Looking at performance, Sandy Bridge is underwhelming. The GPU part is below even where it was purported to be. Sure it can get the same FPS as a 5450, but with far lower quality than the 5450 puts out. At the same image quality (when it can really do that), it is much slower than a 5450.
Now for those that think the CPU part will make up for the below minimum GPU, it is being compared to a Zacate CPU which is in a far lower price range. Heck for the price of the highest Sandy Bridge at $317, you get 5 Zacate E350s (almost 6) which together would on multi-threaded code far overwhelm that Sandy Bridge CPU and the GPU portions could drive five displays in an Eyefinity Display Cluster (3600x1280) all at a lower TDP (90W vs 95W (or is it 125W?)). A single Llano won't be far behind that Sandy Bridge CPU, but likely cost half as much. The GPU part will blow the Sandy Bridges GPU out of the water. Even if the latter were paired with a mainstream discrete GPU like a 5570 (DDR3 at 1800MHz), Llano would likely still be a little faster.
As for normal people not needing this kind of GPU power, my brother, who is not a computer geek, being a CNC machinist for a long time (>30yrs), has a Radeon 4670 (512MB 128 bit DDR3-1800) that he uses to game (mostly FPS) on a single core Athlon 64 3500+ (2.2GHz) with 3GB of dual channel DDR-400 system. He also uses it for Autocad stuff from work. Llano would be an upgrade, but SB would be a step back (not enough GPU for his needs in either Autocad or gaming). So SB isn't the barn burner Intel supporters would like it to be. Heck it fails for my brother and other such relatives outside the computer business (carpenters, machinists, bookkeepers, electricians, bakers, mechanics, farmers, etc.). They need the better balance of CPU and GPU of the Fusion ones than SB ones.
Pete |
