will win ? The i7 920 will beat i7 2600k 4.60Ghz in performance overall.
Click to expand...

LOL, what utter twaddle.

In a tiny number of memory bandwidth limited apps the triple-channel controller of the i7 920 would give it an advantage but in everything else the 2600K is faster clock-for-clock.

All the reviews bear this out - I suggest you deal with it rather than spouting rubbish :rolleyes:
 
I upgraded to 2600k from i7 930 and can tell you both stock and overclocked Sandy is around 10 to 20 % faster and its also cooler.

Sandy bridge can also overclock much higher im running 4.5 for 24/7 and 5 gig for benchmarks the only reason i dont run 5 gig 24/7 is it needs 1.4 volts which is higher than OCUK recommend and no one really knows how long these chips will last with big volts yet.

If you have fast sli or xfire you will see higher frame rates with Sandy bridge.
 
Invader675 said:
Overall I'm disappointed with the CPUs coming out this year.

The solid work horse i7's are more than capable of dealing with anything that will come out in the next 5 years. There is no need to upgrade if you own an i7, other than the bragging rights.

AMD are making totally distorted claims about AM3+

http://news.softpedia.com/news/AMD-Bulldozer-Performance-Detailed-180197.shtml


Sandy bridge is an overclockers nightmare, frying themselves if you fiddle the voltage and performing in a real life situation not a lot better than the previous generation.
Click to expand...

I have some empathy for Invader675 point of view. I have an AMD 955 BE(C2)@ 3.92GHz 1.52V which will be two years old in April. I am experiencing no significant lag multitasking only when watching TV and photoshopping at the same time which can be addressed by extra ram. Is it worth getting a new chip/motherboard for an extra 0.5GHz, will the improvement be that significant compared to going from dual to quad core?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gigabyte GA-MA790FX-UD5P, 955 BE(C2)@ 3.92GHz 1.52V, Geil Value 4GB DDR3-1600,
ATI 5850 1GB, CM90 II Advanced, 1TB Western Digital Caviar Black, 4 HDDs, XFX 850W
Black Edition, Asus Xonar Essence STX, Pinnacle PCTV 3010iX Dual Analogue + DVB-T.
 
Last edited:
mayebaza said:
Is it worth getting a new chip/motherboard for an extra 0.5GHz, will the improvement be that significant compared to going from dual to quad core?
Click to expand...

It's not really as simple as that. You're comparing apples and oranges here if you're sitting your 955 next to an i7. The i7 is faster (in fact I think stulid was making this upgrade), however if your current system does everything you need it to don't bother mate :)

I upgraded myself (from a 4ghz 920/ud3r) and it only cost me an extra £80 after selling my 'old' stuff. For me it was worth it for cooler temps, faster/higher overclock, a board which posts quickly (old board stopped me buying an ssd) and just generally playing with new tech. When you put it in perspective £35-£40 is an average cost for a night out (for me) so I just miss a couple of nights out. Job done :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom