bit-tech.net

Intel's Sandy Bridge list leaked

Intel's Sandy Bridge list leaked

Lists of Intel's up-coming Sandy Bridge processor parts have been leaked.

German site Computerbase has posted what it claims is the first list of Intel's up-coming Sandy Bridge-based processors - and there are some interesting chips for both desktop and laptop use.

The lists - spotted and translated by The Tech Report - indicate that Intel's new desktop processors will range from the top-end Core i7-2600K quad-core unit running at 3.4GHz (3.8GHz when Intel's Turbo Boost functionality is engaged and two cores are disabled) with 8MB L3 cache and a TDP of 95W, to a Core i3-2100T dual-core chip running at 2.5GHz (no Turbo Boost on this one, sadly) with 3MB L3 cache and a 35W TDP at the low end.

The Sandy Bridge parts list has also been leaked for the up-coming mobile processor range, with the top-end Core i7-2920XM offering four 2.5GHz (3.5GHz with Turbo Boost) processing cores with 8MB of L3 cache and a TDP of 55W, and the bottom-end dual-core Core i5-2520M offering speeds of 2.5GHz (3.2GHz with Turbo Boost) with 3MB L3 cache and a TDP of 35W.

If the TDP appears high on the mobile side of things, that's because it is: Intel's Consumer Ultra-Low Voltage (CULV) chips - the ones that make it possible to produce slim laptops with ten-hour runtimes - won't be getting Sandy Bridge technology just yet.

Although the parts lists haven't been confirmed by Intel yet, they match expectations - so the only thing remaining for Intel to announce is the price and precisely when the new chips will be available to system builders.

Are there any chips in the new Sandy Bridge range that particularly jump out at you, or will it all depend on what price Intel sets on each as to which is your next planned upgrade? Has the fact that Intel will be limiting overclocking on the new chips put you off already? Share your thoughts over in the forums.

31 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
javaman 12th August 2010, 11:40 Quote
Numbers seem impressive enough so far. No point judging until the chips are on the table so to speak. Bulldozer is the one Im watching atm since its its being highly hyped by AMD's PR department. I expect to be disappointed like usual tho. 2011 Will be a very good year if things go to schedule.
WarrenJ 12th August 2010, 11:57 Quote
overclockable?
l3v1ck 12th August 2010, 13:04 Quote
Core i7? A whole new architecture and no real name change. They could have used i8, i6 and i4 to make the Sandybridge chips stand out from the current offerings.
Don't get me wrong, I can see they've added a 2 to the model number, but to non enthusiasts the upgrade isn't obvious.
perplekks45 12th August 2010, 13:50 Quote
What are the letters behind the numbers?
Autti 12th August 2010, 14:00 Quote
Could pretty much predict those clock speeds couldn't we?
Tells us very little about how well they perform though.
kingjohn 12th August 2010, 14:04 Quote
when the hell are these lot on sale im about to buy the 930 i7 , should i wait a bit longer ,like a week
Syn 12th August 2010, 14:04 Quote
Anybody else notice the K on the end of i7-2600K? Possibly an unlocked multiplier. Theres still hope for overclockers!
Zinfandel 12th August 2010, 14:34 Quote
Does anyone know what sockets these will appear on? Are they all getting new sockets?
Burdman27911 12th August 2010, 14:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
when the hell are these lot on sale im about to buy the 930 i7 , should i wait a bit longer ,like a week

I hope you're not thinking that Sandy Bridge would be out in a week... more like several months. If you need a new CPU now, then go with the I7 930.
Xtrafresh 12th August 2010, 15:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenJ
overclockable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
What are the letters behind the numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
Anybody else notice the K on the end of i7-2600K? Possibly an unlocked multiplier. Theres still hope for overclockers!
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/07/22/intel-to-limit-sandy-bridge-overclocking/1
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
Core i7? A whole new architecture and no real name change. They could have used i8, i6 and i4 to make the Sandybridge chips stand out from the current offerings.
Don't get me wrong, I can see they've added a 2 to the model number, but to non enthusiasts the upgrade isn't obvious.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/06/17/intel-explains-future-core-i7-i5-i3-brandin/1
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
when the hell are these lot on sale im about to buy the 930 i7 , should i wait a bit longer ,like a week
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinfandel
Does anyone know what sockets these will appear on? Are they all getting new sockets?
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/21/intel-sandy-bridge-details-of-the-next-gen/1


To everyone who is thinking of commenting on this article...

You are all so very- very welcome.

Now, on to some REAL discussion. What i'm really missing from this list is a low-end overclockable chip. It looks like Intel is going to only let us overclock the chips that are high-end. That's a real kick in the nuts for the community. I wasn'r really worried when i learned that they are locking the BCLK, limiting OCing to K-models in their lineup. Now that they seemingly intend to limit their lineup of K-models to two high-end parts, i'm a bit about sandy bridge.
l3v1ck 12th August 2010, 15:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinfandel
Does anyone know what sockets these will appear on? Are they all getting new sockets?
New sockets LGA2011 (replaces LGA1136)and LGA1155 (replaces 1156)
l3v1ck 12th August 2010, 15:21 Quote
Quote:
Yeah, like I was going to browse back over a years worth of articles to find that. Read the thread my arse. :|
Denis_iii 12th August 2010, 15:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
Core i7? A whole new architecture and no real name change. They could have used i8, i6 and i4 to make the Sandybridge chips stand out from the current offerings.
Don't get me wrong, I can see they've added a 2 to the model number, but to non enthusiasts the upgrade isn't obvious.

+1 they need to sort out there naming conventions and NOT have core i7 for multiple sockets this time. actually, i hope they stick to ONE socket only!!!!
wuyanxu 12th August 2010, 15:37 Quote
where are hex cores? or am i missing something?

think i'll keep my i7 860 for now.
BlackMage23 12th August 2010, 16:03 Quote
One socket for everything would be a lot better, and changing socket every couple of years does not help, AMD learnt that the hard way.
erratum1 12th August 2010, 16:14 Quote
When will 6 core become mainstream, are they sticking with quad for a while yet.
Syn 12th August 2010, 16:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenJ
overclockable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by perplekks45
What are the letters behind the numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
Anybody else notice the K on the end of i7-2600K? Possibly an unlocked multiplier. Theres still hope for overclockers!
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2010/07/22/intel-to-limit-sandy-bridge-overclocking/1
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
Core i7? A whole new architecture and no real name change. They could have used i8, i6 and i4 to make the Sandybridge chips stand out from the current offerings.
Don't get me wrong, I can see they've added a 2 to the model number, but to non enthusiasts the upgrade isn't obvious.
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2009/06/17/intel-explains-future-core-i7-i5-i3-brandin/1
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingjohn
when the hell are these lot on sale im about to buy the 930 i7 , should i wait a bit longer ,like a week
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zinfandel
Does anyone know what sockets these will appear on? Are they all getting new sockets?
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2010/04/21/intel-sandy-bridge-details-of-the-next-gen/1


To everyone who is thinking of commenting on this article...

You are all so very- very welcome.

Now, on to some REAL discussion. What i'm really missing from this list is a low-end overclockable chip. It looks like Intel is going to only let us overclock the chips that are high-end. That's a real kick in the nuts for the community. I wasn'r really worried when i learned that they are locking the BCLK, limiting OCing to K-models in their lineup. Now that they seemingly intend to limit their lineup of K-models to two high-end parts, i'm a bit about sandy bridge.

Dont be a sarcastic ass
runadumb 12th August 2010, 17:54 Quote
I just bought an i7 so good thanks :)

Was holding out for this but ah screw it
Sloth 12th August 2010, 18:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
*snip*

Now, on to some REAL discussion. What i'm really missing from this list is a low-end overclockable chip. It looks like Intel is going to only let us overclock the chips that are high-end. That's a real kick in the nuts for the community. I wasn'r really worried when i learned that they are locking the BCLK, limiting OCing to K-models in their lineup. Now that they seemingly intend to limit their lineup of K-models to two high-end parts, i'm a bit about sandy bridge.
+rep for going out of your way and getting links to answer everyone's questions and concerns.

On the high end models only being overclockable, there's a slim (and I mean very slim) chance that perhaps overclockable models won't actually be too expensive. Currently they're priced so much higher that there's really no point and maybe Intel will see that no one is buying them. Sure extreme overclockers will still eat right out of the palm of their hands regardless of price, but the rest of us will be a little wary of buying a higher priced CPU when we've already got extra cooling to buy. Maybe the low demand will drop prices to a reasonable leve.
SaNdCrAwLeR 12th August 2010, 22:14 Quote
this is actually good considering that most people don't really overclock (yes, it's the majority)

if they make the non-OCeable models a lot cheaper than their OCeable counterparts then I really see this as something positive for the market!

remember, many people just buy the hardware just as is, some pay a lot for an OCeable CPU without actually OCing!
steve30x 13th August 2010, 00:18 Quote
Im going for a core I7 930 ASAP. I dont want to be restricted to no overclocking.
jrs77 13th August 2010, 01:43 Quote
The thing that worries me in this listings is, that there aren't any CPUs without integrated GPU anymore.

The more stuff you put into a package, the more likely the package will burst and people who buy an i7 or an i5 are going to add a discrete GPU anyways, as the intel GMA isn't exactly what you'd call a potent GPU.
Xtrafresh 13th August 2010, 04:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by l3v1ck
Yeah, like I was going to browse back over a years worth of articles to find that. Read the thread my arse. :|
Ok, please refer to that other smiley then and use the search. Took me all of 30 seconds to come up with a search term (sandy bridge) and find the correct article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syn
Dont be a sarcastic ass
Sorry, i just am.
This is mainly caused by threads full of people asking stupid questions (contrary to popular belief, they do exist) while displaying a complete lack of willingness to put any effort into finding the answers for themselves.

Plus, i also did the 'good cop' thing where i provided ALL the answers to their questions, backed up by evidence in links, neatly arranged in groups. After all that, i can't help but feeling entitled to a modest dose of arsehollery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denis_iii
+1 they need to sort out there naming conventions and NOT have core i7 for multiple sockets this time. actually, i hope they stick to ONE socket only!!!!
Intel is making architectural changes between generations of processor families that make the change in socket a technical necessity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
+rep for going out of your way and getting links to answer everyone's questions and concerns.

On the high end models only being overclockable, there's a slim (and I mean very slim) chance that perhaps overclockable models won't actually be too expensive. Currently they're priced so much higher that there's really no point and maybe Intel will see that no one is buying them. Sure extreme overclockers will still eat right out of the palm of their hands regardless of price, but the rest of us will be a little wary of buying a higher priced CPU when we've already got extra cooling to buy. Maybe the low demand will drop prices to a reasonable leve.
Thanks for the rep and the correct use of the word "they're". ;) I'll even overlook that you managed to make a last-minute typo with the very last letter of your post

I dont agree with the hopes of prices being low etc, that's not really the point. What i'm really missing here is that chip that allows people on a really tight budget (let's face it, we've all been there at 13) to axtually play games. Chips like the G6950 and the X2 550. You know, cheap as chips, overclockable to no end. A friend of mine had an E4300 that ran 24/7 at a 100% OC, while some X2 chips today can be unlocked all the way to X4, AND OCed. That kind of overclocking is going to be a thing of the past now, and the only thing that's left is to make fast chips run even faster. While that's a lot of fun to do, it's NOT the original idea of OCing.
okenobi 13th August 2010, 08:13 Quote
For the two of you asking about 6 cores, from what I've read Intel don't think that dual channel DDR3 is enough bandwidth for more than 4 cores. Hence 6 only on 1366 atm.

Indications are that hex core chips will remain high end on either 1366, or the new 2011 socket with either triple or quad channel memory interfaces. So IF you want "mainstream" hex core it's gonna be AMD for at least another year or so I suspect.

Interesting that both companies have a different view on memory interfaces, I wonder if it translates to lost performance for AMD customers, or wasted bandwidth (and cash) for Intel customers...
logan'srun 13th August 2010, 10:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh

Thanks for the rep and the correct use of the word "they're". ;) I'll even overlook that you managed to make a last-minute typo with the very last letter of your post

I dont agree with the hopes of prices being low etc, that's not really the point. What i'm really missing here is that chip that allows people on a really tight budget (let's face it, we've all been there at 13) to axtually play games. Chips like the G6950 and the X2 550. You know, cheap as chips, overclockable to no end. A friend of mine had an E4300 that ran 24/7 at a 100% OC, while some X2 chips today can be unlocked all the way to X4, AND OCed. That kind of overclocking is going to be a thing of the past now, and the only thing that's left is to make fast chips run even faster. While that's a lot of fun to do, it's NOT the original idea of OCing.


If you're going to point out mistakes take a look at your own first. . . .

i'm = I'm
axtually = actually
dont = don't
that used in the second sentence should really be referenced with the as you're defining an object.

There's more, but I figured the most obvious would establish the point.
Xtrafresh 13th August 2010, 23:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan'srun
If you're going to point out mistakes take a look at your own first. . . .

i'm = I'm
axtually = actually
dont = don't
that used in the second sentence should really be referenced with the as you're defining an object.

There's more, but I figured the most obvious would establish the point.
joke
Plus, i managed to stay ontopic until this post.
Krayzie_B.o.n.e. 16th August 2010, 03:24 Quote
I don't get excited unless I'm jerking off to benchmarks. so until I see these Sandy bridges benched next to current 1366 Core i7's I'm going to stick to my plan of getting a core i7 950 that way I can overclock.

I do see some special K's in the Sandy line up. their probably gonna cost a kidney and a lung with minimal over clocking potential a nice black box and a cool sticker.
Xtrafresh 16th August 2010, 10:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krayzie_B.o.n.e.
I don't get excited unless I'm jerking off to benchmarks. so until I see these Sandy bridges benched next to current 1366 Core i7's I'm going to stick to my plan of getting a core i7 950 that way I can overclock.

I do see some special K's in the Sandy line up. their probably gonna cost a kidney and a lung with minimal over clocking potential a nice black box and a cool sticker.
I dont agree. I think you are getting a lot more value with a 875K then with a 950 already. I was able to OC and bench one at almost 4,8GHz on water, using only the multiplier. It's possible to get good results that way, and 32nm has proven a very good OC node, so i'm not writing off Sandy Bridge just yet.
Sloth 16th August 2010, 17:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xtrafresh
I dont agree with the hopes of prices being low etc, that's not really the point. What i'm really missing here is that chip that allows people on a really tight budget (let's face it, we've all been there at 13) to axtually play games. Chips like the G6950 and the X2 550. You know, cheap as chips, overclockable to no end. A friend of mine had an E4300 that ran 24/7 at a 100% OC, while some X2 chips today can be unlocked all the way to X4, AND OCed. That kind of overclocking is going to be a thing of the past now, and the only thing that's left is to make fast chips run even faster. While that's a lot of fun to do, it's NOT the original idea of OCing.
Well... AMD still has yet to comment on their overclocking policy with the next socket. Though I'd hate to see them get further pidgeon-holed as the budget brand of processors, they're pretty well poised to take the low end by storm with a cheap overclocking beast to rival Intel's locked up low end.

Or, if I'll be allowed to dream, AMD will rival Intel at all levels and price points with the products being very competitive and the advantage being that AMD chips can overclock, thus stealing away from Intel's greedy overclock locking. But we'll see :D
Synay 24th August 2010, 14:00 Quote
As I'm just about to build a new rig, I considered holding off until next CPU's arrive, but indeed the news about Intel limiting the overclocking potential disturbed me and pushed towards building around current i7 range. As for the chips themselves seem tasty enough to consider. I feel though that many enthusiasts will buy their chips right before Sandy Bridge comes out to get most of the OC potential they have, before they disappear from the market, thus limiting Intel's revenue from Sandy Bridge. At least on the beginning.
javaman 24th August 2010, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by okenobi
from what I've read Intel don't think that dual channel DDR3 is enough bandwidth for more than 4 cores. Hence 6 only on 1366 atm.

Personally I think that's crock from Intel to excuse the tri and quad channel memory. AMD got hex working on dual channel for one (a much slower hex core tho) and I was under the impression that ram speed and bandwidth was only saturated in very memory intensive applications and apart from benchmarks and a few professional applications was it needed. Maybe I'm totally wrong tho.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums