Slashdot Mirror
Intel Launches Sandy Bridge-E Series Processors
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."
So it's very heavy then?
That's nice and everything, but I'll wait for Ivy Bridge, which is due March 2012.
According to Wikipedia:
Ivy Bridge feature improvements from Sandy Bridge were expected to include:
Tri-gate transistor technology (up to 50% less power consumption)
PCI Express 3.0 support
Max CPU multiplier of 63 (57 for Sandy Bridge)
RAM support up to 2800MT/s in 200MHz increments
Next Generation Intel HD Graphics with DirectX 11, OpenGL 3.1, and OpenCL 1.1 support
The built-in GPU is believed to have up to 16 execution units (EUs), compared to Sandy Bridge's maximum of 12.
The new random number generator and the RdRand instruction, which is codenamed Bull Mountain.
Next Generation Intel Quick Sync Video
DDR3 low voltage for mobile processors
Multiple 4k video playback
So yeah, just hang on for the die shrink if you care about performance and power consumption. My next system will definitely be Ivy Bridge based.
In this instance, no, this is a new socket, replacing LGA1366. Next year though intel will release new desktop CPUs based on the current LGA1155 for desktops.
Intel actually don't release things on new sockets as much as people think. Every tick/tock pairing has one desktop socket, and one server socket, this is the server socket to go with LGA1155's desktop socket. The tock to come (Ivy Bridge) will also use LGA1155 for desktops and LGA2011 for servers.
This is much the same as has happened before: Nehalem introduced LGA1156 and LGA1366, westmere reused them; Conroe introduced (properly) LGA775 and LGA771, Arandale reused them.
(I've always wanted to start a conspiracy theory.)
On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
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.
There are only three things that you can bench it against usefully:
1) The 2500/2600k CPUs that are the high end for the consumer boards. The question there is "What do I get moving up to the much more expensive E series?"
2) The top of the line AMD Bulldozer. The question there is "How much faster is Intel's high end than AMD's high end?"
3) The previous Intel high end, the i7-990X. The question there is "How much faster would it be if I upgraded?"
In all cases, you are talking a very high priced, over spec'd part. There are no other chips in its category really. It is for people who demand the max performance and aren't concerned with the stiff price premium to have it.
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?