Featured Articles

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

IHS teardown reveals Galaxy S5 BOM

Research firm IHS got hold of Samsung’s new flagship smartphone and took it apart to the last bolt to figure out…

More...
Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Galaxy S5, HTC One M8 available selling well

Samsung’s Galaxy S5 has finally gone on sale and it can be yours for €699, which is quite a lot of…

More...
Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel lists Haswell refresh parts

Intel has added a load of Haswell refresh parts to its official price list and there really aren’t any surprises to…

More...
Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

Respawn confirms Titanfall DLC for May

During his appearance at PAX East panel and confirmed on Twitter, Titanfall developer Respawn confirmed that the first DLC pack for…

More...
KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 GTX 780 Ti Hall Of Fame reviewed

KFA2 gained a lot of overclocking experience with the GTX 780 Hall of Fame (HOF), which we had a chance to…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Thursday, 26 August 2010 10:38

Only Core i7 Sandy Bridge has eight threads

Written by Fuad Abazovic
corei7n_logo
Core i3 only two

The new thing about the second Core generation codenamed Sandy Bridge is that only the top branded CPUs will have feature hyperthreading.

Hypertreds don’t do that much but they do show you that you have „eight cores“ in Windows task manager and you will only see eight threads with top Core i7 CPUs.

Core i5 CPUs will be a native quad-core CPUs but they won’t support hyperthreading. This will be exclusively reserved for Core i7 2000 series parts. Core i3 native dual-cores will only support two treads which is step down from current Core i3 CPUs that feature two cores and support four threads.

The trend of lack of Turbo support in Core i3 generation will continue with new Sandy Bridge based Core i3 2000 series CPUs.

This is the branding and performance distinction that Intel wants to make clearer in 2011 as most people got confused with Core i branding, as Core i5 and Core i7 were overlapping in many performance and feature characteristics. Now the distinction should be more clear, but it looks to us that in most cases you will get less for the same money.
Last modified on Thursday, 26 August 2010 11:01
blog comments powered by Disqus

Comments  

 
+49 #1 BernardP 2010-08-26 12:10
And with all i5 and i7 models, you will now have to pay for built-in graphics even if you don't want to use them.
 
 
+43 #2 jimbo75 2010-08-26 12:36
Agreed.

Is anybody actually excited about sandy bridge? I think intel is making a huge mistake here and I can't see anyone with Nehalem "upgrading" to it, especially not for the graphics.
 
 
-18 #3 Mr T 2010-08-26 13:11
There are plenty of reasons to be, especially if you're a casual user (which is 9 people out of 10) that doesn't need a discrete GPU but can make use the integrated one. It's a great thing for the average buyer. You would also be able to turn off your GPU while using your computer for films, internet browsing or less demanding tasks.

For mobile users too there are plenty of great improvements. Quad core clocks are given a very nice boost, integrated GPU allows for the use of Optimus or ATI equivalent solutions, that coupled with other power saving mechanisms makes Sandy Bridge one of the most exciting novelty since long for laptop users.

As for performance forecasting, most of it is speculation. But we do know at least it'll benefit from higher clocks and AVX.
 
 
+24 #4 guideX 2010-08-26 13:21
Quoting Mr T:
There are plenty of reasons to be, especially if you're a casual user (which is 9 people out of 10) that doesn't need a discrete GPU but can make use the integrated one. It's a great thing for the average buyer. You would also be able to turn off your GPU while using your computer for films, internet browsing or less demanding tasks.


Are you joking? ever heard of GPU's just being on the motherboard? It exists and AMD does it brilliantly. There is no point if Intel does it, AMD will get price/performance because they are actually good with GPU's whereas Intel will just overcharge for a uselessly powerful CPU (core i7) and a relatively terrible, inefficient GPU.
 
 
-31 #5 Mr T 2010-08-26 14:20
I'm sorry guideX did I hurt your delicate feelings by not talking about AMD in an intel news ? Here, have a kleenex.

Just saying the performance will have a nice boost that makes it more than sufficient for most non-gaming and non-professional uses. Sounds good for most users, too bad intel won't give the option for those who don't care about it. I honestly don't care about the rest of your post and you ranting over amd vs intel.
 
 
+6 #6 jeffkro 2010-08-26 15:23
An integrated graphics core is mainly good for casual users and power savings. It is a better solution than having onboard graphics located on the mobo for power savings and maybe a slight bump in performance. The power savings should be a nice battery saving feature for laptops or always on computers. My understanding is that Nvidia was looking at ways to shut down discrete graphics when not required, allowing for power saving and high performance gaming.
 
 
+7 #7 Bl0bb3r 2010-08-26 15:59
@jeffkro, AMD's IGP use around 10W in load and 1W in idle. It's a far better solution anything-wise than what Intel has to offer.

@Mr T, I see you've missed guideX's point... it's not about him talking about AMD on and Intel article, it's about you thinking there is anybody "actually excited about sandy bridge" and I'm sorry to say this, but no, no-one besides you is excited! Interested, yes... it brings some new internal changes to the table plus and instruction set that probably won't be used in the next 5 years, but other than that, there's no point in getting excited when needing to shell out more cash for only an "update" of the Core isomething platform without backwards compatibility.
 
 
+7 #8 agent_47 2010-08-26 16:42
cpu is the most power aware device on a system. moving gpu to cpu will infact help things. atleast in theory. :) but igp on cpu will not have noticable saving on desktop. but on laptop, we can expect long betti life

but i have to add, adding the worst igp in the market to the best cpu is rather pointless. because those who only need igp wont need a powerfull cpu like i7. n those who get i7, 90% of them get a gpu in hiher mainstream or better. but SB is a good prospect for i3. igp on i5 is pointless to me
 
 
-6 #9 Mr T 2010-08-26 17:00
Bl0bb3r, saying "nobody is excited about Sandy Bridge" is too categoric, first because I am (that's at least 1 person :P), second because there's the perspective for laptop users that it should appreciably improve battery life, which was lacking in the previous generation. For example I appreciate the perspective of being able to watch movies in 1080p or playing older games with the discrete GPU disabled while being on travel. This is a valuable reason for me. But if you want to play on words... sure the desktop part is not really as "exciting".
 
 
0 #10 jeffkro 2010-08-26 18:57
[quote name="Bl0bb3r"]@jeffkro, AMD's IGP use around 10W in load and 1W in idle. It's a far better solution anything-wise than what Intel has to offer.

Hey proof is in the pudding. I have a athlon II X2 with 785G. It has a system idle of about 55W. I here people with core i3 systems that idle around 25W. My system works great for HTPC but it would be nice to have lower power, its on 24-7.
 

To be able to post comments please log-in with Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments