Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition and Core i7-3930K processors for LGA 2011 Platform

Started by: kensiko | Date 11/14/11 04:04:51 AM
Comments: 33 | Last Comment:  09/20/14 07:02:45 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-20 | 21-21]

1. 
Pass...
4 2 [Posted by: kensiko  | Date: 11/14/11 04:04:51 AM]
Reply

2. 
What a disappointment, $990 for basically the same performance as a i7 2600 which sells for $317. Are we seeing the effect of poor execution by AMD?
5 5 [Posted by: Memristor  | Date: 11/14/11 04:54:59 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
What a disappointment, $990 for basically the same performance as a i7 2600 which sells for $317. Are we seeing the effect of poor execution by AMD?


Obviously, you are liar

It performed better than i7 2600 specially in multi-threaded applications.

If you do things like 3d rendering, video encoding or 7-zip then you will see huge improvement over i7 2600

Not everyone buy CPU to play games.

Also, Core i7-3930K is half the price of 3960X and you would get almost similar performance
3 2 [Posted by: maroon1  | Date: 11/14/11 06:57:33 AM]
Reply
 
Yeah. Not sure what people expect. And if you buy these types of CPUs to play games today, you are effectively wasting craploads of money that is better spent elsewhere.
5 0 [Posted by: Joe Public  | Date: 11/14/11 08:26:47 AM]
Reply
 
Nopte, You better check the Review again you might have miss something there.

If you dont trust the review here.
This link bellow is from other Review Site

Intel Core i7-3960X vs i7-2600K

http://media.bestofmicro....ginal/compare%202600k.png

Core i7-3960X Versus FX-8150

http://media.bestofmicro....nal/compare%20fx-8150.png
1 0 [Posted by: xentar  | Date: 11/14/11 07:08:39 AM]
Reply

3. 
Simply not worth all the money the new platform is asking for.

Ilya, a great article that tells it like it is.
5 3 [Posted by: BernardP  | Date: 11/14/11 05:27:46 AM]
Reply

4. 
I think the conclusion of this review is very true.
My deepest respect for that. Xbitlabs is really great for being strong and honest to the seekers of facts - and not blindly give away a price for this product - like some other reviewers.

I was hoping for 6 or 8 cores processor home PC - not an camouflaged server sold as an "enthusiastic" prestige home PC processor.

Really a strange way to go.... hmm I guess when we see a 8 cores cpu with 95 watt termal design from Intel -it will also be with much higher turbo clock speeds when fewer cores are needed, lower power use in idle mode and so on - a real improvement -but this is not the time it seems




5 1 [Posted by: futuristicmind  | Date: 11/14/11 01:45:36 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Well the problem with that is software. You can have a 32 core home PC if you want but if no one writes multi-threaded software or an OS that can dynamically delegate threads in a way that truly takes advantage of multiple cores, it's not going to matter.

At work we all got upgraded to Core i3 systems from really old laptops from 2002. We only saw a 30% increase in production because we didn't upgrade the 10-year-old software that is 32-bit, limited to a single thread and can't use more than 1.5GB of RAM. Our upgrades are almost pointless because the software we use isn't optimized for the hardware we have.

Right now an 8-core home PC is just absolutely useless. There is reasonably nothing you could do with regular home use that would require or benefit from 8 physical cores.
0 0 [Posted by: sagebrushfire  | Date: 12/07/11 11:38:07 PM]
Reply

5. 
Interesting finding that the number of memory channels (2,3 or 4) bears no or insignificant relation to effective bandwidth (page 7).

How does it compare to AMD:s existing 4-channel ddr3 system (the mid-aged skt G34 platform)? Anyone have numbers?
2 0 [Posted by: oegat  | Date: 11/14/11 02:32:02 PM]
Reply

6. 
Is it just me or they copied the packaging of Apple's Products specially Macbook pros for their processors?
Okay....Fine....Alright...
It is not worth the money AT ALL. Just an opinion.
0 2 [Posted by: Pouria  | Date: 11/14/11 03:35:01 PM]
Reply

7. 
I cant wait for beenthere to make fun of the site he keeps coming back to, and then claim that there is an extreme intel bias here because bulldozer wasnt declared the winner even though its amazing feature of including the heatsink with the processor totaly makes intel processors worthless.
3 2 [Posted by: cashkennedy  | Date: 11/14/11 03:47:28 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
show the post
1 6 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 11/14/11 07:12:25 PM]
Reply
 
How is Xbitlabs biased?

AMD hasn't been relevant in the > $130 CPU market since Core 2 Duo arrived on the scene in 2006. That's not being biased, that's facts.

