1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Releases Core i7 ''Sandy Bridge-E'' Processors

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Nov 14, 2011.

  1. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,847 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Intel today released its Core i7-3000 series processor family, codenamed "Sandy Bridge-E". These new processors, along with the new Intel X79 chipset, make up for an entirely new platform. The processors are an upscale of the Sandy Bridge architecture found on chips in the LGA1155 package. The Sandy Bridge-E silicon measures 20.8 x 20.9 mm, with a humungous transistor count of 2.27 billion. In its Core i7-3000 configuration, the silicon has up to 6 cores, up to 15 MB of L3 cache, four DDR3 memory channels, and 40 PCI-Express 3.0 lanes ("some" devices "may" support Gen 3.0, Intel's words).

    Sandy Bridge-E has the same instruction set as Sandy Bridge, which includes SSE up to version 4.2, AVX, AES, and features Turbo Boost 2.0, HyperThreading. It's the memory controller that's complete upscale. It features four independent 64-bit paths to DDR3 DIMMs, making it a quad-channel DDR3 IMC. DDR3-1600 MHz is natively supported. There are three models, the Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition leads the pack with a clock speed of 3.30 GHz, 3.90 GHz top Turbo Boost speed, and 15 MB of L3 cache. It has 6 cores and 12 threads with HTT enabled. This chip has all its multipliers unlocked and is geared for overclocking. It is priced at US $990 in 1000 unit tray quantities, though retailers might draw a decent margin for the boxed parts.

    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    The next best chip in the series is Core i7-3930K. With clock speeds of 3.20 GHz and 3.80 GHz (Turbo), this chip has a slightly smaller L3 cache size of 12 MB, though it is still unlocked and geared for overclocking. Like the i7-3960X, this is a 6 core / 12 thread chip. This chip commands a price of $555. Touted to be the most affordable model, the Core i7-3820 is a quad-core part drawn out of disabling two cores (there's no evidence so far that they can be unlocked). With HTT enabled, this chip offers 8 threads. Its L3 cache is further reduced, to 10 MB (still higher than any preceding Core i7 quad-core model). Unfortunately, this chip is "partially unlocked", meaning that its base clock multiplier is locked, though you can still effectively overclock it by tinkering with the base clock. What's even more depressing is that this chip won't be available until Q1 2012. It is supposed to be priced in the $299~$399 range. This means that the only people building Sandy Bridge-E desktops this Christmas will be the ones with at least $600 to spare for a processor.

    Moving on to the platform itself, the processor is built on the new LGA2011 package, it's the largest CPU package by dimensions, in recent times. Over its 2011 pins, the processor gives out four DDR3 memory channels and 40 PCI-Express 3.0 lanes, a DMI 4 GB/s connection to the X79 chipset, and a large number of pins handling power. The X79 chipset itself doesn't differ much from the P67 chipset in terms of the kind of connectivity it offers, except support for Intel Smart Response SSD-caching technology.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
  2. mcloughj

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    307 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Location:
    Dublin, Ireland
    Expensive. No surprise there but I think a 2600K (or 2500) is still the way to go for most gamers.
     
    MxPhenom 216 says thanks.
  3. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,847 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    Yup. Not just gamers, but pretty much anyone who doesn't encode videos for a living.
     
    Imhoteps says thanks.
  4. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    NOOOOOOOOOOOO MY QUADDDDDDDDDD :cry:

    Damn I was looking forward to X79... Guess I'll have to wait? Damn this sucks ass

    But prices are pretty good so far :)
     
  5. buggalugs

    buggalugs

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    954 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    153
    Location:
    Australia
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
  6. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,871 (3.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,498
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    I'm mighty disappointed with this product - same gaming performance as SB. This is what happens when Intel don't have any head to head competition. :shadedshu

    I made more noises about it here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
  7. btarunr

    btarunr Editor & Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    28,847 (11.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    13,714
    Location:
    Hyderabad, India
    So W1zzard was bang on about the front-page poll options, after all.
     
    DannibusX says thanks.
  8. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
  9. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,778 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,004
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Only good thing about it is AVX instruction. Which is also avaiable on 2600K as far as i know. So who cares really.
     
  10. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,871 (3.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,498
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    W1zz is always right. What are you trying to say?! :wtf: qubit dons tinfoil hat
     
  11. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,150 (1.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    463
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    Performs top of the line in every benchmark--major disappointment.
     
  12. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
  13. xenocide

    xenocide

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    2,150 (1.60/day)
    Thanks Received:
    463
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    I especially like that he knew the FX-8150 wouldn't be able to compete head to head with the i7-2600k in the Spring when everyone was convinced it would, and in most cases even best it.
     
    qubit says thanks.
  14. Rowsol

    Rowsol

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2011
    Messages:
    582 (0.44/day)
    Thanks Received:
    81
    Location:
    Pocomoke, MD
    There wasn't any reason to think it would be any better, unless you know of a game that uses 12 threads.

    This is intel's bulldozer.
     
  15. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    9,871 (3.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,498
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    No, it isn't Bulldozer, lol, but it's what happens when you have Bulldozer 'compete' against Intel's current lineup. Check out the other post I linked to, which explains my point in more detail.
     
  16. jimmyxxx New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Typo there, or am i wrong?
     
  17. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,559 (1.88/day)
    Thanks Received:
    954
    Why is everyone being such a dumbass about this. 1366/1156 had the same gaming performance too. There was never any illusions otherwise. If you're disappointed it's your own fault for having shit for memory.
     
    1c3d0g and ensabrenoir say thanks.
  18. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    No, this is exactly it and known for a while... Like one 16x PCI-E 3.0 and three 8x PCI-E 3.0 or two 16 one 8 etc etc
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
    1c3d0g and jimmyxxx say thanks.
  19. Live OR Die

    Live OR Die

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    4,022 (1.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    421
    Hell no im going to go all out get me one of these i7-3960X :toast: Windows should load support fast :laugh:, Did any one think intel wanted this chip out this year because its the year 2011 :p
     
  20. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    I dn't understand the dissapoinment honestly. It's been well known that this was only going to be SB with 6 cores, so single core and light threaded performance was going to be the same. This includes gaming, since no game trully uses much more than 4 cores. Those which do use more threads (few and far between) are more or less taken care of by hyperthreading. Intel can't just create more gaming performance out of nowhere when games don't use more resources.

    Heavily multi-threaded apps' performances are were they should be, at a 40%-50% increase over 2600k.

    Intel did make a mistake if we look at it from a marketing pov, and they made it several months ago by releasing the midrange part first. Mid-range, in this consolized gaming market and lazy consumer app programers will always take the cake, specially when the difference is the number of cores. That's why everyone always try to release high-end first, even on GPUs which are always used to almost 100% of their potential.
     
  21. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    I think that was the whole point when they announced it lol... If it were for 2012 they would have introduced an extra pin somehow lol
     
    AsRock says thanks.
  22. CDdude55

    CDdude55 Crazy 4 TPU!!!

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    Messages:
    8,179 (3.04/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,277
    Location:
    Virginia
    HardOCP's review is up: http://hardocp.com/article/2011/11/14/intel_core_i73960x_sandy_bridge_e_processor_review/1

    Nothing too surprising, in multithreaded applications it takes off, in single-threaded application it's pretty terrible and the older Sandy Bridge come out ahead in a few instances.

    When it comes to gaming it looks to be another Bulldozer, it's pretty underwhelming. It performs the same or a little worse in pretty much all titles against older chips.

    The only time this chip is a good buy is if you have a lot of money to spend and you do a lot of heavy multithreaded work, that's where it seems to shine.(not surprisingly)
     
  23. claylomax

    claylomax

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,612 (0.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    261
    Location:
    London
  24. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,864 (4.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,405
    It was never supposed to see an improvement in games though.... Maybe in multi-GPU though
     
  25. brandonwh64

    brandonwh64 Addicted to Bacon and StarCrunches!!!

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    18,732 (9.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6,199
    Location:
    Chatsworth, GA
    I think this is more for server/heavy encoder systems
     
    Crunching for Team TPU

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page