By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - Intel's 2nd Generation Core processors 29 new CPUs and enhanced graphics

can't wait for the benchmarks on these babies 

They're here! That is, Intel's Sandy Bridge mobile and desktop processors herein known as the 2nd Generation Core processor family or more simply as Intel Core 2011 processors to us. After months of teasing and on-stage demos, Chipzilla is finally unleashing the details of its new Core i3, i5, and i7 processors, and considering there are 29 new CPUs in total as well as new integrated graphics options (now known as processor graphics) there's quite a bit to digest. Hit the break for our rundown of the new platform and a look at some of Intel's newest performance and graphics-focused features. 


What's new here?

It was just a year ago that Intel released its first generation Core processors, so what exactly makes this platform different? Well, a few things. For those that haven't followed the Sandy Bridge saga, the new family of processors are all based on Intel's 32nm microarchitecture and are the first to put both the processor, memory controller, and graphics on the same die. What's that mean for you? In short, it means the package is smaller and all the parts get to take advantage of each other better -- for instance, by dynamically clocking both the CPU cores and graphics to match whatever workload you throw at it, and giving them up to 1MB of shared cache. Speaking of those graphics, while they may still not be on par with a discrete video card, they're more powerful than ever before. According to Intel, the new HD 2000 and 3000 processor graphics provide 2x the performance of Capella-based systems, and that actually holds up with what we've seen in early benchmarks (so long, GMA 4500). What's more, Intel's improved its Turbo Boost and Hyper-threading technologies such that the new chips enable higher levels of CPU performance as well -- up to a 60 percent improvement with quad-core mobile CPUs. Additionally, the new integrated chips reduce power consumption and can actually completely turn off an idle optical drive, enabling what Intel's calling "incredible battery life."

The processor details


That new architecture means new CPUs, and Intel's introducing a total of 29 new processors, which include different varieties of mobile and desktop Core i3, Core i5, and Core i7 models. The chart above gives you a pretty good breakdown of the versions and Intel's provided a more detailed breakdown of each of these, including clock speeds and TDP here. You will note that there's a slightly different naming convention now -- there's the processor name followed by four numbers, rather than the previous three. As we had heard, the quad-core i7 CPUs will be the first to ship in systems -- they should be hitting this week -- while the dual-core versions won't be shipping until February. Not to worry, the ultra-low voltage (ULV) versions for ultraportable laptops are coming and will be introduced in the second half of the year. There's even a set of specially-marked overclockable 'K' series processors for the tweakers in your family, which lets them individually set the clockspeed ratios for each individual core -- though they'll also need a premium P67 Express motherboard.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/03/intels-2nd-generation-core-processor-family-announced-includes/



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network

Psh, I'm sure they're nothing compared to this.



twesterm said:

Psh, I'm sure they're nothing compared to this.


yea but at least they can run traditional software/games and cost a hundred times less...



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Just read up on them at AnandTech, some impressive hardware Intel is putting out with Sandy Bridge. Especially for video encoding, the new Quick Sync technology leaves everything else in the dust.

I'll definitely be looking for a Sandy Bridge chip for my new PC.



I'm not impressed. They've had two years and all they manage is a ~10% IPC increase in the average case? In many tests a 3.3GHz SB is comparable to a 3.33GHz Nehalem quad.

If Intel had done a 32nm Westmere quad-core it would be almost as good and they could have done it a year ago. The gains in clockspeed, power consumption and pricing would all have been seen. SB's die size is less shrunk than I would expect.

I realise this represents a large increase in perf/$ due to the new postioning and higher clocks, but it shouldn't be hard for AMD to catch up with Bulldozer. Of course everyone will jump on SB just because it comes 3-4 months sooner.

Actually AMD will have the performance crown for six months or more because Intel's new hex-cores aren't coming until Q4 yet AMD will have an 8-core BD in April or May. Intel won't have a desktop 8-core this year.



Around the Network

There is one rather stupid thing and one rather scary/disturbing thing about these new CPUs (correct me if I'm wrong):

- stupid thing: the highest-end, overclockable Sandy Bridge CPUs have substantially better integrated graphics hardware, occupying a large portion of the chip as the picture in the OP shows. But the people who want to buy these highest-end chips are the ones who will rarely use the integrated graphics, obviously they will buy a good standalone graphics card instead. This looks like a waste of transistors and die area in these models.

- scary/disturbing thing: these CPUs can be remotely switched off by Intel:

http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html

The second one by itself is enough to make me very wary of buying one.



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

NJ5 said:

There is one rather stupid thing and one rather scary/disturbing thing about these new CPUs (correct me if I'm wrong):

- stupid thing: the highest-end, overclockable Sandy Bridge CPUs have substantially better integrated graphics hardware, occupying a large portion of the chip as the picture in the OP shows. But the people who want to buy these highest-end chips are the ones who will rarely use the integrated graphics, obviously they will buy a good standalone graphics card instead. This looks like a waste of transistors and die area in these models.

- scary/disturbing thing: these CPUs can be remotely switched off by Intel:

http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html

The second one by itself is enough to make me very wary of buying one.

That's only possible if your computer has access to a 3G network though. The signal is sent through 3G, but the CPU can't receive the message without a 3G network card in the PC.

EDIT: Actually, the signal be received through both LAN, WLAN and 3G. I guess we're not safe after all.

And yeah, the integrated graphics situation is pretty stupid. I'd take a lower price on the CPU any day over lower integrated graphics performance in the kind of rig these CPUs belong in.



NJ5 said:

There is one rather stupid thing and one rather scary/disturbing thing about these new CPUs (correct me if I'm wrong):

- stupid thing: the highest-end, overclockable Sandy Bridge CPUs have substantially better integrated graphics hardware, occupying a large portion of the chip as the picture in the OP shows. But the people who want to buy these highest-end chips are the ones who will rarely use the integrated graphics, obviously they will buy a good standalone graphics card instead. This looks like a waste of transistors and die area in these models.

- scary/disturbing thing: these CPUs can be remotely switched off by Intel:

http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html

The second one by itself is enough to make me very wary of buying one.

Good first point. Pretty much useless extra's there.

Point two: WTF...? Like the current RDM isn't bad enough. Now CPU's to! 



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

Taking a quick look at the in game performance of the chips using integrated graphics, it seems like you would expect similar performance from the integrated graphics that people are now seeing on the HD consoles; and while that isn't good compared to a low end graphics card, that is pretty impressive from an integrated solution.



NJ5 said:

There is one rather stupid thing and one rather scary/disturbing thing about these new CPUs (correct me if I'm wrong):

- stupid thing: the highest-end, overclockable Sandy Bridge CPUs have substantially better integrated graphics hardware, occupying a large portion of the chip as the picture in the OP shows. But the people who want to buy these highest-end chips are the ones who will rarely use the integrated graphics, obviously they will buy a good standalone graphics card instead. This looks like a waste of transistors and die area in these models.

- scary/disturbing thing: these CPUs can be remotely switched off by Intel:

http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html

The second one by itself is enough to make me very wary of buying one.

While I agree these integrated chips are problematic at the moment, if ATI/nVidia can work out solutions similar to the hybrid crossfirex to take advantage of these GPUs (or developers take advantage of these chips) it might not be such a waste