Intel Launches Sandy Bridge-E Series Processors 204
MojoKid writes "Today marks the release of Intel's Sandy Bridge-E processor family and its companion X79 Express chipset. The first processor to arrive is the Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition, a six-core chip manufactured using Intel's 32nm process node that features roughly 2.27 billion transistors. The initial batch of Sandy Bridge-E CPUs will feature 6 active execution cores that can each process two threads simultaneously via Intel Hyper-Threading technology. Although, the chip's die actually has eight cores on board (two inactive), due to power and yield constraints, only six are active at this time. These processors will support up to 15MB of shared L3 Intel Smart Cache and feature integrated quad-channel memory controllers with official support for DDR3 memory at speeds up to 1600MHz, as well as 40 integrated PCI Express 3.0 compatible lanes. Performance-wise, Sandy Bridge-E pretty much crushes anything on the desktop currently, including AMD's pseudo 8-core FX-8150 processor."
DOH ! (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/14/intel_core_i73960x_sandy_bridge_e_processor_review/6 [hardocp.com]
no wonder there have been 3 opteron (bulldozer) supercomputer orders in the last 3 weeks.
Re: Cough (Score:5, Insightful)
When buying hardware, trying to future proof is dumb. You could try to "future proof" now and buy a $1500 system. In 3 years it'll be shit though.
Alternatively, you could buy a $600 mediocre system now, and another $600 system in 2 years that'll be faster than the above $1500 one. The result will be that you've spent $300 less, you've got machines that are reasonably current for 4 years, and the system you get out at the end is faster.
Re:Wait for Ivy Bridge. (Score:5, Insightful)
16 EUs. Woah. For comparison: nVidia and AMD's current cards have over 1500 of them.
So this is like comparing a consumer-class lawnmower to a Bugatti Veyron, graphics-wise.
Why would anyone with such a extreme setup ever care for such shitty integrated graphics? And whatÃ(TM)s the point of DirectX 11 support, if you can't use it anyway.
Because you can power off the graphics card and still do 1080p HD video decoding, or play some lower-end games. That'll shave a good 300w off of your total power usage. Not to be scoffed at.
Re:$1000 processor vs the world (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it actually provides context on how much better (or not how much better) that $1000 processor is. Plus, how many other desktop $1000 processors are out there to benchmark against? Certainly nothing from AMD.
Are we looking at the same chart? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I see is the 2600k, the 4 core $300 chip, matching or beating the Bulldozer, and the 3960X beating everything by a decent margin.
You are correct in that the Bulldozer doesn't have much to worry about from the new E series as they are much higher priced and compete in a different market. What it does have to worry about is the regular SB chips, which are killing it. Even when things are stacked in what should be its favour: Heavily threaded tasks, the SB does as good or better. Then if you take many other tasks that are not as multithreaded, the SB pulls way ahead.
THAT is the BD's big problem... Well that and the fact that the Ivy Bridge comes out in a few months. The E series is just for people with too much money. In the consumer market, the regular SB is an amazing performer.
Re:Socket (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel actually don't release things on new sockets as much as people think. Every tick/tock pairing has one desktop socket, (..) Nehalem introduced LGA1156 and LGA1366, westmere reused them; Conroe introduced (properly) LGA775 and LGA771, Arandale reused them.
Which means the motherboard is good for exactly one generation on upgrades, on the same die size. Who'd seriously upgrade their almost-new Nehalem system to Westmere, Conroe to Arandale or Sandy Bridge to Ivy Bridge? Then you'd do better putting all that money into one processor. Socket compatibility is only good if it lasts long enough there good reason to upgrade. With Intel, I assume that any new processor I buy will require a new motherboard, simple as that.
Re: Cough (Score:5, Insightful)
The result will be that you've spent $300 less, you've got machines that are reasonably current for 4 years, and the system you get out at the end is faster.
You're also sending twice as much to the garbage pile.
I know this isn't a consideration for most, and it's all but encouraged through the new "disposable electronics" thing that's crept up over the last decade, but at some point we need to consider that some considerations extend beyond the financial, even when talking about buying consumer goods.
For instance, I know people that buy a new printer every time their starter ink runs out because it's still cheaper than buying replacement ink cartridges. Three times a year they're throwing a perfectly good printer into the trash. Yeah, it saves them money, but does that really make it right to throw it in a landfill? I have a hard time saying yes.
Maybe if we required manufacturers to subsidize the disposal of their goods when such goods are non-biodegradable it would help do something to eliminate the whole "designed for the dump" phenomenon?
Re: Cough (Score:4, Insightful)
You're also sending twice as much to the garbage pile.
Only if you actually throw the machines away. If anything, it's the reverse. If you upgrade components of a machine, it's much harder to find a use for the bits you remove than if you replace the whole machine. A two year old machine may be underpowered for you, but there are lots of people who can use it for another few years.