Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Two New Platforms, More On The Way

Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs: The Sandy Bridge Review
By

Sandy Bridge processors are not compatible with Intel’s 5-series chipsets. I guess this is fine, since you already have to buy a new motherboard as a result of LGA 1156 getting abandoned. But that doesn’t make another platform upgrade an easy pill to swallow for the mainstream market—presumably folks who don’t have two or three grand to spend on technology every time “next-gen” becomes “current-gen” hardware.

At launch, there are two desktop-oriented chipsets to go with Sandy Bridge: P67 and H67. The former is intended for use with discrete graphics. To that end, P67 is your only option for dividing the 16 lanes of processor-based PCIe connectivity between multiple graphics cards. For a majority of enthusiasts, P67 is the way to go. The latter option, H67, is the only way for you to take advantage of Sandy Bridge’s integrated graphics engine.

Worried about P67's performance with multiple graphics cards installed? Don't be. We've already shown that you can get very X58-like performance out of a P55 board armed with Nvidia's NF200 bridge chip, even using a trio of Radeon HD 5870s.

Both platform controller hubs serve up as many as 14 USB 2.0 ports. Neither of them supports USB 3.0. The pair also exposes as many as six SATA ports, two of which run at 6 Gb/s transfer rates (the other four are limited to 3 Gb/s). Neither extends support for legacy PCI.

In return, though, the two chipsets finally offer 5 GT/s signaling, enabling 500 MB/s per direction, per lane. P67 and H67 both include eight lanes, just like P55/H57. Presumably, that’ll be nice for add-on USB 3.0 and SATA 6Gb/s controllers, though the fact that Intel’s data sheet still lists the DMI interface at 1 GB/s in each direction could still cause congestion.


H67 Express
P67 Express
P55 Express
Interface
LGA 1155
LGA 1155
LGA 1156
Memory Channels / DIMMs Per Channel
2/2
2/2
2/2
USB 2.0
14
14
14
Total SATA (6 Gb/s)
6 (2)
6 (2)
6 (0)
PCIe
8 (5 GT/s)
8 (5 GT/s)
8 (2.5 GT/s)
PCI Slot Support
None
None
4
Independent Display Outputs
2
0
0
Protected Audio/Video Path
Yes
No
No
Rapid Storage Technology
Yes
Yes
Yes
Overclocking
Graphics-only
Processor ratio-only
Processor ratio / BCLK


Being the only chipset able to expose Sandy Bridge’s graphics capabilities, H67’s differentiators are naturally graphics-oriented. The PCH can do dual independent display outputs, for starters. It’s also the key to a protected audio/video path—mandatory for Blu-ray playback and bitstreaming high-def audio to a receiver. Finally, H67 lets you manually overclock on-die graphics.

How about H67’s limitations? Well, H67 does not support processor overclocking. If you pay a premium for a K-series SKU to get the faster graphics engine, you’re limited to the chip’s highest Turbo Boost setting as its frequency ceiling. H67 is also locked to Sandy Bridge’s programmed memory and power limits. To get unlocked core, power, and memory settings, you have to use P67. More on overclocking after the jump…

Later in 2011, Intel will release a chipset called Z68, which will facilitate core and graphics overclocking on the same board. That’s not to be confused with X78—Intel’s next-gen flagship chipset, set to replace X58.

Display all 22 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 4 Hide
    mi1ez , 3 January 2011 19:30
    Great looking processors, tainted by a US only competition.
  • 1 Hide
    aje21 , 3 January 2011 20:33
    I was wondering if the HTPC market would be best served by a return to the "mobile on the desktop" approach which was popular during the Pentium 4 era.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , 3 January 2011 21:46
    Please correct the LGA1555 value on "o Meet Intel’s Second-Gen Core CPUs" to LGA 1155.
    Thanks in advance,
    Regards,
    FJorgeR.
  • 1 Hide
    dillyflump , 3 January 2011 22:42
    Sorry im really not sold on the idea of intergrated gpu's. The intergration of the PCIe bus is a good idea, but i wouldn't want to run the risk of having a chip failure. You would effectively loose two components instead of just the cpu.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , 4 January 2011 01:55
    Any chance you could update this review with screengrabs that show the image quality difference between MediaConverter 7 and MediaEspresso 6? I'm curious why the latter program rendered the video file in only half the time.
  • 1 Hide
    AnUnusedUsername , 4 January 2011 03:09
    It seems that to anyone who uses dedicated graphics, these chips are more or less just more expensive but otherwise not significantly different from the older ones.. Unless integrated graphics on a CPU can beat dedicated, whats the point of including it on any processor thats selling for more than $150 or so? No one is going to pay more than that for a processor and not use dedicated graphics, so its just wasted space and an increased cost that gets users nothing. Seems to me that Intel is just out of ways to noticably improve performance, since higher clock rates get too hot and more cores aren't coded for, so they are just adding more clutter to their chips and selling them as something new... not saying it was simple, but it seems pretty useless to me. Maybe the next release from intel will take advantage of the more advanced CPU and drop the integrated graphics so we get effectively the same performace at a lower price.
  • 1 Hide
    chechak , 4 January 2011 05:27
    H67 does not support processor overclocking + Sandy Bridge HD graphic 3000 suck + no usb 3.0 + Sandy Bridge processors are not compatible with Intel’s 5-series chipsets = intel customer wrath :S !!!
  • 1 Hide
    mosox , 4 January 2011 15:56
    I fail to see anything that changes the game. Another Intel socket that will have only a handful of CPUs on it. No 6 core CPUs on that.
  • 0 Hide
    wild9 , 4 January 2011 22:41
    mosoxI fail to see anything that changes the game. Another Intel socket that will have only a handful of CPUs on it. No 6 core CPUs on that.


    Maybe Ivy Bridge at 22nm, will offer more than 4 physical cores.

    But I feel a similar way to you. Take away the potential of the HD 3000 (which Intel has done with most of the Sandy Bridge portfolio), and what have you got? HD 2000, ring bus and restricted overclocking. Would the average Joe be willing to run out and ditch their i5 for this? Hmm. If the vast majority of these products had Hyper-Threading and HD 3000, I'd be more inclined to say yes. But the current i5 already incorporates decode assist hardware to speed up video transcoding in apps like CyberLink MediaEspresso. As a result the gap between present Core i5 HD graphics and the new Sandy Bridge HD 2000 isn't massive, least not by this measure.

    Source: http://techreport.com/articles.x/20188/17

    Even at stock the current i5 doesn't seem too bad compared to the new i3 and i5, and you can always overclock. So for games in particular I'd just spend it on a faster discrete GPU rather than upgrade to Sandy Bridge.

    As for AMD. Well, once again Intel has fired first with what it perceives to be a silver bullet. Except you have to rummage through a pile of fake bullets to aim straight; 75% of the Sandy Bridge portfolio excludes Intel HD 3000. Thus accelerated computing, and to a greater extent on-die 3D gaming performance, will suffer (AMD 890GX still packs a gaming/hd media playback punch compared to Intel HD 2000). So for everything but media transcoding that just leaves ring bus, controversial overclocking features and a somewhat tight-fisted attitude towards Hyper-Threading on quad-core CPU's..not be a big enough reason for me to ditch my current hardware. AMD's approach seems quite the opposite, focusing on socket longevity and putting next-gen technology in everyone's hands, rather than just the few who can afford it.
  • 2 Hide
    mosox , 5 January 2011 03:52
    The new CPUs look like semi-workstation CPUs to me. Not really much better in gaming but sensibly better in some other areas. I don't know if that's a mainstream direction, I mean who encodes/archives all day long?

