[SOLVED] The Sandy Bridge Review: Intel Core i7-2600K, i5-2500K and Core i3-2100 Tested

**Nibiru2012** · Nibiru2012's Computer Specs

From: AnandTech 1-3-2011

Intel never quite reached 4GHz with the Pentium 4. Despite being on a dedicated quest for gigahertz the company stopped short and the best we ever got was 3.8GHz. Within a year the clock (no pun intended) was reset and we were all running Core 2 Duos at under 3GHz. With each subsequent generation Intel inched those clock speeds higher, but preferred to gain performance through efficiency rather than frequency.

Today, Intel quietly finishes what it started nearly a decade ago. When running a single threaded application, the Core i7 2600K will power gate three of its four cores and turbo the fourth core as high as 3.8GHz. Even with two cores active, the 32nm chip can run them both up to 3.7GHz. The only thing keeping us from 4GHz is a lack of competition to be honest. Relying on single-click motherboard auto-overclocking alone, the 2600K is easily at 4.4GHz. For those of you who want more, 4.6 - 4.8GHz is within reason. All on air, without any exotic cooling.

PERSONAL NOTE: It's good to see Intel finally using a Phillips screw mounting plate with a heatpipe finned cooler. No more P.O.C. push-pin mounts!

Unlike Lynnfield, Sandy Bridge isn’t just about turbo (although Sandy Bridge’s turbo modes are quite awesome). Architecturally it’s the biggest change we’ve seen since Conroe, although looking at a high level block diagram you wouldn’t be able to tell. Architecture width hasn’t changed, but internally SNB features a complete redesign of the Out of Order execution engine, a more efficient front end (courtesy of the decoded µop cache) and a very high bandwidth ring bus. The L3 cache is also lower and the memory controller is much faster. I’ve gone through the architectural improvements in detail here. The end result is better performance all around. For the same money as you would’ve spent last year, you can expect anywhere from 10-50% more performance in existing applications and games from Sandy Bridge.

I mentioned Lynnfield because the performance mainstream quad-core segment hasn’t seen an update from Intel since its introduction in 2009. Sandy Bridge is here to fix that. The architecture will be available, at least initially, in both dual and quad-core flavors for mobile and desktop (our full look at mobile Sandy Bridge is here). By the end of the year we’ll have a six core version as well for the high-end desktop market, not to mention countless Xeon branded SKUs for servers.

To read the rest of the review, go to: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/t...i3-2100-tested

Mychael · Mychael's Computer Specs

Seems just like yesterday when we thought Pentium 90's were pretty hot stuff.

yodap · yodap's Computer Specs

Maybe I'll wait for that 6 core. It could be a good folder. lol

catilley1092 · catilley1092's Computer Specs

I won't buy/build my next PC until a six core is released (Intel). Right now, I'm saving towards my "dream computer", and I want the absolute best CPU/MOBO/RAM combo on the market. Along with a solid power supply. Preferably at least 12GB RAM, 16 would be ideal.

Then I could really score some serious points with folding, and run other apps effortlessly, too.

Cat

**Nibiru2012** · Nibiru2012's Computer Specs

You guys don't seem to realize that the 6-core CPU from Intel will be VERY EXPENSIVE and not until the software developers write code for them they'll be basically not too useful.

Cat - any RAM above 8 GB is a waste of money, unless you're going to do very intense video editing production or heavy CAD use, which I doubt you will. I have 6 GB of RAM and rarely use more than 60% of it's capacity. Remember the "best" computer doesn't necessarily mean going to "top of the line" in hardware.

Do some homework regarding hardware and it's specific applications and you'll see what I'm talking about.

From the April 2009 article about RAM from Tom's Hardware: Do You Really Need More Than 6 GB Of RAM?

Quote:

Not much has changed since 4 GB of RAM became the “sweet spot” for performance and price in the enthusiast market. While 32-bit operating systems previously limited those 4 GB configurations to around 3 GB of useful memory space, today's test shows that 3 GB is still usually enough.

We remember days when having multiple Internet Explorer windows open could cause a system to become sluggish. But even that scenario has become unrealistic, as all the configurations we tested in this review supported over 100 open windows simultaneously.

If 3 GB worked so well, why do we continue to recommend 4 GB to 6 GB triple-channel kits for performance systems? Perhaps we’re just a little too forward-looking, but we can certainly imagine scenarios a typical “power user” could encounter where 3 GB might not be enough, even if today’s tests didn’t reveal any of them. For those folks, stepping up to a 64-bit operating system at the same time is undoubtedly the best course of action.

We can only recommend larger capacities of 8 GB to 12 GB for professional applications where its usefulness has already been documented and for servers. None of our tests required high-memory capacities and wasted RAM is a burden both financially and ecologically.

Yodap - you know the "better half" won't let you get that 6-core. Unless you really do a lot of genuflecting and tons of honey-do lists! LOL!

Yodap >

< Yodap's Wife

**clifford_cooley** · clifford_cooley's Computer Specs

Cat, Nibs is right.

Any one of the Sandy Bridge processors are equal too or greater in performance than the Core2 Quad Q9400 I currently have.

The Sandy Bridge Review: Intel Core i7-2600K, i5-2500K and Core i3-2100 Tested-sb-qc_cpu-compare.png

See more results here - CPU Benchmarks

I'm currently thinking about the 2600K series for myself.

The K series are unlocked versions and can be overclocked very easily.
The i7's are the only ones with 8 Threads, which is required for the Bigadv Work Units in Folding@Home.