In the $200+ CPU market:

E6400 laid waste to anything AMD had in 2006
Q6600 laid waste to anything AMD had in 2007
E8400/Q9550 laid waste to anything AMD had in 2008
i7 920 laid waste to anything AMD had in late 2008-2009
i5 750/i7 860 laid waste to anything AMD had in 2009-2010
2500k/2600k laid waste to anything AMD had in 2011.

The only bright star in AMD's portfolio has been the Athlon II X4 chips for $100, some unlockable Phenom IIs here and there.

AMD still hasn't made a CPU faster than a Q9550 @ 4.0ghz. I doubt even by 2012, they'll have anything as good as a Core i5 750 @ 4.0ghz either. They are at least 2 generation behind in performance and more in power consumption (esp. in overclocked states).

AMD should just focus on Llano/Trinity, and Graphics.
2 1 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 11/14/11 10:07:43 PM]
Reply
 
i agree with most of what you said but AMD shouldn't leave the high end only for intel to dominate so it wouldn't innovate
0 0 [Posted by: madooo12  | Date: 11/16/11 06:21:49 AM]
Reply
 
and leave the high end only for intel....
0 0 [Posted by: madooo12  | Date: 11/16/11 06:26:06 AM]
Reply

8. 
Two things:

1. Is there a high resolution copy of that die photo on the second page?

2. It appears that C0 stepping engineering samples were used for this review, while the retail cpus are C1 stepping. Is there any notable difference between the steppings?
0 0 [Posted by: gplnpsb  | Date: 11/14/11 09:07:09 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
It appears that C0 stepping engineering samples were used for this review, while the retail cpus are C1 stepping. Is there any notable difference between the steppings?

I have two CPUs with different revisions ?0 and ?1. But I don't see any significant improvements in C1. Probably it has little cooler in work but it hasn't better overclocking.
1 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 11/15/11 06:31:12 AM]
Reply

9. 
This thing will get blown away by Ivy in 5 months. Most consumer applications don't use more than 4 cores. Instructions Per Clock and higher frequency is what's important for enthusiasts. SB-E doesn't deliver on either of these fronts over a 2600k. It doesn't overclock easily beyond 4.8ghz.

Basically a platform for:

1) Showing off/ Bragging rights
2) Workstation users

Money way better spent on 2500k/2600k + Raided SSDs.

Unlike 1366, this platform is almost 1-year late, and still lacks native USB 3.0 support, comes with too few SATA 3 ports and X79 chipset doesn't natively support PCIe 3.0.

Plus, boards that support 8 Dimms start at about $300+. This platform is a huge rip-off.
2 2 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 11/14/11 10:04:18 PM]
Reply

10. 
Anand's review found a significant improvement in memory bandwidth
with four channels: 37GB/s
2 0 [Posted by: darklink  | Date: 11/15/11 01:49:59 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
The only utility that shows the difference is Sandra and Anand uses it in his review. All other benchmarks (Aida, MaxxMem, Sciencemark and many other) don't show such picture. I think, that Sandra is wrong this time.
0 0 [Posted by: Gavric  | Date: 11/15/11 06:24:23 AM]
Reply

11. 
More memory bandwidth can be useful for servers but it provides no advantage for typical desktop use. It's a solution for a non-existent problem, just like PCIe 3.0 is. Neither RAM nor GPU performance is limited on desktop enthusiasts platforms at this time.
2 4 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 11/15/11 08:00:35 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
I disagree. Try running your desktop or laptop with single channel memory and the difference in performance is quite noticeable.
1 0 [Posted by: darklink  | Date: 11/15/11 12:41:37 PM]
Reply
 
His main point was that a modern Intel platform is not limited by memory bandwidth. Take dual-channel Lynnfield (LGA1156) vs. triple-channel Nehalem (LGA1366). Core i7 920 is not faster than Core i7 860.

Similarly, take SB-E vs. SB. The 4 memory channels aren't helping SB-E outperform SB in consumer applications.

Modern Intel platforms have sufficient memory bandwidth outside of enterprise environments.
0 1 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 11/15/11 06:51:36 PM]
Reply

12. 
Thanks for another excellent X-Bit review. I am glad to see that beyond all the core motherboard functions - which they do very well - Asus is still putting real care into their fan controls. My next board will be an Asus.

However, even if you have a mobo with poor fan support eg. Gigabyte, there is a useful fallback which incidentally addresses a point you made in this review. That is a PWM fan splitter.

The only one I know of is the Akasa AK-CB002 PWM splitter, which I found at PerformancePCs. This lets you control up to three PWM fans from a single PWM (4-pin) header. It has a molex connector so that all the fan power comes directly from your PSU. This solves either of two problems:

1) You can power two CPU cooling fans off the single PWM header normally available.

