anandtech: The Sandy Bridge Preview

[richardginn]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/t...ins-in-a-row/1

Yes folks the GPU slapped into this CPU is actually better than an ATI 5450 video card.

It is also a winner on Power consumption.

[fluffmonster]

helluva chip.

[richardginn]

Could we see the end to the 50 buck video card with this SB CPU and the stuff coming out from AMD next year???

[Johnmcl7]

I can't believe not one new socket but two new sockets, argh! I realise expecting Intel to support existing sockets with new processors is unrealistic but it's annoying to see socket 1366 dead already pretty much as I'd been hoping for a six core processor cheaper than the current Gulftown.

John

[fluffmonster]

bulldozer is supposedly carrying the on-board capability of a 5570(??) or somesuch, so yeah the low-end vid card market is on its way out.

[James]

I'm full on excited about the idea of a Laptop with integrated GPU with enough horsepower to allow for mild gaming and all other tasks I need.

Not to mention, my Q6600 is looking a bit long on the tooth. About time for a platform upgrade on the home system.

And come to think of it, the HTPC could use an upgrade too....

[richardginn]

I can't believe not one new socket but two new sockets, argh! I realise expecting Intel to support existing sockets with new processors is unrealistic but it's annoying to see socket 1366 dead already pretty much as I'd been hoping for a six core processor cheaper than the current Gulftown.

John

I do not like all of these new sockets as well. I hope with the first Sandy Bridge socket it lasts a few years so you can some integrated GPU upgrades with the CPU upgrade at the same time.

Beating a 5450 is really nice, but you need to match like a 5670 in order to get FPS needed for some good light gaming.

[nukefault]

Really? I play Starcraft 2 just fine on min detail on my HD 4200. I've been surprised how little the fancier graphics options add to my enjoyment of the game...

[richardginn]

Really? I play Starcraft 2 just fine on min detail on my HD 4200. I've been surprised how little the fancier graphics options add to my enjoyment of the game...

it is more than just Starcraft2. At best the SB GPU in the review is good for is 1024 by 768 at low settings.

[nukefault]

Not true at all. The review itself showed up to 1680x1050 (or was it 900p? I forget) at low to medium detail working just fine depending on the game. And remember this was a part with 6 of Intel's shaders (or whatever they are), and there will be 12 shader parts on some unknown number of the chips.

The 1024 low detail GPU you describe is my HD 4200, not Sandy.

I'm actually thinking either a high-end Ontario or low-end Sandy would be great for my next laptop upgrade depending on my budget and final relative performance between the two. Sandy will obviously win hands-down for CPU power and probably for GPU power as well... hope it doesn't come at a huge premium.

[richardginn]

Not true at all. The review itself showed up to 1680x1050 (or was it 900p? I forget) at low to medium detail working just fine depending on the game. And remember this was a part with 6 of Intel's shaders (or whatever they are), and there will be 12 shader parts on some unknown number of the chips.

The 1024 low detail GPU you describe is my HD 4200, not Sandy.

I'm actually thinking either a high-end Ontario or low-end Sandy would be great for my next laptop upgrade depending on my budget and final relative performance between the two. Sandy will obviously win hands-down for CPU power and probably for GPU power as well... hope it doesn't come at a huge premium.

What page of the review were you looking at:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3871/t...ins-in-a-row/7

Nothing better than 1024 by 768 at minimum details is best for this GPU.

[nukefault]

Hmm, I was thinking I'd seen benchmarks at higher resolutions. My bad.

However, note that many of the games they benched at 1024 low detail were pushing 70+ fps. Clearly lots of room to push up the details.

Side points:
1. With a discrete GPU, midrange Sandy is almost equivalent to 980X for gaming, per the review. On early silicon. Without Turbo.
2. This is test silicon with very early drivers and no developer love at all so far. There's a lot of room for optimization, and if nothing else the extremely fast processor means you can crank up settings that aren't GPU-dependent.
3. They tested a 6-shader part and it routinely beat the HD 5450 - a card we know for a fact can do much better than 1024 low detail. There's also a 12-shader part that should theoretically compete well against a 5570, or better. My guess is that the 12-shader part will kill the utility of anything below a 5650, and that it'll take a 5750 to make a strong argument for discrete graphics (given that 5650 is way overpriced for the performance it offers... for $100 you're far better off with a 4850 or 5750).

[richardginn]

Hmm, I was thinking I'd seen benchmarks at higher resolutions. My bad.

However, note that many of the games they benched at 1024 low detail were pushing 70+ fps. Clearly lots of room to push up the details.

Side points:
1. With a discrete GPU, midrange Sandy is almost equivalent to 980X for gaming, per the review. On early silicon. Without Turbo.
2. This is test silicon with very early drivers and no developer love at all so far. There's a lot of room for optimization, and if nothing else the extremely fast processor means you can crank up settings that aren't GPU-dependent.
3. They tested a 6-shader part and it routinely beat the HD 5450 - a card we know for a fact can do much better than 1024 low detail. There's also a 12-shader part that should theoretically compete well against a 5570, or better. My guess is that the 12-shader part will kill the utility of anything below a 5650, and that it'll take a 5750 to make a strong argument for discrete graphics (given that 5650 is way overpriced for the performance it offers... for $100 you're far better off with a 4850 or 5750).

The question is will you have to spend 300-400 bucks to get the 12-shader part though???

If you spend that much on the CPU you are most likely to spend 200 bucks plus on regular video card right???

I will agree that a 12 shader part could easily compete or beat up am ATI 5570 video card.

[nukefault]

That is the question and the answer largely depends on how competitive AMD is. Given how high they priced the i3 661 for the trifling GPU overclock it offered, you're probably right that the 12 shader parts will be fairly expensive. I'd imagine closer to $200 for a lowest-cost 12 shader but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

You're also right that people buying Sandy are probably also buying a discrete card, but there is a market for people that mostly want a fast non-3D workstation and would just like a little gaming on the side.

I might spring for a mobile version if it's under $600. (wishful thinking? probably at least at first, but I'm in no hurry and if it stays high I wouldn't be adverse to grabbing Ontario as a cheap alternative)

[nukefault]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3876/i...bridge-part-ii

No prices yet, but *all* the Sandy Mobile launch parts are 12 shader/EU/whatever. If it isn't way expensive I'll be grabbing one. Woohoo!