Sandy Bridge Roadmap leaked!

Here you go.

Those specs aren't too overwhelming but nobody expects more than 15-20% performance gain anyway.

 

That's great news but it does confirm that we will not see a Sandy Bridge M17X R3 before at least March of 2011...

 

that might not be so bad. We could get a process reduction for the PPGA998 I7's we have now.

 

It would be great to have a process reduction in the current i7 but I don't see it on any roadmaps.

 

it looks like a new one(roadmap) was released in may. The one I have only went to 2H 2010
http://www.electronista.com/articles/10/05/30/intel.plans.multi.chip.mobile.core.i5.i7.refresh/
stuck with the X40 processors forever, that sucks..

 

ah so the rumors that sandy bridge might be released earlier than expected.. like 2011 Q1 false? =(

 

Read. Means no shortage of cpu's when it launches at CES unlike we had with Arrandale.

 

Some pretty tables and powerpoint slides in the link here:

http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...-upgrades/508786-sandy-bridge-cpu-lineup.html

 

not very impressive, notebook upgrade wont be worth it till 2012 and 22nm ivy bridge processors come out

 

yeah, the architecture really isn't a lot different, it's tweaked but it's not as big as core 2 was from i7. The Clock speed differences are fairly good however. the 720QM Sand bridge will be clocked faster than 920XM speeds. I still wouldn't expect it to perform better just because of the fact that all the 920XM's core boost in our computers, where as that's likely not the case with the sandy bridge processors. Except for the XM varriants of course. It's just enough an update to tease us more or less.

 

^^ Totally agree. The question remains regarding the OC'ability of SB processors.

 

On the notebook side, it doesn't seem like Intel's offering anything that couldn't be done today with Westmere. I wonder if this is why they didn't launch any Westmere mobile quad cores?

The desktop side is similarly disappointing. I mean, the fastest quad-core they're launching with is only 66 Mhz faster than the 1 year old i7 975?

 

Ignoring cpu speed, there is a lot more to Sandy Bridge than that.

 

From that list I'd only want Sata III support.

 

If there is any real competition in high end market, then Intel probably would tried alot harder. Soz but these new chips seems nothing out of the box in spec. Does anyone know if new quad i7-2xx0 would be 32nm? my internet is not working properly. Sandy bridge is suppose to focus on efficiency they say. IMO if the TDP is still 35/45/55W, then probably nothing much new.

What got me interested is the 160/300/600GB ssd, makes 2011 sound very promising year for affordable fast storage.

 

The new quads will be 32nm and have integrated graphics, also keeping their 45/55W TDP.

 

Agreed, I haven't yawned this hard since I pulled a 24hr WoW session....

 

the I5, i3 and i7 620 already have the integrated IGP, but we all know that it just sits there and takes up space already. It's still going to be as useless on all their chips if the support for switchable graphics isnt there. The only good thing it's for in those processors right now is to increase surface area to allow better heat transfer.

 

For most work, I still don't see the point of using the latest pricy quad, in a laptop. Our office recently upgraded to lowest end, of the first gen Conroe chips - and the speed is amazing - anything from multitasking to Photoshop.

Even if you do intend to do really CPU intensive tasks, laptops still isn't that competitive price wise - premium for mobility I suppose. Speed the money else where, e.g. upgrading to SSD, etc. CPU power has long since surpassed the software requirement. (for most ppl)

 

Not interested in the supposed dramatic increase in battery life?

 

^^ Nah, my 8740w lasts 2 hrs on battery and that's more than enough for me to do occasional road work.
I also have a Dell new Mini 10 which can last 11hrs on a single charge and I don't see how SB will beat the passive cooling, hehe.

 

Also posted in another SB thread but ... if you could wait a few months (nov/dec) for a replacement laptop (i5 /entry level i7) is it worth waiting for this or will we realistically not see any actual laptops on the streets before January?

The 32mn quad cores just seem so future proof, esp since I'd assume real switchable graphics from ATI by that time.

 

You will not see any laptops on the street till at least after CES 2011. You will see laptops leak left and right, but they won't be available to pre-order/buy until January.

 

Don't know what is unimpressive about this. The BASE model 2720 starting frequency is what a 920 used to be. And the high end gets back to 2.5 vicinity speeds which is very respectable considering the desktop 920 ran at 2.66 and was a solid chip in its own right.

 

Which is overkill for 99% of users...

 

AMD should just quit.....whats their current game plan lol ?

Intel really needs to do a better job on naming.

 

I have a thread on that.

 

I disagree. What Intel is doing really isn't groundbreaking and the improvements at the lower and mainstream levels are really not going to be huge while AMD is making drastic steps and closing the gap. Just my opinion.

 

AMD's game plan is to try and change the rules of the game.

 

nothing revolutionary like K8 was, playing catch up as usuall in other words(for now). The only saving grace is that it'll probally have a bit better graphics performance, but then it's still IGP.. Although it's is in a step twoards the direction the whole industry is likely to take, for the hear and now it's nothing special though. Althoug it's interesting, cpu's today have multiple cores (like unified shader GPUs) built-in MCH's (like GPUs) and now they're acutally getting a GPU attached. in very simple terms the metamorphisis is already taking place before we even really realise it.

 

I wish the current processor price drop when the new processors come to market

 

That's their marketing. The rule change (and it's a relatively minor one) is not due for another 3-5 years. What they're actually doing in the near term is exactly the same thing as Sandy Bridge, but with a far worse CPU (Llano is just the 32nm die shrink of what they have now) and far better graphics (I can't see Intel catching up). It's a brilliant piece of marketing though: even on these forums, I've seen some people with apparently no understanding of how x86 programs or hardware acceleration work babbling about how "fusion" is going to allow the GPU to "help" the CPU.

 

AMD is thinking long term, not short term. If AMD quit, then we, as consumers all lose since then Intel would monopolize the market.

 

i say wait for i9's whenever that day comes... till then wait till 920xm's get mad cheap, cop one of those, and you'll be set for a longgg time. Heck i don't even see my i7 720qm not being able to keep up with anything anytime soon. Once more and more Software developers start implementing the use of all 4 cores equally and simultaneaously, or even 8 for that matter... Everything will seem quicker without actually upgrading your cpu... besides the very few encoding softwares and what-not that already do. Cuz IMO, thats the bottleneck at the moment. Whats the point of all these cores if 95% of everyday programs dont even use them? GET CRACKING SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS!!. Just my take

 

With 22nm we'll be almost reaching the limits of CMOS technology (possibly 16nm, *maybe* 11nm) so it may not be a wise idea for AMD to spend countless amount of money trying to make a better chip than Intel anyway...

Still, interesting what this new platform may bring. I'm looking forward to Haswell, which is supposed to be a completely new architecture.

 

5 years ago 32 and 40nm were approaching the limits of CMOS technology, you cant make a determination on CMOS's limits based on today's assumptions and predictions, since it's been beating the 'limit' for years. Especially with stuff like electron beam lithography, X-ray lithography, extreme ultraviolet lithography, ion projection lithography, and immersion lithography. Eventually when transistors approach the size of atoms in the sub 5nm range sure, but I think we have at least another decade of the stuff left.

 

Yes but there is one big but, at 16nm quantum physics enters the game.

 

If only i knew what you guys were talkign about lol

 

nanoinjection photolithography has already proven that 16nm production is viable, and that was a year ago. I agree at some point an alternative is going to need to be found, just not as soon as we think. reduction in size will likely slow and stall at some point, and then we'll probaly start to concentrate on processor effeciency before going in some tagent in fundamentally different computing (ie quantum computers)

photolithography. The way silicon chips are made these days. an Atom is ~ .1nm, and at or below 16nm, the consenes is that the gates and transistors will just not be physically stable enough to be a viable manufacturing process with the degree of accuracy needed. You can't manufacture a processor with 99% functionality, it has to work the first time, every time, 100million times.

 

They have been able to make a 16nm SDRAM chip last year I think so it should be reacheable. 11nm, if reached, probably will not be made of Silicon but will still carry the CMOS technology, thus making a "smoother" transition to nanoelectronics.

 

yup, I agree. It's going to be an interesting next decade!

 

Yes yes. I'm starting CE/EE this year and plan on specializing in Nanofabrication.

Would have liked going into Physics and continue in Solid States but pure Physics is a bit too much for me