    I want AMD to keep on producing cheapo quads and triple cores for the budget gamers out there (I am one). A $100 quad with L3 cache would be nice. And cheap mobos too. Let Intel do its thing on the high end market and concentrate on the 1 billion dudes and dudettes in Africa/China/India/E Europe who want to play Crysis on a cheap rig with a SH Raidmax PSU, an old IDE HDD and the cheapest CPU that can run the game on a 19" monitor.
  • 1 Hide
    Anonymous , 5 January 2011 18:58
    Cheeky! I game on a 22" screen at 1680 x 1050 thank you very much! I run an HD5850 and core2quad 9450 @ 3.2GHz
  • 1 Hide
    mactronix , 5 January 2011 20:11
    A lot of people are down on this release and its easy to see why. Personally i want My CPU to do CPU type things and my GPU to do the Graphics.
    That said its a fine standard to set for a gaming machine, however there are plenty of people who just want to make a PC that will handle vidio which Sandy bridge does plenty well enough. Surf the net and play the odd game. For this type of build you just saved on the cost of the Motherboard and you dont need a GPU at all.
    Everything has to start somewhere and teh GPU side of the package will only get better as we go into 22nm and beyond. Games are not getting anymore taxing and pretty soon. 3 years i will say, i can see only hardcore gamers even needing a discrete GPU at all.

    mactronix
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , 6 January 2011 18:36
    Any enthusiast/gamer will be ignoring the integrated gfx and focussing on the K variants. And from this view point, you now have a new CPU that makes almost every other processor completely redundant. No one in their right mind is going to choose P55/X58 over these.

    As an upgrade from an existing i5/i7 setup its not worth it - did anyone really expect it to be? But for a new build or an upgrade from a S775/Q6600 for example, tis a no brainer!
  • 0 Hide
    strat4axe , 6 January 2011 19:04
    With Sandy Bridge and the forthcomming Bulldozer cpu's on their way,as they develop is it going to be possible to use the on die GPU as a physics engine with a discrete graphics card?Like a hybrid graphics solution,only one that's worth bothering with?
  • 1 Hide
    strat4axe , 7 January 2011 22:29
    GO away this ain't ebay
  • 1 Hide
    Gonemad , 7 January 2011 22:56
    mmmkay, these chips ain't exactly targeted at enthusiasts, and a bit of feature malfunction there releasing HD 3000 graphics chip thingie on top tier desktop parts, instead of budget/mainstream, but I certainly do see potential on video encoding for those that live of it.

    On another point of view, discrete sound and network cards were sent on the way of the dodo, when motherboards came with them embedded, leaving behind only really top players in their fields, namely Gigabit NIC, and top-tier soundcards with dedicated or special-purpose hardware.

    I see this trend again, when the CPU has graphic muscle enough to make a discrete graphic card redundant. I mean, one benchmark showed one of these cards tie up with a Radeon HD 4550 and still don't believe it. I see interesting benchmarks on the budget section in the days ahead, where an Intel solution may actually show up on the FPS charts.
  • 0 Hide
    wild9 , 9 January 2011 17:41
    8 consecutive spam messages in a row, with several hours between messages.

    This suggests that a) these spammers are having a field day, and b) that users are avoiding posting altogether due to the sheer volume of spam. I trawled through so much junk to post this, that I almost forgot what I originally came here for.

    Maybe this isn't the place to say it, and I wish to point out I am not trying to say it for no real reason.

    Tom's, what is going on to this great community? These spammers are making a complete and utter mockery of your operation. I like coming here and reading the tech news including people's feedback but if these spammers keep attacking the site like this, it's not worth it for me. I'm wasting time trawling through rubbish and the frustration this causes is really making me look elsewhere. I am confident every other legitimate member of this service feels the same way.

    Why not give trusted users low-level moderator status? Or how about a filter that declares any posts containing text from a spam database, as null and void? I spot several spam posts using the same url, for instance..there's 4 above that could have been wiped out in an instant.

    This is getting crazy, guys. They're ruining it for others.
  • 1 Hide
    mosox , 9 January 2011 17:44
    Probably that's about what you can get if not upgrading unnecessarily to Sandy Bridge. :) 
  • 1 Hide
    Mudit Sathe , 10 January 2011 12:33
    Why a core 980x is not used in this benchmarks?
  • 0 Hide
    weefatbob , 25 January 2011 02:13
    mi1ezGreat looking processors, tainted by a US only competition.

    And every price, for this article posted on UK site, is in dollars too!
Display more comments