2) Or, you can resolve a number of case ventilation issues with one stroke. Use this PWM splitter to power the CPU fan and two case fans; the 120mm Kama Flex PWM is a good choice for the latter. Make one of these case fans an intake (somewhere mid-case) and one an output (rear panel). Add at least one more conventional intake fan, probably at the front of the case. It's important to have more (filtered) intake capacity than output, to ensure positive case pressure at idle and prevent dust buildup long-term. And cooling is needed for hard drives etc even when the CPU is idle.

This cheap, easy, and nearly fool-proof technique will produce a relatively quiet but thermally very capable machine. I only wish I had discovered this splitter and its capabilities before spending a fortune on fans and controllers for a high-end air-cooled rig.
3 0 [Posted by: Papoulka  | Date: 11/15/11 08:06:04 AM]
Reply

13. 
show the post
1 4 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 11/15/11 09:09:39 AM]
Reply

14. 
http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Cobra/
Would you believe the price of this system?
Would much rather have an overclocked 2500k, better cooling system and a SSD as it would beat it in many benchmarks for about $800 less.
2 0 [Posted by: inoumovv  | Date: 11/15/11 11:08:04 AM]
Reply

15. 
Been saying it for a while now Sandy Bridge is crap this just proves it even more, Ivy Bridge will be the true upgrade for current 1366 users.
1 1 [Posted by: ozegamer  | Date: 11/15/11 02:28:27 PM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Sandy Bridge is not crap. You mean Sandy Bridge-E is overpriced? Right now, 2500k for $220 or so is the best value in CPUs since Q6600 could be bought for $300. 2500k is like a Q6600 except for even less $ and far better power consumption in overclocked states.

Really, a $220 CPU that trades blows with a 980/990X in some situations is phenomenal value. Way cheaper than FX-8150 and blows it away!

http://www.hardocp.com/ar...play_performance_review/1
0 0 [Posted by: BestJinjo  | Date: 11/15/11 06:54:33 PM]
Reply

16. 
show the post
1 5 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 11/15/11 03:32:24 PM]
Reply

17. 
Intel X79 Express support only 2 ports capable of Sata 6B. In other words motherboards with 4 SATA 6G (like Asus) can only support 2 Ports in RAID 0+2, 2 ports still capable of 6G and no 4xSata3 in RAID 0???
0 0 [Posted by: ethan_24_7@hotmail.com  | Date: 11/18/11 12:41:48 AM]
Reply

18. 
This is a superb review. The other reviews I have seen don't dig into the gritty details. So from x-bit I know that this is a cut-down Xeon, that compared to a Xeon this is a budget chip. It's for a niche. It's not for nuts like us.
0 0 [Posted by: ehume  | Date: 11/25/11 06:12:18 PM]
Reply

19. 
This was a good read. It would be nice if you'd include your action file for Photoshop. I tried to replicate it but I think mine was way different. I used the original speed test except I used 4 different 10 megapixel images and ran the test in batch (got rid of the pop-ups just in case).

For my i7-930 OC'ed to 3.5Ghz and 6GB of 1333Mhz DDR3 it took 192 seconds. I could tell the processor was the bottleneck because Gaussian blur is what took the most time.

I'm thinking my test was more intense than yours, there's no way the 1100T bests me by 42%.

P.S. If you ever just want to really test your processor out on an actual application and not using benchmarking software, open a large 16-bit image in Photoshop and apply Shape Blur with a complex shape and the setting maxed out. It can take 5 minutes for even a high-end processor depending on the image size. CPU usage hovers between 97% and 100%.
0 0 [Posted by: sagebrushfire  | Date: 12/07/11 11:30:43 PM]
Reply

20. 
This was a good read. It would be nice if you'd include your action file for the Photoshop test (or any of your benchmarks so we can compare our own hardware). I tried to replicate it but I think mine was way different. I used the original PS speed test except I used 4 different 10 megapixel images and ran the test in batch (got rid of the pop-ups just in case).

For my i7-930 OC'ed to 3.5Ghz and 6GB of 1333Mhz DDR3 it took 192 seconds. I could tell the processor was the bottleneck because Gaussian blur is what took the most time.

I'm thinking my test was more intense than yours, there's no way the 1100T bests me by 42%.

P.S. As far as Photoshop goes, the most intense filter I have found is Shape Blur. Use a complex shape and set it to the max. It takes a while on regular 8-bit images. Use it on a huge 16-bit converted RAW image from a newer DSLR and you could be waiting for around 5 minutes, even with a newer high-end processor. I'd love to see how the LGA2011 chips handle that.
0 0 [Posted by: sagebrushfire  | Date: 12/07/11 11:33:22 PM]
Reply

[1-20 | 21-21]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment