Bookmark and Share


It is not a secret that Intel Corp.’s next-generation extreme enthusiast-class microprocessors code-named “Ivy Bridge-E” will be barely faster than the currently available Core i7-3800/3900-series “Sandy Bridge-E” chips. Based on early test results obtained by a Chinese enthusiast from forum, the new high-end desktop (HEDT) processor will be just up to 10% faster than existing offering.

A “honorary member” of the (the web-site belongs to one of the world’s top professional overclockers) called Toppc has compared current top-of-the-range Intel Core i7-3970X “Sandy Bridge-E” to what he claims to be Intel Core i7-4960X “Ivy Bridge-E”, which will be Intel’s highest performing desktop chip later this year. The results of the benchmarks cannot be verified, but given the reputation of Coolaler, they may be considered more or less trustworthy.

The list of benchmarks includes 3DMark, Cinebench 11.5, CPUMark99, SuperPi and wPrime, which hardly show real-world performance, but give an idea what performance boost to expect from the new chip compared to its predecessor. Keeping in mind that the Ivy Bridge micro-architecture has few advantages over Sandy Bridge micro-architecture, the Core i7-4960X should not be substantially faster than the Core i7-3970X.

Intel Core i7-4960X processors and other Ivy Bridge-E chips are expected to emerge on the market in the second half of the year and be drop-in compatible with today’s LGA2011 HEDT infrastructure.

Intel did not comment on the news-story.

Tags: Intel, Core, Ivy Bridge, Ivy Bridge-E, Ivy Bridge-EP, Xeon, HEDT, LGA2011


Comments currently: 18
Discussion started: 04/25/13 06:39:53 AM
Latest comment: 07/13/16 10:47:41 AM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads


show the post
5 9 [Posted by: beenthere  | Date: 04/25/13 06:39:54 AM]
- collapse thread

The performance is what can be expected given that we already know what SB and IB are capable of. But I would have expected 8-core version. It's certainly possible on 22nm.
4 0 [Posted by: kokara4a  | Date: 04/25/13 07:16:48 AM]
Exactly my thinking also. Multi-threaded software that actually takes advantage of multiple cores is no longer just wishful thinking. Running multiple apps--each of which is multi-threaded--is also not uncommon anymore. Time to crank it up!
0 0 [Posted by: bluvg  | Date: 04/25/13 12:33:12 PM]
No; what's laughable is the performance of AMD CPUs.

If this was AMD, the fanbois would be screaming in delight because they could finally talk about AMD's performance proudly. Alas, this is not. So the shame of an everyday AMD fanboi shall persist
5 5 [Posted by: NeelyCam  | Date: 04/25/13 06:50:08 PM]
You do realize that by writing this you fit the typical pattern for a fanboy yourself! Just like trolls calling other trolls, hehe.
3 0 [Posted by: TAViX  | Date: 04/26/13 05:33:56 AM]

Don't forget a 10 percent improvement for Intel generation to generation is greater than a ten percent AMD improvement generation to generation. Ten percent of 100 is greater than ten percent of 75. So Intel's jump is greater in actual numbers but similar in percentage.
5 4 [Posted by: iLLz  | Date: 04/25/13 10:05:02 AM]
- collapse thread

I'm glad you're not my accountant. 10% isn't more than 10%.... to make the analogy, if I were to depreciate my Intel and AMD computers by 10% as a business tax deduction, the Intel one wouldn't magically gain me more money because the deduction is relative to the initial outlay. Where I gain money is in the initial purchase of the AMD computer which was 35% cheaper and performed within 15% of the Intel one in real world applications that after 2 years, I was then able to upgrade to the latest AMD CPU without having to outlay for an entirely new Intel socket.
3 3 [Posted by: linuxlowdown  | Date: 04/25/13 03:01:28 PM]
Um... factually correct, I suppose, but I'm not sure I get the point
2 1 [Posted by: NeelyCam  | Date: 04/25/13 06:51:22 PM]
Last time I checked, the difference in performance improvement for AMD has been 15-30% from generation to generation. That's quite a lot more than 10%. Considering AMD is currently only 15% behind, and the upcoming third generation of FX is expecting a 30% improvement... 30% increase of 85% is 110.5% and Intel's 10% increase of 100% is 110%. That puts AMD very close to Intel. However, there are a lot of variances in how fast the processors are even now. My FX-8350 is faster than the 3770k in multithreaded programs like x264 encoding in Linux.
3 3 [Posted by: mmstick  | Date: 04/26/13 05:09:21 AM]

He left them at stock clocks though so the Ivy has a 100mhz advantage...
0 2 [Posted by: Stickmansam  | Date: 04/26/13 12:06:27 AM]

This is exactly what was expected tbh. This is not a new architecture, is just a minor tweaking for power and performance. Is crap that you need a new mobo for this, but Intel needs to milk some more money out of suckers...
2 0 [Posted by: TAViX  | Date: 04/26/13 05:37:46 AM]

How will the 4820K stack up to a 4770K in terms of performance?
1 0 [Posted by: Vaib Kapoor  | Date: 04/26/13 09:19:43 AM]
- collapse thread

You would think 4770k will be faster as its using Haswell as apposed to Ivy Bridge, quad-channel DDR will do very little and more cache will only add a little speed.

But the 4770k will get a massive performance boost using its APLs, if you are using software that uses OpenCL then 4770k will trance 4820k and will even soundly beat the 5x the price 4960X in things like Handbrake, Adobe CS6, WinZip...
0 1 [Posted by: loadwick  | Date: 04/27/13 04:00:01 AM]

yea lets go spend a grand on a cpu that gives you 10% better performance.
1 0 [Posted by: SteelCity1981  | Date: 04/27/13 09:26:25 AM]

All i see i DEAD PEOPLE, and any person that purchased a cool and quiet Sandy Bridge DOES NEED TO UPGRADE, anyone person with i5-2300 and up its not your time son ....

Upgrade your GPU instead or purchase SSD cause buying a new mobo and CPU for a mere up to 15% improvement is not worth it, while purchasing GPU can increase performance up to 600%

As well as purchasing SSD can increase your productivity BIG TIME
0 0 [Posted by: medo  | Date: 04/28/13 01:08:06 AM]

Does anyone see that Core i7 4960X clock speed compare with Core i7 3970X ?
The inhell 4960X @ 3.6GHz VS 3970X @ 3.5GHz isnt it? What kind of result if we down clock @ 3.5GHz as same?
0 0 [Posted by: ??????? ???????????  | Date: 04/29/13 07:26:59 AM]


Add your Comment

Related news

Latest News

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

10:48 pm | LG’s Unique Ultra-Wide Curved 34” Display Finally Hits the Market. LG 34UC97 Available in the U.S. and the U.K.

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

12:52 pm | Lisa Su Appointed as New CEO of Advanced Micro Devices. Rory Read Steps Down, Lisa Su Becomes New CEO of AMD

Thursday, August 28, 2014

4:22 am | AMD Has No Plans to Reconsider Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Cards. AMD Will Not Lower Recommended Prices of Radeon R9 Graphics Solutions

Wednesday, August 27, 2014

1:09 pm | Samsung Begins to Produce 2.13GHz 64GB DDR4 Memory Modules. Samsung Uses TSV DRAMs for 64GB DDR4 RDIMMs

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

10:41 am | AMD Quietly Reveals Third Iteration of GCN Architecture with Tonga GPU. AMD Unleashes Radeon R9 285 Graphics Cards, Tonga GPU, GCN 1.2 Architecture