Monday, July 18th 2011

Sandy Bridge-E Model Numbers, Clock Speeds Surface

Here are details of the first three models of Intel's "Sandy Bridge-E" Core i7 processors in the LGA2011 package. Some of these details were made public as early as mid-April. It was then analyzed that Intel was driving two distinct lines of LGA2011 client processors: Enthusiast and Performance, and within Performance, there were BClk multiplier-unlocked six-core, and locked quad-core chips. With the new series, Intel will move to the 3000 series of processor model numbering, indicating that the new processors will be part of Intel's 3rd generation Core processors, even though they're based on the Sandy Bridge architecture.

Before we move to the model numbers, here's a quick run up of the brand extenders. "X" denotes Extreme Edition, "K" denotes "Unlocked" (BClk multipler unlocked). Leading the pack will be Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition. This six-core (6 cores, 12 threads with HTT) chip has a nominal clock speed of 3.30 GHz, Turbo Boost speed of up to 3.90 GHz, and features the full 15 MB of L3 cache present on the Sandy Bridge-E silicon. Expect this chip to have a four figure price-tag.
Next up, is the Core i7-3930K, with 6 cores, 12 threads, a nominal clock speed of 3.20 GHz, and Turbo Boost speed of 3.80 GHz; but 12 MB of L3 cache compared to 15 MB on the Extreme Edition chip. This chip features an unlocked BClk multiplier, making overclocking it possible.

The most affordable LGA2011 chip will be Core i7-3820, with 4 cores, 8 threads, nominal clock speed of 3.60 GHz, Turbo speed of 3.90 GHz, and just 10 MB of L3 cache. Unlike the other two, this one has its BClk multiplier locked. All three models feature quad-channel DDR3 memory controllers, but it is likely that the lower-end models could also have lower DRAM multiplier limits. All three chips will have other features in common, including a PCI-Express 3.0 root complex that gives out two x16 links to drive graphics.Source: DonanimHaber
Add your own comment

124 Comments on Sandy Bridge-E Model Numbers, Clock Speeds Surface

#1
Benetanegia
You should see an substntial improvement, yes. SB is better at gaming and SB-E is not going to be worse on that department, rather the opposite. For video 6 cores will definately help. For photochop not so much I think.

Considering your gaming resolution(s) I'm not even going to discuss if it's worth the upgrade or not, price wise.
Posted on Reply
#2
seronx
Benetanegia said:
It's 50% more cores. 6/4 = 1.5 x 100 = 150%

And I don't know where you get the $90 increase either. The cheaper one is 4 cores/8T. The 6 cores will probably start at $500. $200+ more than 4 cores.

Now if it's worth it at all depends on everyone's wallets. On a perf/price basis it is never worth the premium of highest-end CPUs.
$320 i7 2600K 4c/8t
$500 i7 3930K 6c/12t

Use your math to figure it out

For you it is a $20 premium

For my math it is a $90 premium

phill said:
I game and do the odd bit of photgraphic work and video work - rather rare at the moment...

Minimum resolution is 2560 x 1600, sometimes 8064 x 1600

I have two systems, both with i7 920's in at 4.2Ghz each with HT turned on and 6Gb's of ram. If you would like anything more, please say!
At the higher resolution the more GPU dependent the system becomes(Games)

Video work = More cores equals more power(Video,Photo)

Depending on the resolution of the work the more ram also helps(Video,Photo)
Posted on Reply
#3
Benetanegia
seronx said:
$320 i7 2600K 4c/8t
$500 i7 3930K 6c/12t

Use your math to figure it out

For you it is a $20 premium

For my math it is a $90 premium
Ok. I was understanding a different meaning for premium. I guess that you'd get what you pay for in that case, assuming the 2600k will not become cheaper by when SB-E is released. It probably will.

Anway, sorry to say it so bluntly, but your math regarding % sucks. 6 is 50% more than 4. OR if you prefer 4 is 33% less than 6 or also 4 is 66% of 6. You have to choose which method to use, you cannot do what you did. Using the second method (substractive) for calculating the core count and then using the other (additive) for calculating price: since 4 is 66% of 6, then 66% of $500 is, $335, so once again you'd be paying for what you get, more or less.
Posted on Reply
#4
seronx
Benetanegia said:

Anway, sorry to say it so bluntly, but your math regarding % sucks. 6 is 50% more than 4. OR if you prefer 4 is 33% less than 6 or also 4 is 66% of 6. You have to choose which method to use, you cannot do what you did. Using the second method (substractive) for calculating the core count and then using the other (additive) for calculating price: since 4 is 66% of 6, then 66% of $500 is, $335, so once again you'd be paying for what you get, more or less.
I did do the math wrong woopsy

:(

Sorry

I am getting jumbled with other math formulas

You have to hope for other people to correct you lol
Posted on Reply
#5
TheMailMan78
Big Member
btarunr said:
So you want consumers to be a part of a socialist scheme of making AMD a success, just so Intel lowers its prices. Makes perfect sense.
Socialist scheme? lol WTF are you talking about man and I mean that respect.
Posted on Reply
#6
phill
seronx said:
At the higher resolution the more GPU dependent the system becomes(Games)

Video work = More cores equals more power(Video,Photo)

Depending on the resolution of the work the more ram also helps(Video,Photo)
Thank you for the reply :)

I'm hoping to be getting two 3Gb 580's one for each rig, but when I can afford to do so, I'll buy the newer 6xx series or whatever ATI are throwing out at the time (depending on performance and memory size) for the other rig which I might put in three or four cards in, depends if three will be enough to run all three screens :)

Video work I havent done in ages, so I'm not overly worried if it takes a minute or two longer in honesty :) Well most of the videos I put together will be at least 720P and as for the photo, that just depends on what my Canon 40D manages to be honest.
Posted on Reply
#7
Pestilence
seronx said:


Nehalem -> Westmere
is a die shrink
You don't say.... :laugh:




As i had stated lastnight. When i went from Bloomfield to Westmere the 4Mb of L3 cache bump that westmere has did nothing for performance. What i was trying to say is that i doubt the cache increase on SB-E is going to make a huge difference at all. What will make a difference is the increased memory bandwidth of quad channel memory over SB's Dual channel.
Posted on Reply
#8
[H]@RD5TUFF
Pestilence said:
You don't say.... :laugh:

http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww252/2MCHBoost/IMG00278-20100402-1607.jpg
http://i725.photobucket.com/albums/ww252/2MCHBoost/settings2.png

As i had stated lastnight. When i went from Bloomfield to Westmere the 4Mb of L3 cache bump that westmere has did nothing for performance. What i was trying to say is that i doubt the cache increase on SB-E is going to make a huge difference at all. What will make a difference is the increased memory bandwidth of quad channel memory over SB's Dual channel.
It is a different architecture, my guess the increase in L3 will help with HT and multi threaded apps (of which there aren't many).
Posted on Reply
#9
Pestilence
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
It is a different architecture, my guess the increase in L3 will help with HT and multi threaded apps (of which there aren't many).
If you look at a 2600K with HT disabled vs a 2500K with 2mb less of L3. They perform about the same. I guess we'll see when SB-E gets released.

I was hoping the 6 core had 20 megs of L3. :(
Posted on Reply
#12
[H]@RD5TUFF
Pestilence said:
8 core will be on SB-EP and should work in X79 mobo's like the X79 WS revolution
I hope so.
Posted on Reply
#13
Pestilence
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
I hope so.
We all do. I'm hoping its in the 1200 dollar range and not 1450-1600 like some are forecasting. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#14
[H]@RD5TUFF
Pestilence said:
We all do. I'm hoping its in the 1200 dollar range and not 1450-1600 like some are forecasting. :laugh:
IMO it would depend on scaling, if it was a 20-30% performance increase then I would see the justification in price increase.
Posted on Reply
#15
jpierce55
TheMailMan78 said:
Remember a while back when you people said that even without AMD and the competition they bring we would never see four figured consumer CPU's again? Well there you go. Every fan of Intel better PRAY Bulldozer is a success if they ever want to afford a new CPU here in a few years.
Yes, BD needs to at least be somewhat competitive!
Posted on Reply
#16
phill
jpierce55 said:
Yes, BD needs to at least be somewhat competitive!
Lets hope it is :)
Posted on Reply
#17
[H]@RD5TUFF
phill said:
Lets hope it is :)
With Sandy bridge yeah, SB-E will slaughter it.
Posted on Reply
#18
jpierce55
[H]@RD5TUFF said:
With Sandy bridge yeah, SB-E will slaughter it.
I don't doubt that. My hopes is that it is head on with SB. AMD has been so far behind for years now that getting even with SB is even an upgrade. When we have to worry is when they keep sliding behind. I hope the new APU's bring a big success, and thinking that might be this generations biggest success for AMD.
Posted on Reply
#19
phill
I used to enjoy AMD's CPU's but sadly at the moment they just dont cut it which is a crying shame. The fact we are in some ways made to buy Intel (if we so choose to do so) to get the faster performance is a shame. I do remember the days of the AMD Althon XP's and how well they used to overclock and still used to beat Intels P4..

I hope they can come back soon and bring a pricing war with them!!
Posted on Reply
#20
Wile E
Power User
TheLaughingMan said:
Behold! A four figure price tag on a CPU: Intel Core i7-975 Extreme Edition Bloomfield 3.33G...

This is nothing new for Intel. I wouldn't be surprised is the bottom of these 3 is $800, the next one up is $950, and the top dog is $1100.
The only reason AMD doesn't charge $1000 for their cpus is because they can't. When they were able to compete in performance, they also charged $1000 for their top FX cpus.


And, just like a few others have asked, where are the unlocked 8c/16t cpus Intel? I'm not moving to SB-E until you make it happen. It's just not a worthy upgrade to those of us that already have a 6c/12t cpu.
Posted on Reply
#21
[H]@RD5TUFF
Wile E said:
The only reason AMD doesn't charge $1000 for their cpus is because they can't. When they were able to compete in performance, they also charged $1000 for their top FX cpus.


And, just like a few others have asked, where are the unlocked 8c/16t cpus Intel? I'm not moving to SB-E until you make it happen. It's just not a worthy upgrade to those of us that already have a 6c/12t cpu.
^ this
Posted on Reply
#23
bigg34
Intel is at it again. they are such profiteering glutton. scamming the people by releasing overpriced products.

whats the point of releasing expensive products when only a few people can buy it?

i can barely afford a $300 CPU.

i would be very happy if Intel reports their loss in revenue. if it will ever happen........
Posted on Reply
#24
n-ster
bigg34 said:
Intel is at it again. they are such profiteering glutton. scamming the people by releasing overpriced products.

whats the point of releasing expensive products when only a few people can buy it?

i can barely afford a $300 CPU.

i would be very happy if Intel reports their loss in revenue. if it will ever happen........
If you can't afford the damn thing then don't buy it....

I can't afford a Bugatti Veyron, and yes, Bugatti must be making profits at 1.7m euros each and 100K euros per tire.

High end isn't meant for you, stop bitching about it and blaming it on the company! BooHoo they want to price their CPUs at the market price instead of undercutting everyone including themselves! Also note that they didn't even release anything about prices, this is all speculation!
Posted on Reply
#25
bigg34
n-ster: then Intel just piss their customers off by being ignorant with their prices.

no wonder why you act like an ignorant person. Because you are a typical bloody high end user.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment