ECS Sandy Bridge first look

Nick Mertes 3 Jan, 2011 at 11:32pm ET Article published in Tech

At CES 2011 Intel will release their next generation Core i3/i5/i7 CPU architecture, dubbed Sandy Bridge. At the same time, many manufacturers will release their motherboards for the new CPUs. While we don’t have any CPUs, ECS did send a couple of their new Sandy Bridge motherboards for us to examine. Those two boards are the H67H2-M and P67H2-A2.

As their names imply, these boards use the H67 and P67 chipsets, respectively. The most obvious difference between the H67 and P67 chipsets is the H67 includes support for the integrated graphics in the new CPUs (yes, even the new i7 series will have the IGP this time).

Other differences between the two ECS boards are mainly due to form factor and market segments considerations. Specs are as follows:

	H67H2-M	P67H2-A2
Form Factor	mATX	ATX
CPU	Socket LGA1155 Supports unlocked Intel Processors Supports Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 DMI 5.0GT/s	Socket LGA1155 Supports unlocked Intel Processors Supports Intel Turbo Boost 2.0 DMI 5.0GT/s
Chipset	Intel H67 Express Chipset	Intel P67 Chipset
Memory	4x Dual-channel DDR3 1066/1333MHz (up to 16GB)	4x Dual-channel DDR3 1066/1333/1600(OC)/1866(OC)/2133(OC) (up to 16GB) Supports XMP memory modules
Expansion Slots	1x PCI Express x16 Gen 2.0 2x PCI Express x1 Gen 2.0 1x PCI slot	2x PCI Express x16 Gen 2.0 1x PCI Express x1 Gen 2.0 2x PCI slot
Storage	2x SATA 6.0Gb/s 3x SATA 3.0Gb/s 1x eSATA 3.0GB/s	2x SATA 6.0Gb/s 4x SATA 3.0Gb/s 2x eSATA 6.0GB/s
Audio	Realtek ALC892 8-Channel HD audio	Realtek ALC892 8-Channel HD audio
LAN	Dual RealTek 8111E Gigabit ethernet with Teaming	Dual RealTek 8111E Gigabit ethernet with Teaming
Rear Panel I/O	2x USB 3.0 4x USB 2.0 1x eSATA 3.0GB/s 2x RJ45 LAN 1x Audio port w/6 jacks 1x HDMI 1×1 DisplayPort 1x DVI 1x VGA	2x USB 3.0 8x USB 2.0 2x eSATA 6.0GB/s 2x RJ45 LAN 1x Audio port w/6 jacks
Internal Headers	4x USB 2.0 headers (supports 8 USB 2.0) 1x front panel audio 1x TPM header	1x USB 3.0 headers (supports 2 USB 3.0 ports) 3x USB 2.0 headers (supports 6 USB 2.0 ports) 1x front panel audio 1x TPM header

In the boxes:

The H67H2-M comes with SATA cables, an eSATA adapter, I/O shield, manual, and driver disc. The P67H2-A2 comes with the same equipment plus SLI bridge and 3.5″ USB 3.0 front panel header.

Both boards are on their way to retailers right now and will be officially released during CES when Intel unveils their Sandy Bridge processors. MSRPs for the H67H2-M and P67H2-A2 are $139.99 and $179.99, respectively. And as soon as a CPU comes along, we’ll have full reviews of both motherboards. The full Sandy Bridge lineup is detailed below.

Comments

4 Jan 2011 ~ 1:01am Bandrik I can't say I like the name "sandy bridge", but it all seems to be generating quite some excitement among enthusiasts. I'm looking forward to what you can benchmark in the future with these puppies, Nick.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 1:03am Thrax Just a codename. /shrug
4 Jan 2011 ~ 9:36am mirage

Bandrik wrote:

generating quite some excitement among enthusiasts

Many enthusiasts overclock and I am not sure about the excitement or frustration yet. Overclocking the Sandy Bridge CPUs seems to be very different due to highly integrated architecture. These CPUs even have an internal bus (ring bus) to connect different components of the CPU to the cache memory. I must buy Phenom II X4's (or previous generation Core i7 9xx), the last classic CPUs, before AMD also goes the same way I think Intel K and AMD Black series are becoming the only way of overclocking eventually.

By the way, there is a rumor that AMD is bringing back the FX series with the Bulldozer CPUs. Given that Sandy Bridge CPUs are just more integrated and a little better in performance, AMD might be catching up with the premium performance level. If this is true, very good news for AMD.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 12:45pm primesuspect How do you guys feel about the DRM stuff included in Sandy Bridge?

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1934536/intels-sandy-bridge-sucks-hollywood-drm
4 Jan 2011 ~ 1:43pm Thrax Disappointed, but I suspect it won't last long. It's also totally irrelevant to anyone not using Warner Bros' streaming service.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 3:02pm shwaip

mirage wrote:

Many enthusiasts overclock and I am not sure about the excitement or frustration yet. Overclocking the Sandy Bridge CPUs seems to be very different due to highly integrated architecture. These CPUs even have an internal bus (ring bus) to connect different components of the CPU to the cache memory. I must buy Phenom II X4's (or previous generation Core i7 9xx), the last classic CPUs, before AMD also goes the same way I think Intel K and AMD Black series are becoming the only way of overclocking eventually.

By the way, there is a rumor that AMD is bringing back the FX series with the Bulldozer CPUs. Given that Sandy Bridge CPUs are just more integrated and a little better in performance, AMD might be catching up with the premium performance level. If this is true, very good news for AMD.

looks like the K cpus are overclocking quite well. (4.4 on stock cooler)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i5-2600k-i5-2500k-and-core-i3-2100-tested/3

also I've seen a few 5ghz results.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 4:03pm Snarkasm Don't care about the DRM stuff. Tempest in a teapot. Won't stop people from getting it elsewhere, just enables some to legally get it how they want it faster.

As far as overclocking, yeah, we don't get to play with modifying the bus frequency or BCLK anymore; it's all done with multi and turbo modes. Makes it easier, though - if you want an enthusiast part, buy a K model. The price premiums over the non-K parts are trivial - $23 on the $300 processor.

Aaaaand Intel's "just a little more integrated" circuit is up to 50% faster than the most recent round of Core 2s, which is ridiculous. This isn't even touching their enthusiast lineup, which will launch later in the year - that's where the hex core and the $1000 processors are coming in. I don't think Intel's relinquishing the performance crown any time soon. AMD will still solidly dominate the mid/low areas, though - the Core i3 series is pretty disappointing, and AMD matches up a lot better in performance and price there.

One piece of info I'd think Cliff would be interested in - Cliff, Intel's Quick Sync tech is their new hardware-accelerated transcoding functionality, and, uh... it blows everything out of the water in speed. Crushes x86, CUDA, and AMD's GPU transcoding, usually by more than a factor of 2 in speed with comparable results (except for CUDA, which consistently ranked lowest in transcoding quality). Between Cliff's love of quick/easy transcoding and his hate for Intel, what will happen...? I vote implosion.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 4:22pm UPSLynx The hardware DRM layer sucks. I don't think, initially, it'll really make an impression on most people. Like Thrax said, if you're not using WB streaming service, you're not going to see much of it. Not many people pirate from streams anyways, so whatever.

What concerns me is what such a hardware layer will lead to. They've opened a proverbial pandora's box of DRM possibilities, Not to mention the explotation possibilities.

The last thing I ever want is hard-wired DRM controlling everything. Throwing that layer in a processor could effectively lead to a world where nearly all media is controlled by it.

That is all hypothetical, of course. It could remain limited to the streaming service and become something that nerds rage over with the launch, but no one ever has any real experiences with it.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 4:23pm primesuspect A world where all media is controlled by hardware? That's exactly what the RIAA and MPAA want.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 4:33pm Snarkasm Yes, and that's not what we have. At least not yet. What we have is a special decoder - like what's in your cable box - that says "you can see this content once you've paid for it." Remember the scrambled porn channels from the '80s you used to see on your TV? Can you specifically elaborate how precisely this is different from that?

It's not. When the day comes when the machine runs all of your media through a DRM pass to ensure it's legitimate, I'll not buy its product. When there's just a little backdoor that says "If you have this, I guarantee you'll be able to securely and legally see this particular type of media," I just won't give a damn yet.

Then again, if people would price content more reasonably, as many have begun to do, piracy becomes less of a concern. What if Photoshop was $100?...
4 Jan 2011 ~ 7:06pm fatcat

Snarkasm wrote:

When the day comes when the machine runs all of your media through a DRM pass to ensure it's legitimate, I'll not buy its product.

what I would like to know is, what does this new CPU do that my i7 950 doesn't?
4 Jan 2011 ~ 7:11pm Thrax It's 20-40% faster in everything.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 7:20pm fatcat

Thrax wrote:

It's 20-40% faster in everything.

so I will get 20-40% faster FPS in games?

so I will get 20-40% faster memory bandwidth?

so I will get 20-40% faster hard drive throughput?

or, will just my folding@home and Adobe Premiere and be 20-40% faster?

playing Tim here

I think it's great the CPU is faster and more energy efficient, but I hardly ever utitlized the full potential of my Q6600 with software.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 7:21pm Thrax Read Anand's review. The $300 I7-2600 is faster than the Core i7 980X in virtually every test.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 7:34pm fatcat 2600K @ 3.4GHz vs 870 @ 2.93GHz

Fallout 3, 6fps faster
Left 4 Dead, 14fps faster
Far Cry 2, 8fps faster
Crysis, 7fps faster
Dragon Age, 0.2fps slower
Dawn of War 2, 13fps faster
WoW, 48fps faster

Photoshop, 3D rendering and file compression it owns face.

Uses more power in idle, 74 watts vs 70 watts
Uses less power in load, 128 watts vs 138 watts

interesting...
4 Jan 2011 ~ 7:55pm primesuspect That's pretty much settled. My next desktop system basically has to be a Sandy Bridge.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 7:56pm fatcat

primesuspect wrote:

That's pretty much settled. My next desktop system basically has to be a Sandy Bridge.

by then the Clay|Rock|Cement|Astroturf Bridge will be out....
4 Jan 2011 ~ 8:43pm mirage

shwaip wrote:

looks like the K cpus are overclocking quite well. (4.4 on stock cooler)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i5-2600k-i5-2500k-and-core-i3-2100-tested/3

also I've seen a few 5ghz results.

It looks like Intel is ready to ramp up the clock speed when necessary.
4 Jan 2011 ~ 8:46pm mirage

fatcat wrote:

what I would like to know is, what does this new CPU do that my i7 950 doesn't?

Quick sync is the only advantage I can see.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 12:00am BuddyJ Poop on new sockets.

Yo Intel, I'm real happy for ya and I'mma let you finish, but the Q6600 is the greatest CPU of all time... because a balls old chip still hangs. I remember when upgrading actually gave you noticeable performance. These days it doesn't unless you're working in a very specialized area. It kills me that so little of today's software takes advantage of the power we have available to us with products like the Sandy Bridge chips. Right now, I have ZERO compelling reason to upgrade
5 Jan 2011 ~ 12:26am Thrax

Buddy J wrote:

Yo Intel, I'm real happy for ya and I'mma let you finish, but the Q6600 is the greatest CPU of all time... because a balls old chip still hangs.

/me looks at Q6600 vs 2600K in games, looks at quote, looks back at benchmarks, looks back at quote; follows with a confused expression.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 9:55am BuddyJ What I'm saying is the Q6600 is still a VERY usable processor. It's now 4 years old (well, it will be later this week) and still keeping up with today's games and software. For day-to-day use, most people wouldn't notice the difference.

CPUs are like crotchrockets these days. Who cares if your top speed is 160 or 180 or 202 mph (besides XS pen0r envy benchmarkers)? Their ability far surpasses what most people use them for.

My lack of a compelling reason stems from having a Core i7 860. The real-world benefits would be minimal. Now, on the video editing system at my office... I'd be all over that. Too bad our video guy is an Apple fanboy.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 11:22am mirage

Buddy J wrote:

What I'm saying is the Q6600 is still a VERY usable processor. It's now 4 years old (well, it will be later this week) and still keeping up with today's games and software. For day-to-day use, most people wouldn't notice the difference.

CPUs are like crotchrockets these days. Who cares if your top speed is 160 or 180 or 202 mph (besides XS pen0r envy benchmarkers)? Their ability far surpasses what most people use them for.

My lack of a compelling reason stems from having a Core i7 860. The real-world benefits would be minimal. Now, on the video editing system at my office... I'd be all over that. Too bad our video guy is an Apple fanboy.

I agree with what you say in general. But why focus on Q6600 alone? Any $100 quad-core would be more than enough for any job today. There is about 15% performance increase clock-for-clock with Sandy Bridge compared to previous generation but even Intel is not focusing on the raw performance anymore. Their main focus seems to be more and more integration with the latest generations. Don't be surprised to see even wireless networking integrated in the CPU very soon. I don't think those chips will be called CPU anymore but anyway ...

Let me add this: Low power and integration is the key for mobility, the inevitable trend.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 12:28pm BuddyJ Sure. The Q6600 is just an example...
5 Jan 2011 ~ 2:14pm Tushon

Buddy J wrote:

What I'm saying is the Q6600 is still a VERY usable processor. It's now 4 years old (well, it will be later this week) and still keeping up with today's games and software. For day-to-day use, most people wouldn't notice the difference.

CPUs are like crotchrockets these days. Who cares if your top speed is 160 or 180 or 202 mph (besides XS pen0r envy benchmarkers)? Their ability far surpasses what most people use them for.

My lack of a compelling reason stems from having a Core i7 860. The real-world benefits would be minimal. Now, on the video editing system at my office... I'd be all over that. Too bad our video guy is an Apple fanboy.

This sounds more like a Tim post than fatcat's. The people who care are exactly those you cite, adjectives aside: benchmarkers, enthusiast, people looking to get every drop of performance out of their system. Some people have systems vastly overpowered for what they use it for, I'm not doubting that. What you are saying is what's the point in new tech ... and that is just silly. Research (F@H, cryptography, mapping, etc etc etc) always* benefits from new tech, because faster processors, even in the .5GHz increments means millions of more cycles per year or w/e insane metrics they use.

*always means nearly always ... I'm sure someone could pull up some weird and obscure example.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 3:12pm BuddyJ I'm not saying "What's the point in new tech." I'm saying "Great. We've got new tech. Lets actually use it."
5 Jan 2011 ~ 3:24pm shwaip As someone whose research is often cpu-speed bound, I welcome any innovation in cpu speed, especially when it includes a more efficient processor (yay cooler rooms).
5 Jan 2011 ~ 3:26pm Tushon

Tushon wrote:

Research (F@H, cryptography, mapping, etc etc etc) always* benefits from new tech, because faster processors, even in the .5GHz increments means millions of more cycles per year or w/e insane metrics they use.

Oh and huge epenis is huge.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 3:43pm Thrax From what I see, there are plenty of applications and games that I use every day that would be positively impacted by Sandy Bridge. And by positively, I mean 30-40% better than what I have now.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 3:54pm mirage @Shwaip
The processors in discussion here are not for technical computing or research but everyday computing, multimedia, entertainment, and communication. It is a waste of silicon to include an integrated GPU in hundreds of CPUs of a server, not counting the quick sync part and all that. With increasing integration, the differences between the server, desktop, and mobile processors are increasing, I guess. I believe Fermi-like GPGPUs are the future of technical computing anyway.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 3:59pm Thrax Shwaip is a doctoral electrical engineer. I'm pretty sure he knows what's up when he says these CPUs will help his research given the tools available.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 4:04pm mirage

Thrax wrote:

Shwaip is a doctoral electrical engineer. I'm pretty sure he knows what's up when he says these CPUs will help his research given the tools available.

So I should add my PhD, publications, and job credentials along with my resume here as well? What a crappy post.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 4:16pm Tushon To be fair, he said HIS research. No one one knows what they will release for server hardware in this class yet but if a desktop sandy bridge helps him now, lovely. If a server sandy bridge comes along in a few months, even better
5 Jan 2011 ~ 4:18pm Thrax

mirage wrote:

So I should add my PhD, publications, and job credentials along with my resume here as well? What a crappy post.

No, but you should probably stop being so dismissive and patronizing. That's a good place to start.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 4:18pm shwaip Not everything I do is easily parallelizable (so a server farm isn't super useful). I use matlab to design and test my algorithms (some of which can use GPGPU effectively, some of which cannot, some of which the use of GPGPU would add significant coding/debug time just to see that an idea doesn't work). Often times, I can end up crashing the machine I'm working on, so I try to keep my code off of a cluster, as well.

Sandy Bridge looks nice because it runs cooler and faster than the i7 and phenom 2 processors. I couldn't care less about the integrated gpu...but for my research workstation, it would probably be sufficient.

When/if the research I do is deployed to a real system, then it would be worth spending the time to make it uber parallel and/or gpgpu code-compatible. For now, I just want a workstation with a fast(er) processor.
5 Jan 2011 ~ 4:38pm shwaip It seems that you were being slightly patronizing by telling me that these processors were not what I wanted, assuming that I didn't know what else was out there.

ITT: metapatronizing