Report says Sandy Bridge-E won’t be out before November

Looks like AMD’s Zambezi chips may not be the only ones to arrive later than expected. The guys at VR-Zone claim to have it on good authority that Intel has pushed back the release of its Sandy Bridge-E processors all the way until November. Barely two weeks ago, word on the web was that we’d see these bad boys as soon as August or September.

VR-Zone doesn’t really explain the delay, though it suggests that, if Sandy Bridge-E were to launch later than November, Intel would miss the next platform refresh on PC makers’ roadmaps. That prospect, rather than the desire to cash in on holiday sales, purportedly motivated Intel to avoid an even greater delay.

I’m not sure how much truth there is to that sentiment. After all, Intel often introduces new generations of chips in January, and PC makers are usually pretty quick to respond with new gear. Perhaps Sandy Bridge-E’s more upscale, enthusiast-oriented pedigree makes it different, since it’s supposed to replace Gulftown and slot above today’s Sandy Bridge offerings as part of a more expensive platform.

At least, one would hope the platform will be more upscale. The VR-Zone report goes on to say that Intel has changed its plans for Sandy Bridge-E’s accompanying X79 chipset, which may now have only two 6Gbps Serial ATA ports with the remaining four ports stuck at 3Gbps speeds. In that particular respect, the X79 may be no better than today’s Z68 and P67 chipsets.

Comments closed
    • michael_d
    • 8 years ago

    They ought to include PCI-E 3.0 support.

    • ronch
    • 8 years ago

    Is it too optimistic to hope that BD can give this kid a good fight?

      • Ushio01
      • 8 years ago

      Way too optimistic.

        • ronch
        • 8 years ago

        Disturbing. But AMD really loves making the world hold its breath.

      • SoulSlave
      • 8 years ago

      The real question is: “Does it need to?”

      Sure they would love to take the Ultra-Enthusiast market by the horn, but that would cost them some major die area, and probably they would have to downscale their server infrastructure (quad-chanel memory, and so on).

      All very costly.

      Intel carved their place in the hearts and minds of enthusiasts for the past five or six years. Maybe taking the fight to them at this point would be too soon.

        • Ushio01
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah it does, the Ultra-Enthusiast market doesn’t matter but the server market does and without the higher margins from that how are they going to fund development of there next chips?

        GPU’s won’t do it as there already losing money in that segment and while it’s possible to make money with notebook chips as long as AMD is the budget brand there profits aren’t going to be that high.

        Remember it was the server sales of K6 and K8 opteron chips that allowed AMD to stay viable when Intel was abusing their power as the leading manufacturer for x86 processors in sales to OEM’s.

          • SoulSlave
          • 8 years ago

          Hummmmmm…

          Maybe you missunderstood, or I wasn’t very clear.

          I was referring specifically to SB-E, which as far as I know, is an Ultra-Enthusiast part.

          As for Sandy Bridge as a whole, I don’t think will be so far out of reach. Sure SB is more efficient overall, but BD seems to be quite a good contender. Also AMD made some very clever choices (doubling its INT units comes to mind) better suited for server than desktops.

    • mcforce0208
    • 8 years ago

    Intel are pushing back the release date of sandy bridge E proccessors because they know they are going to get owned by Zambezi.

      • Elsoze
      • 8 years ago

      I’m an AMD fanboi and even I am quite unsure of this. The FX chips should be good, but the SB-E’s will likely outperform them.

      I’m buying AMD because Intel needs competition so that newer, faster, and cheaper chips continue to be produced.

        • NeelyCam
        • 8 years ago

        God bless your heart. I’m glad somebody’s willing to spend the money to support the underdog, so I can keep buying Intel CPUs cheaper.

          • Corrado
          • 8 years ago

          I’ll probably end up staying AMD too. Its usually cheaper, regardless of performance, and I don’t need the extra 8-10% really. If I switched to a Sandy Bridge setup right now, I’d not be able to notice a difference. My machine is mainly used as an iTunes/AppleTV server and as a video encoder for the movies I rip to it. I’m also using CUDA in my encoding, so why should I have spent the extra $100 or so it would have cost me to build a Sandy Bridge rig? When I spend $430 total including a GTX460, that $100 is a LOT of money.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 8 years ago

      Somehow, I doubt that. This is like the full realization of Nehalem EX, shifted down from an esoteric and cost prohibitive platform to now cover top to bottom. In its fully functioning form, one of these chips is about equally as insane as the dual-die Opteron version of Bulldozer.

      What they’re doing is waiting until it’s ready for servers, where they cannot take the sorts of risks that lead to things like the Sandy Bridge chipset recall, and just throwing the scraps to the dwindling enthusiast desktop market in the mean time.

      • ltcommander.data
      • 8 years ago

      If that were the case, Intel should be launching sooner to maximize the time they are still the fastest CPU available and avoid accusations of launching later and with poorer performing CPUs than the competition.

      Even if Zambezi turns out to be clock-for-clock faster, I’d expect Intel still has a lot of clock speed room held back to counter with seeing how top end clock speeds have been relatively stable in the last few years despite successive new process shrinks. And Intel’s trump card is always their manufacturing processes. With a mature 32nm process, perhaps already fully paid off, they likely have more room to initiate a price war, if they can’t win the performance war, while still making a profit where AMD relying on GlobalFoundries younger 32nm process may not have as much margin flexibility.

      • Corrado
      • 8 years ago

      You guys are missing the irony that when AMD pushes back a product launch, its CLEARLY because they are gonna get owned by Intel. Now that its Intel with a delay, its probably only because they want to maximize the sales of the current platform before selling new stuff, or because AMD’s stuff is so bad that they don’t have to sell better stuff just yet.

      • maxxcool
      • 8 years ago

      fail

      • NeelyCam
      • 8 years ago

      Intel is pushing back because they want to keep both the 32nm fabs and the 22nm fabs loaded with sellable chips (and it’s not like AMD has anything to offer).

      end troll;

      The VR-Zone article implies there are problems with the chipset… Maybe SAS ports were broken, and they don’t have time to fix them, so just quickly spin a version with them disabled?

    • JMccovery
    • 8 years ago

    Even though I’m more of an AMD guy, this paragraph has a very bad ring to it:

    [quote<]At least, one would hope the platform will be more upscale. The VR-Zone report goes on to say that Intel has changed its plans for Sandy Bridge-E's accompanying X79 chipset, which may now have only two 6Gbps Serial ATA ports with the remaining four ports stuck at 3Gbps speeds. In that particular respect, the X79 may be no better than today's Z68 and P67 chipsets.[/quote<] Even though 10+ SATA/SAS ports may be overkill, it is a good kind of overkill.

      • w00tstock
      • 8 years ago

      Overkill? I use all 6 on my current board. I need the ports and they need to be fast, workstation with high end drives and raid easily saturate 3gbps. I honestly wouldn’t view this ‘updated’ x79 chipset as workstation class for a late 2011 release.

        • JMccovery
        • 8 years ago

        That’s why I said “a good kind of overkill” in my post…

      • SoulSlave
      • 8 years ago

      Sorry, wrong post.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This