# Core i7-3960X About 47% Faster On Average Than Core i7-990X: Intel



## btarunr (Jul 22, 2011)

Slides of a key presentation to Intel's partners was leaked to sections of the media, which reveal Intel's own performance testing of the Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition, the top-model of the socket LGA2011 "Sandy Bridge-E" processor series. Meet the family here. In its comparison, Intel maintained the Core i7-990X Extreme Edition socket LGA1366 processor as this generation's top offering. It was pitted against the Core i7-3960X in a battery of tests that included some enthusiast favourites such as Cinebench 11.5, POV-Ray 3.7, 3DMark 11 physics, Pro-Show Gold 4.5, and some OEM favourites such as SPECint_rate base2006, SPECfp_rate base2006, and SiSoft SANDRA 2011B multimedia and memory bandwidth. 

From these test results, the Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition is pitched to be about 47.25% faster on average, compared to Core i7-990X Extreme Edition. Intel is attributing the performance boost, apart from the normal IPC increase, to the 33% higher bandwidth thanks to the quad-channel DDR3 IMC, and the new AVX instruction set that accelerates math-heavy tasks such as encoding. The Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition is an upcoming socket LGA2011 six-core processor that is clocked at 3.30 GHz, with Turbo Boost speed of up to 3.90 GHz, with 12 threads enabled by HyperThreading technology, and 15 MB L3 cache. It will release by either late 2011 or early 2012.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## mlee49 (Jul 22, 2011)

Realistic interpretation:

A cherry picked 3960X LGA2011 *is up to* 47% faster than a stock 990x LGA1366.





Edit, I'd really like to see more benchmarks take advantage of the AVX encoding to flex it's muscle. When S.B. was released it sounded interesting, but hasn't made any real impact, I hope Intel can push this simple enhanced instruction set to the front of the marketing line.


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jul 22, 2011)

I have feelings that this chip will be epic but come with an even more epic price tag!


----------



## antuk15 (Jul 22, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Intel is attributing the performance boost, apart from the normal IPC increase, *to the 33% higher bandwidth thanks to the quad-channel DDR3 IMC, and the new AVX instruction *set that accelerates math-heavy tasks such as encoding.



So take that away and what we get?

Intel have said around a 20% increase per-clock over current Sandy Bridge CPU's for Ivy Bridge.


----------



## Sasqui (Jul 22, 2011)

I see marketing hype, but underneath it appears to be rather impressive.  Intel (in general) is fairly conservative with thier press releases.


----------



## douglatins (Jul 22, 2011)

want/cant have


----------



## brandonwh64 (Jul 22, 2011)

Im pretty sure that some of the lower K models with 12MB cache will be able to match its performance with OC. Just like I7 920 did with the rest of the I7 line.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 22, 2011)

antuk15 said:


> So take that away and what we get?
> 
> Intel have said around a 20% increase per-clock over current Sandy Bridge CPU's for Ivy Bridge.



Core i7-3960X is not based on Ivy Bridge.


----------



## DriedFrogPills (Jul 22, 2011)

antuk15 said:


> So take that away and what we get?
> 
> Intel have said around a 20% increase per-clock over current Sandy Bridge CPU's for Ivy Bridge.



i don;t expect that sort of increase from SB to IB after all Ivy is a tock not a tick


----------



## mtosev (Jul 22, 2011)

I like. Wonder what price will that cpu have.I expect 800-900EUR


----------



## RejZoR (Jul 22, 2011)

Also apps have to be specifically coded for AVX so the perfromance will be even lower for a while on apps that are just SSE aware... Eventually they'll catch up but that will take a while...


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jul 22, 2011)

btarunr said:


> Slides of a key presentation to Intel's partners was leaked to sections of the media, which reveal Intel's own performance testing of the Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition, the top-model of the socket LGA2011 "Sandy Bridge-E" processor series. Meet the family here. In its comparison, Intel maintained the Core i7-990X Extreme Edition socket LGA1366 processor as this generation's top offering. It was pitted against the Core i7-3960X in a battery of tests that included some enthusiast favourites such as Cinebench 11.5, POV-Ray 3.7, 3DMark 11 physics, Pro-Show Gold 4.5, and some OEM favourites such as SPECint_rate base2006, SPECfp_rate base2006, ans SiSoft SANDRA 2011B multimedia and memory bandwidth.
> 
> From these test results, the Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition is pitched to be about 47.25% faster on average, compared to Core i7-990X Extreme Edition. Intel is attributing the performance boost, apart from the normal IPC increase, to the 33% higher bandwidth thanks to the quad-channel DDR3 IMC, and the new AVX instruction set that accelerates math-heavy tasks such as encoding. The Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition is an upcoming socket LGA2011 six-core processor that is clocked at 3.30 GHz, with Turbo Boost speed of up to 3.90 GHz, with 12 threads enabled by HyperThreading technology, and 15 MB L3 cache. It will release by either late 2011 or early 2012.
> 
> ...



Interesting! A while ago, i heard, that Caches are like the "Fat" of a processor,which increases the Die Size (which equals to higher prices/lower yields) and Wattage by a lot, and that the ultimate goal when improving an Architecture is, to loose that Fat, but still boost the Performance... Intel seems to think very differently from that. IDK why.


----------



## dumo (Jul 22, 2011)

Just hope this 3960X will pass >55X multi wall (average new batch of 2600K)...considering it probly will be priced @ 3X 2600K


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2011)

brandonwh64 said:


> i have feelings that this chip will be epic but come with an even more epic price tag!



+1


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 22, 2011)

dumo said:


> Just hope this 3960X will pass >55X multi wall (average new batch of 2600K)...considering it probly will be priced @ 3X 2600K



the 990k is currently $1k on newegg, the 3960 may be as much as 5x 2600k since their is no competition at that CPU level but Intel itself.


----------



## buggalugs (Jul 22, 2011)

Looks very promising.....


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 22, 2011)

Wait for more benches, i want to see how much it's over than 2600k.


----------



## Xaser04 (Jul 22, 2011)

DriedFrogPills said:


> i don;t expect that sort of increase from SB to IB after all Ivy is a tock not a tick



Ivy Bridge is a Tick not a Tock. (Move down to 22nm from 32nm but the same basic architecture as SB). 

Intel: 

Tick = New process node + "old" architecture on new node 

Tock = New architecture. 

Realistically Ivy Bridge will off better performance at the same price point thanks to increased clocks speeds. The new AVX instruction set will no doubt give a boost in very specific programs (just like AVX does now for AV encoding) but I wonder how this will translate into real world performance. 

As for LGA2011 - WANT!


----------



## happita (Jul 22, 2011)

Velvet Wafer said:


> Interesting! A while ago, i heard, that Caches are like the "Fat" of a processor,which increases the Die Size (which equals to higher prices/lower yields) and Wattage by a lot, and that the ultimate goal when improving an Architecture is, to loose that Fat, but still boost the Performance... Intel seems to think very differently from that. IDK why.



That's true, but done right, cache can also increase performance as well. Leakage is the main issue when increasing the cache.


----------



## Hayder_Master (Jul 22, 2011)

I like something they compare it with older intel extreme cpu, not like AMD when they say phenom fx better than core i7 950 by 50%, intel can say it's better than crappy phenom II by 300%.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 22, 2011)

*game  over*

Gonna have to collect a whole lot more cans to obtain all this unnecessary speed and power  a.m. who.... the one up war continues. Please no more delays.... please


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 22, 2011)

3960X? 3930K? its me or seems like Intel just get infected with AMD's naming issues..


----------



## meirb111 (Jul 22, 2011)

is it a k model or locked can't find that info here


----------



## btarunr (Jul 22, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> Realistic interpretation:
> 
> A cherry picked 3960X LGA2011 *is up to* 47% faster than a stock 990x LGA1366.



It "is up to" 111% faster. My statement included the term "on average", given the provided test results.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Jul 22, 2011)

47% = 23.5% in the marketing world.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 22, 2011)

DO WANT 





more benchmarks .. . . ..


----------



## mlee49 (Jul 22, 2011)

btarunr said:


> It "is up to" 111% faster. My statement included the term "on average", given the provided test results.



Still proves the point that the marketing percentages are wack.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 22, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> Still proves the point that the marketing percentages are wack.



I don't think anyone would question that, but both companies (AMD and Intel) use questionable math to inflate numbers to make X look like it's 50+% faster than it's competitors y chip, this is nothing new.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 22, 2011)

Meh.... 6 cores is so 2008. Intel should have been ballsy and went with the 8 core

Im staying 1155 and just going Ivy Bridge


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 22, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Meh.... 6 cores is so 2008. Intel should have been ballsy and went with the 8 core



While I agree, I will reserve judgement until I see hard benchmark numbers.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 22, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> Realistic interpretation:
> 
> A cherry picked 3960X LGA2011 *is up to* 47% faster than a stock 990x LGA1366.


I doubt it was "cherry picked" (and not that it matters, they didn't overclock it).  They probably just grabbed a hexa-core CPU off the line to compare to the previous generation of hexa-cores.  Remember, an octo-core w/ hyperthreading is being developed too.  Intel is confident they have the performance crown so there is no reason for them to work the numbers.


----------



## Velvet Wafer (Jul 22, 2011)

happita said:


> That's true, but done right, cache can also increase performance as well. Leakage is the main issue when increasing the cache.



of course it will increase performance, without that it would be pointless at all!
but the amount of problems, more cache generates, exceeds the benefits by a lot


----------



## mlee49 (Jul 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I doubt it was "cherry picked" (and not that it matters, they didn't overclock it).  They probably just grabbed a hexa-core CPU off the line to compare to the previous generation of hexa-cores.  Remember, an octo-core w/ hyperthreading is being developed too.  Intel is confident they have the performance crown so there is no reason for them to work the numbers.



I'm standing firm on it being a cherry picked chip, it cant possibly be retail and only an ES leaked will be dispute enough for me. [Chiphell better rebuttle]


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 22, 2011)

No cherrypick shit! You don't need a cherrypicked chip to run default speed!

Turbo mode:

i7 990X = 3.73GHz
i7 3960X = 3.9GHz

It's quite obvious.


----------



## dumo (Jul 22, 2011)

Cherry picked 3960X should be able to run 5900Mhz+...means bootable @ 59X multi


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 22, 2011)

mlee49 said:


> I'm standing firm on it being a cherry picked chip, it cant possibly be retail and only an ES leaked will be dispute enough for me. [Chiphell better rebuttle]


Intel wouldn't publish numbers on a named chip if it were an engineering sample.  I'd bet they got the Core i7-3960X and other chips ready to ship out the door but they're waiting for motherboard manufactuers to get their ducks in a row before they launch.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 22, 2011)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Intel wouldn't publish numbers on a named chip if it were an engineering sample.  I'd bet they got the Core i7-3960X and other chips ready to ship out the door but they're waiting for motherboard manufactuers to get their ducks in a row before they launch.



I hope this is true, I know intel is on a spending spree buying up all kinds of test handlers, at work we just sold them 35 units, and they are asking for more.


----------



## Assimilator (Jul 22, 2011)

It's as if AMD's Bulldozer architecture cried out in terror, and was suddenly silenced.

By a curbstomp.

From a mech.


----------



## Aevum (Jul 22, 2011)

FFS... Was the new socket an absolute necesity. 

Im getting tierd with this. AMD has 2 active sockets for the entire range. FM1 and AM3+.

Intel currently has 3 active sockets and a 4th on the way. 1366 1155 1156 and now 2011. 

And thats without mentioning the chipset dance. even if the socket is the same the chipset has to be the correct one...

Please intel. pick 1 socket and make the damn chipsets compatible.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 22, 2011)

Aevum said:


> FFS... Was the new socket an absolute necesity.
> 
> Im getting tierd with this. AMD has 2 active sockets for the entire range. FM1 and AM3+.
> 
> ...



Well then your going to be mad at AMD as they are phasing out AM3+ come the end of 2012 for another one.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 22, 2011)

Recycling old sockets holds them back.  Just look at AM2 to AM3+.  What changed?  DDR3, and that's about it.  Look at Intel on the other hand and every new socket brought major changes.  LGA1366 = tri-channel memory, LGA2011 = quad-channel memory, LGA1156 = DDR3 RAM, LGA1155 = GPU in chip, etc.

AMD fell into an advancement hole on AM2 so they had no real reason to push out different sockets like Intel did.


----------



## DrunkenMafia (Jul 22, 2011)

Wow, Quad channel DDR3!!

This would have to over $2k when it comes out, surely.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 22, 2011)

Assimilator said:


> It's as if AMD's Bulldozer architecture cried out in terror, and was suddenly silenced.
> 
> By a curbstomp.
> 
> From a mech.



Thou art an poet an poet amongst druken sailors


----------



## Steven B (Jul 22, 2011)

this site(not TPU) has been wrong before, but i do hope they are right.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jul 22, 2011)

I am so fucking confused over what is what. 
i7, seemingly arbitrary numbers, and then a letter.

Is that a quad, a duo, a what? Is it good, is it better, does it make toast?!? And AMD are guilty too. Can I please just get a decent scale over what the fuck is what.

Oh and then there's the whole some iX use this socket, some use that. Can they just use ONE socket for ONE "species" of chip.


----------



## Crap Daddy (Jul 22, 2011)

In a way it's sad that Intel is in a category of its own. At this level there is no competition so they will sit down and think how much to charge for this, based on whatever numbers that Italian name dude who's running the shop has in mind.


----------



## sno.lcn (Jul 22, 2011)

Aevum said:


> FFS... Was the new socket an absolute necesity.
> 
> Im getting tierd with this. AMD has 2 active sockets for the entire range. FM1 and AM3+.
> 
> ...



Are new CPU models still coming out for s1156?  Will any new ones be coming out for s1366 when s2011 is released?  

Anyway, looking at SB and SB-E side by side, does putting them both in the same package really sound reasonable?  No way 





DrunkenMafia said:


> Wow, Quad channel DDR3!!
> 
> This would have to over $2k when it comes out, surely.



Extreme series CPUs from Intel have always been in a certain price range, don't expect this to deviate too drastically from that.




dumo said:


> Cherry picked 3960X should be able to run 5900Mhz+...means bootable @ 59X multi



Are we already assuming these clock just like sandy bitch chips?


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 22, 2011)

sno.lcn said:


> Are new CPU models still coming out for s1156?  Will any new ones be coming out for s1366 when s2011 is released?



Sandy Bridge uses Socket 1155... 1156 was Lynnfield. 

There's been a rumor floating around XS that was first suggested over at [DH] that intel will drop prices on the 2500K/2600K from 219.99 to 199.99 and  314.99 to 289.99 to make way for a 2800K that will be 6 cores with no HT for 349.99 but this is PURELY speculation and i haven't seen any ES of it.



mlee49 said:


> A cherry picked 3960X LGA2011 *is up to* 47% faster than a stock 990x LGA1366.



Why would it be cherry picked? SB-E is already on B2 steppings. Hell C0 will probably be retail.


----------



## Steven B (Jul 22, 2011)

honestly the change is socket is probably why Intel has better performance, they aren't limited by the socket/chipset.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 22, 2011)

Steven B said:


> honestly the change is socket is probably why Intel has better performance, they aren't limited by the socket/chipset.



Amd wasn't limited by the sockets. They just decided to stay with AM2 to appease the masses and look where it has gotten them.


----------



## Steven B (Jul 22, 2011)

yea i am sure your right lol. Its either that, or its becuase their revenue is so much less than Intel that they don't bother, or can't. 

And yes you can be limited by a socket, by its # of pins just for vcc and ground for a CPU with so much more TDP is a big deal, add a few more cores, some PCI-E controller, IMC to quadchannel, and so on. 

if you notice with LGA1366 intel has a IOH(northbridge) and ICH(southbridge), with LGA2011 and LGA1155 there is only a PCH, like the A75 chipset(called FCH) if you are familiar with AMD. 

So AMD is still using a two part chipset, while Intel has moved to all single chipset. These moves, such as the testing of this with LGA1156, and then sticking with two for LGA1366, shows Intel has the ability to heavily modify the substructure other than the cores, while with lets say Phenom 2 they couldn't add an onboard PCI-E controller, they are limited to the NB, same with BD, they have to use that NB, they are also limited to power package, and thus they came out with true AM3+ boards, AM3 board will be limited and so on. 

Its a lot of confusion, Intel doesn't bring out new sockets every year.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 22, 2011)

Steven B said:


> yea i am sure your right lol. Its either that, or its becuase their revenue is so much less than Intel that they don't bother, or can't.
> 
> And yes you can be limited by a socket, by its # of pins just for vcc and ground for a CPU with so much more TDP is a big deal, add a few more cores, some PCI-E controller, IMC to quadchannel, and so on.
> 
> ...



Socket 2011 should be good till atleast 2013 as well as 1155. With Ivy Bridge and IB-E looming next year.. Its a great time to be an Intel fan


----------



## Platibus (Jul 23, 2011)

With all the talk about the sockets I have to ask: will Ivy Bridge requiere yet another socket?


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 23, 2011)

Platibus said:


> With all the talk about the sockets I have to ask: will Ivy Bridge requiere yet another socket?



No Ivy Bridge will be on Socket 1155


----------



## micropage7 (Jul 23, 2011)

yeah its the same thing that said over and over again
faster only seen in benchmark, and there many things that affect that in real life
40 some percent? its a nice improvement but we dont only pay for processor to build a rig


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 23, 2011)

micropage7 said:


> yeah its the same thing that said over and over again
> faster only seen in benchmark, and there many things that affect that in real life
> 40 some percent? its a nice improvement but we dont only pay for processor to build a rig



dont forget another motherboard


----------



## Frizz (Jul 23, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> No Ivy Bridge will be on Socket 1155



Huh? I thought Ivy Bridge was set to release with LGA 2011 mobos as the high end option for consumers


----------



## Steven B (Jul 23, 2011)

no iv y bridge will first be on LGA1155 probably in 4 core form. As IV is just a die-shrink of SB, it will be supported on the same socket. Supposedly IB will then go on lGA2011. 

Honestly if Intel doesn't fix their cold bug issues with SB-E they will have a problem with enthusiasts buying older x58 stuff.


----------



## Frizz (Jul 23, 2011)

Steven B said:


> no iv y bridge will first be on LGA1155 probably in 4 core form. As IV is just a die-shrink of SB, it will be supported on the same socket. Supposedly IB will then go on lGA2011.
> 
> Honestly if Intel doesn't fix their cold bug issues with SB-E they will have a problem with enthusiasts buying older x58 stuff.



Good new for me as I cbf changing mobos again ....this year...


----------



## kid41212003 (Jul 23, 2011)

random said:


> Good new for me as I cbf changing mobos again ....this year...



Lolz, i haven't changed my mobo for 3  years now.

And for upgrade's sake, i still can get the 6 cores on my mobo.


----------



## lashton (Jul 23, 2011)

lol eah intel where is thew 100MB L3 cache coming, all they do it whack up the L3 cache and call it a new CPU


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jul 23, 2011)

lashton said:


> lol eah intel where is thew 100MB L3 cache coming, all they do it whack up the L3 cache and call it a new CPU



Maybe AMD does, but Intel actually takes the time to make a new architecture.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 23, 2011)

random said:


> Huh? I thought Ivy Bridge was set to release with LGA 2011 mobos as the high end option for consumers









How many times are we going to have to go over this?

Socket 2011 - Sandy Bridge Enthusiast - Q4 2011, Ivy Bridge Enthusiast - Q1 2013
Socket 1155 - Sandy Bridge - Q1 2011, Ivy Bridge - Q2 2012

Before anyone asks.. Haswell Q3 2013 will be 22nm and might work on Socket 1155


----------



## AsRock (Jul 23, 2011)

Assimilator said:


> It's as if AMD's Bulldozer architecture cried out in terror, and was suddenly silenced.
> 
> By a curbstomp.
> 
> From a mech.



Thing is INTEL want your pay checks for a month for their stuff.

Whats turning me of INTEL is noit just the price is they keep changing the sockets every time some one farts.


----------



## Pestilence (Jul 23, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Thing is INTEL want your pay checks for a month for their stuff.
> 
> Whats turning me of INTEL is noit just the price is they keep changing the sockets every time some one farts.



A month? I can purchase an 990X processor with 1 weeks paycheck. Do you think everyone on TPU works at Mcdonalds?


----------



## HammerON (Jul 23, 2011)

This looks like it could be a massive crunching cpu (World Community Grid or folding@home)! Will just have to wait for real-world results when released...


----------



## HTC (Jul 23, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> *A month? I can purchase an 990X processor with 1 weeks paycheck.* Do you think everyone on TPU works at Mcdonalds?



Apparently, your job pays well: not everyone's as lucky.

I would need 2 month's paycheck to be able to afford it.


----------



## NC37 (Jul 23, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> A month? I can purchase an 990X processor with 1 weeks paycheck. Do you think everyone on TPU works at Mcdonalds?



Some people are dealing with less hours and corporations which are refusing to allow overtime anymore. Its not simply working at McDonalds for minimum wage. Heck I'm making roughly half what I used to because of such tricks. Just haven't been good openings elsewhere to transfer out.

When you are working with such constraints, the money saved from not going Intel can be better used towards other parts. Why spend everything on the CPU and nerf the rest when you can afford to go better parts all together by going AMD?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 23, 2011)

NC37 said:


> Some people are dealing with less hours and corporations which are refusing to allow overtime anymore. Its not simply working at McDonalds for minimum wage. Heck I'm making roughly half what I used to because of such tricks. Just haven't been good openings elsewhere to transfer out.
> 
> When you are working with such constraints, the money saved from not going Intel can be better used towards other parts. Why spend everything on the CPU and nerf the rest when you can afford to go better parts all together by going AMD?



Because I'd rather not nerf anything at all, and just save longer for what I want.


----------



## Zubasa (Jul 23, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> A month? I can purchase an 990X processor with 1 weeks paycheck. Do you think everyone on TPU works at Mcdonalds?


Many people have family to feed and children who needs school.
Not every one have the spare cash for this stuff.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 23, 2011)

Zubasa said:


> Many people have family to feed and children who needs school.
> Not every one have the spare cash for this stuff.



Save longer.


----------



## pr0n Inspector (Jul 23, 2011)

"No!! Why is the DBS so expensive?! I NEED one but I only make 3000 dollars a month! WTF Aston Martin!"

Un-fuck your priorities please.


----------



## Trackr (Jul 23, 2011)

btarunr said:


> From these test results, the Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition is pitched to be about 47.25% faster on average, compared to Core i7-990X Extreme Edition.





Wow, you took the results of 4 realistic tests (10-30%), and averaged it out with the results of 4 COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC tests yielding 110% improvement..

Then you postered it as the title of this thread.

CANNOT .. HOLD .. BACK .. FACEPALM


----------



## wolf (Jul 23, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> How many times are we going to have to go over this?
> 
> Socket 2011 - Sandy Bridge Enthusiast - Q4 2011, Ivy Bridge Enthusiast - Q1 2013
> Socket 1155 - Sandy Bridge - Q1 2011, Ivy Bridge - Q2 2012



my only question about this is will current H67 and P67 chipsets support Ivy Bridge 1155 chips, or will we need a new 1155 board becuase it has a new chipset.

as for this new i7.... freakin wow. ~47% faster with the same amount of logical/physical cores, and a lower clock speed, bar turbo.

Intel you've done it again.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 23, 2011)

is this chip going to have a intergrated graphics processor built in? if it has i'll stick with what i've got


----------



## TheGuruStud (Jul 23, 2011)

Assimilator said:


> It's as if AMD's Bulldozer architecture cried out in terror, and was suddenly silenced.
> 
> By a curbstomp.
> 
> From a mech.



Believing intel marketing is like believing in sky fairies. None of it's real 

Regarding AVX, intel's is flawed. It won't be able to chew through it like bulldozer (theoretically lol).


----------



## Platibus (Jul 23, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> A month? I can purchase an 990X processor with 1 weeks paycheck. Do you think everyone on TPU works at Mcdonalds?



Do you think everyone on TPU lives in a first world country? Oh wait, most of them do  Still, show some respect, man.:shadedshu
And thank for answering my question. I'm hoping to get a SB i5 with a H67 MB for christmas, and if what you say is true I could upgrade to IB on the same platform \m/ Thanks again.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 23, 2011)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> is this chip going to have a intergrated graphics processor built in? if it has i'll stick with what i've got




according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_2011 it hasn't 

dammit now i want one


----------



## nINJAkECIL (Jul 23, 2011)

looking at the pics of some lga2011 mobos,they dont has video output, so i'm sure all lga2011 doesnt has integrated gpu.
even if it does,who buys a 1000 dollar cpu and NOT using dedicated gpu? hell they would even goes multi-gpu setup.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 23, 2011)

AsRock said:


> Thing is INTEL want your pay checks for a month for their stuff.
> 
> Whats turning me of INTEL is noit just the price is they keep changing the sockets every time some one farts.



They have different option to suite your needs. Its as simple as find one that fits and run with it.  I choose 1156. I7 860.   Haven't found anything it can't handle yet.  Will upgrade because I can to 2011. Will give 1156 to wife and it  will keep her happy for about ... 10 years.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 24, 2011)

Trackr said:


> Wow, you took the results of 4 realistic tests (10-30%), and averaged it out with the results of 4 COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC tests yielding 110% improvement..
> 
> Then you postered it as the title of this thread.
> 
> CANNOT .. HOLD .. BACK .. FACEPALM



You have no reason to facepalm. If anybody should be on the receiving end of one, it's you. What part of "From these test results" is difficult for you to follow? Seems to me he made it perfectly clear the results were from a very specific set of circumstances.


----------



## Jonap_1st (Jul 24, 2011)

nINJAkECIL said:


> looking at the pics of some lga2011 mobos,they dont has video output, so i'm sure all lga2011 doesnt has integrated gpu.
> even if it does,who buys a 1000 dollar cpu and NOT using dedicated gpu? hell they would even goes multi-gpu setup.



talking about overkill the gpu


----------



## swaaye (Jul 24, 2011)

ensabrenoir said:


> Will give 1156 to wife and it  will keep her happy for about ... 10 years.


Yeah I'm still helping people with their Athlon XPs and P4s. It's something how we used to think that was speed. Hell, I used to think 486s were inspiring.


----------



## bostonbuddy (Jul 24, 2011)

swaaye said:


> Yeah I'm still helping people with their Athlon XPs and P4s. It's something how we used to think that was speed. Hell, I used to think 486s were inspiring.



I'm sure in a few years i7s will be laughable


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jul 24, 2011)

Same.  I'm about the only one in the area with a Core i7.  Most are between Athlon XP/Pentium 4 and early Core 2/Athlon X2 (AM2).

Most people don't game on their computer around here so they have little/no reason to get a high performance nor modern computer.  Internet, email, Word, and Excel is all they care about and a Atom processor can handle that.


----------



## mastrdrver (Jul 24, 2011)

TheMailMan78 said:


> 47% = 23.5% in the marketing world.



....and by looking at the slides that 23.5% = ~10% in reality.......of the benchmark world. In other words, the only performance improvement that is seen in actually using a program is because of clock speeds.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Jul 24, 2011)

swaaye said:


> Yeah I'm still helping people with their Athlon XPs and P4s. It's something how we used to think that was speed. Hell, I used to think 486s were inspiring.




Dude when i got a p4 with hyper threading you couldn't tell me nothing.     But going from that p4 with ht to an i7 with an ssd. ....   Gonna take years to capture that feeling again.


----------



## Googoo24 (Jul 24, 2011)

wolf said:


> my only question about this is will current H67 and P67 chipsets support Ivy Bridge 1155 chips, or will we need a new 1155 board becuase it has a new chipset.
> 
> as for this new i7.... freakin wow. ~47% faster with the same amount of logical/physical cores, and a lower clock speed, bar turbo.
> 
> ...



I'm a bit confused......Why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't this expected?


----------



## LordJummy (Jul 25, 2011)

Googoo24 said:


> I'm a bit confused......Why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't this expected?



That's not why people are excited. People are excited because the new intel cpu's will be the most powerful single desktop CPU's on the planet. Most of us who like to buy high end intel processors don't care that the AMD processor is much cheaper, because it doesn't compete in performance. A lot of people seem to be unable to realize this...

To some people it's not about cost. It is purely about performance, and if AMD can't compete then I won't use it if it's FREE. Well, I might use it for my wife's PC's....


----------



## Googoo24 (Jul 25, 2011)

If it's not about cost, then of course you would go with this particular Intel CPU. It's guaranteed to be the more powerful product. Why would anyone expect less of an  $800 (potentially $1000) Intel cpu? Did anyone really expect AMD's $300 CPU, which they've slated as competition for SB, to compete with this beast? And we still don't know if it even surpasses that.

Unless the conclusion is that Bulldozer will surpass SB, why would anyone be concerned about this thing crushing Bulldozer? That's all I'm baffled about. This product is exciting, but if history repeats itself, I'll be damned if I can afford one.


----------



## Steven B (Jul 25, 2011)

if AMD is charging $300 for a CPu that stands up to Intel sandybridge then AMD has a problem(B/C a 2600K is less), as Intel will release a market segment at that same price range with better performance like they have done with i7 930.


----------



## Googoo24 (Jul 25, 2011)

Steven B said:


> if AMD is charging $300 for a CPu that stands up to Intel sandybridge then AMD has a problem(B/C a 2600K is less), as Intel will release a market segment at that same price range with better performance like they have done with i7 930.



AMD's doing the same thing, essentially. There will be 3 products utilizing the Bulldozer name. Next year (whenever) is supposed to see the release of enhanced Bulldozer (running on a new socket, so probably not the same thing as you mention) and an APU using a Bulldozer CPU. They're also releasing newer steppings of the current architecture.

But, meh, the Core i7-3960X will slap anything currently in existence silly.


----------



## LordJummy (Jul 25, 2011)

Googoo24 said:


> If it's not about cost, then of course you would go with this particular Intel CPU. It's guaranteed to be the more powerful product. Why would anyone expect less of an  $800 (potentially $1000) Intel cpu? Did anyone really expect AMD's $300 CPU, which they've slated as competition for SB, to compete with this beast? And we still don't know if it even surpasses that.
> 
> Unless the conclusion is that Bulldozer will surpass SB, why would anyone be concerned about this thing crushing Bulldozer? That's all I'm baffled about. This product is exciting, but if history repeats itself, I'll be damned if I can afford one.



You are seriously misunderstanding the entire thing.

The point is AMD doesn't, and won't have a processor that competes with the high end intel cpu's, PERIOD. Price is an issue for some, but generally it isn't for those who want the best performance possible. Do you understand that?

I'm not commenting on anything else in this thread or SB vs. bulldozer, etc, etc. I'm simply letting you know that some people care only about having the best performance possible, and they aren't going to sacrifice performance to save $500+. If cost is an issue, then get what suits your budget, but don't bad mouth people who want to spend $1k+ on a processor from intel.

Your whole point is like saying "Why would someone want to buy a BMW M6 when they could get a KIA for so much cheaper, and it drives just fine?" Get my point?

PS: this thread is about an intel processor, and is not about bulldozer even if some people mention it.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> You are seriously misunderstanding the entire thing.
> 
> The point is AMD doesn't, and won't have a processor that competes with the high end intel cpu's, PERIOD. Price is an issue for some, but generally it isn't for those who want the best performance possible. Do you understand that?
> 
> ...


I'm one of those people. I save my money to buy the fastest at the time I'm ready to purchase. I don't do the routine that most budget enthusiast go thru where they buy a budget product, then buy the next step or 2 up a couple months later, etc., etc. Those people generally spend just as much as me in the long run, but it's compromise after compromise. Unless, of course, they just like testing new hardware, that's different.

I just keep using my old top end hardware until I can afford the new top end hardware. I usually use a tic-toc approach (with one year between tics and tocs). CPU & whatever else needed to make it run on tics and gpu on tocs. Bought my cpu, mobo and ram last year(upgrade from QX9650 2 years prior), bought the 580 this year (upgrade from 4870X2 2 years prior). Next year I'm due for a CPU upgrade, but I'll postpone this one to get a high end 8 core chip


----------



## Googoo24 (Jul 25, 2011)

> You are seriously misunderstanding the entire thing.
> 
> The point is AMD doesn't, and won't have a processor that competes with the high end intel cpu's, PERIOD. Price is an issue for some, but generally it isn't for those who want the best performance possible. Do you understand that?
> 
> I'm not commenting on anything else in this thread or SB vs. bulldozer, etc, etc. I'm simply letting you know that some people care only about having the best performance possible, and they aren't going to sacrifice performance to save $500+. If cost is an issue, then get what suits your budget, but don't bad mouth people who want to spend $1k+ on a processor from intel.



And you are you telling me this, why? My whole point was why are people bringing up Bulldozer in this topic. Period. Did you understand that?

Where did I indicate that people shouldn't be excited about this product, or that the only reason they are excited is because of BD crushing? Hell, I'm excited about this product.




> Your whole point is like saying "Why would someone want to buy a BMW M6 when they could get a KIA for so much cheaper, and it drives just fine?" Get my point?



Gee, I don't recollect saying (or indicating) anything of the sort. Here's what I wrote; I'll quote myself for posterity's sake.



> I'm a bit confused......Why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't this expected?



Notice I didn't say "why are folks excited over this product?," I said, "why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't that expected."

Me quoting someone with a toppled Bulldozer gif, and saying "wasn't that expected" should have made my point blatantly obvious.




> PS: this thread is about an intel processor, and is not about bulldozer even if some people mention it.



Yeah. I know.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I'm one of those people. I save my money to buy the fastest at the time I'm ready to purchase. I don't do the routine that most budget enthusiast go thru where they buy a budget product, then buy the next step or 2 up a couple months later, etc., etc. Those people generally spend just as much as me in the long run, but it's compromise after compromise. Unless, of course, they just like testing new hardware, that's different.
> 
> I just keep using my old top end hardware until I can afford the new top end hardware. I usually use a tic-toc approach (with one year between tics and tocs). CPU & whatever else needed to make it run on tics and gpu on tocs. Bought my cpu, mobo and ram last year(upgrade from QX9650 2 years prior), bought the 580 this year (upgrade from 4870X2 2 years prior). Next year I'm due for a CPU upgrade, but I'll postpone this one to get a high end 8 core chip



Willie, I have to say upgrade wise you are smart and disciplined.  Didn't you have a rampage with your QX9650. QX9650 is still a beast even today.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2011)

Yep, well sort of. Maximus Formula flashed to Rampage. Still have them both. They are now my file/media/mumble server.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Yep, well sort of. Maximus Formula flashed to Rampage. Still have them both. They are now my file/media/mumble server.



I miss that board as I recall we had the same set up but in my case for about 6 months and now I have a new intel system and just hit 5.0ghz on average air cooling unreal BD better be a monster.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2011)

Yeah, it's a good, stable board with good features.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jul 25, 2011)

I wish Intel would just pick a f!@#ing socket and stick with it like they did the 775. I can't afford to drop $500 every time they change it. I finally got on the i7 boat and before I knew it there's the 2600k taunting me, now this? >.< In my case their strategy is working against them because I'll wait and see what's going to be next. Watch, one week after this CPU is out they'll change the socket to LGA2012 and it'll be the end of the world when I flip out because I just got a 2011.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 25, 2011)

Lazzer408 said:


> I wish Intel would just pick a f!@#ing socket and stick with it like they did the 775. I can't afford to drop $500 every time they change it. I finally got on the i7 boat and before I knew it there's the 2600k taunting me, now this? >.< In my case their strategy is working against them because I'll wait and see what's going to be next. Watch, one week after this CPU is out they'll change the socket to LGA2012 and it'll be the end of the world when I flip out because I just got a 2011.



Yes AMD is unreal In that department, my last board supported like 30 plus cpus.


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2011)

Lazzer408 said:


> I wish Intel would just pick a f!@#ing socket and stick with it like they did the 775. I can't afford to drop $500 every time they change it. I finally got on the i7 boat and before I knew it there's the 2600k taunting me, now this? >.< In my case their strategy is working against them because I'll wait and see what's going to be next. Watch, one week after this CPU is out they'll change the socket to LGA2012 and it'll be the end of the world when I flip out because I just got a 2011.



I used to think that way, until I realized that by the time I'm ready to upgrade my CPU, I generally want a new board anyway. lol.


----------



## HammerON (Jul 25, 2011)

The 1366 socket has lasted me for over two years (7 different i7 920's and the current 2 i7 970's; and 6 different X58 motherboards). Motherboards need to keep up in their advancements/enhancements as well as other components so I look at two years as being pretty good.


----------



## wolf (Jul 25, 2011)

LordJummy said:


> The point is AMD doesn't, and won't have a processor that competes with the high end intel cpu's, PERIOD. Price is an issue for some, but generally it isn't for those who want the best performance possible. Do you understand that?
> 
> I'm not commenting on anything else in this thread or SB vs. bulldozer, etc, etc. I'm simply letting you know that some people care only about having the best performance possible, and they aren't going to sacrifice performance to save $500+. If cost is an issue, then get what suits your budget, but don't bad mouth people who want to spend $1k+ on a processor from intel.
> 
> Your whole point is like saying "Why would someone want to buy a BMW M6 when they could get a KIA for so much cheaper, and it drives just fine?" Get my point?





Googoo24 said:


> Notice I didn't say "why are folks excited over this product?," I said, "why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't that expected."
> 
> Me quoting someone with a toppled Bulldozer gif, and saying "wasn't that expected" should have made my point blatantly obvious.



I see both perspectives and I'm kinda sorry for even starting it. yes this will be one hec of a pricey CPU, much more than AMD's top offering, but in a sense that's also my point. I want AMD to get back in the game, through and though, and compete in every segment, instead of having to play second fiddle.

as for the car analogy, it's more like why would you buy a Porsche 911 Turbo instead of a Nissan GTR (at half the cost) when they deliver essentially the same performance. only in this case the pricier CPU should deliver quite a bit more performance.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jul 25, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I used to think that way, until I realized that by the time I'm ready to upgrade my CPU, I generally want a new board anyway. lol.



True but weren't you somewhat happy when your Q6600 ran in the same board your E6600 was in? And then it still supported your new Q9650? (For example).



HammerON said:


> The 1366 socket has lasted me for over two years (7 different i7 920's and the current 2 i7 970's; and 6 different X58 motherboards). Motherboards need to keep up in their advancements/enhancements as well as other components so I look at two years as being pretty good.



I don't think much has changed in the last 6 years to be honest. Not in the computer industry anyways. I'm currently on my old Q6600 box I pulled from the closet. I'm actually suprised it feels just as fast as my i7 rig. And what LordJummy said about AMD never wanting to compete... If AMD could sell a CPU that would slap the i7 out of the water and do it for 1/2 the cost of the i7 while still maintaining the same profits, would they? Damn right they would. lol

I only upgrade when I get a feel for Intel's direction. Lately they're all over the place. Too many options at once confuses the customer. Any marketing specialist knows that a confused consumer is a lost customer.

I went from a QX9650@4ghz to an i7 960@4ghz and only gained .1 in my WEI score.  Everything else stayed the same. I was recently considering a m-atx 2600k system and make it smaller, quieter, and more efficient then my current full tower but now I might wait.

I hope they don't make another "new" ram standard like DDR-4 CL50 4-channel before DDR3 comes in CL1. 

Any word to this new CPUs power consumption and overclocking abilities?


----------



## Wile E (Jul 25, 2011)

Lazzer408 said:


> True but weren't you somewhat happy when your Q6600 ran in the same board your E6600 was in? And then it still supported your new Q9650? (For example).



Only marginally. Before I started this tic toc approach, I probably only used more than one different cpu in the same board 2 different times. Once on Intel and once on AMD. I was always swapping boards looking for more as well as cpus. I realized, that for me, it ended up mostly moot.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 25, 2011)

Lazzer408 said:


> True but weren't you somewhat happy when your Q6600 ran in the same board your E6600 was in? And then it still supported your new Q9650? (For example).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed.  The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all.  I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz.   This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game.  I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one.  I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.


----------



## xenocide (Jul 25, 2011)

The difference between a 2500k and 2600k is pretty small for most tasks, but it was definitely a huge performance gain going from a Q6600 to a 2500k.  I usually only get a new CPU if I bought a lower-end one to start, or if a big jump in performance on the same platform occurs.  Back when Socket 939 was around I used like 3-4 different CPU's, but if I had just saved my money for a switch to say LGA775 for Core2Duo I would have been better off to be honest.


----------



## Xaser04 (Jul 25, 2011)

trt740 said:


> I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed.  The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all.  I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz.   This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game.  I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one.  I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.



I must admit, until I actually upgraded (very recently) to SB myself, I was very skeptical about just how much faster SB would be in real world use, boy was I wrong. 

I am currently in the process of doing a mini review of sorts comparing the games I run, at the settings I run at (so the only change is going to SB), and my jaw has hit the floor a couple of times with the results I have been achieving. In all cases the games were playable on the Phenom / HD6970 combo (hence I had a baseline) but SB has boosted framerates even further. 


Hightlights so far are that in Metro 2033 (1680x1050, DX11, Very high, AAA with Tessellation) I am seeing a 10fps boost in minimums and a ~8fps boost in the average. Now this is comparing a i5 2500k at stock (3.3-3.7GHz) against a Phenom II X3 B55 @ 4GHz (GPU being a HD6970).


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 25, 2011)

tbh i think i'm still going to buy an i7 990x simply because i can still use the antiquated xp on it 

ye ye i can here everyone saying move on ffs  but i'm happy with what i've got, 
and all i need is the processor, nothing else  

i hope the 990x will go down in price a little bit though, 

there was a few the other week at overclockers for £700  or about 1139.25 US$ but i hadn't planned on getting 1 till august (and wasn't quick enough ) and now they are back up to £773 or 1258.0575 US$ 

anyways by the time the i7 goes pop, they'll probably have bought out a new socket with sata 9 and pci express 5


----------



## xenocide (Jul 25, 2011)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> tbh i think i'm still going to buy an i7 990x simply because i can still use the antiquated xp on it



Sense... that makes not...



dr emulator (madmax) said:


> i hope the 990x will go down in price a little bit though,



Unlikely.  Ultra High-End CPU's usually don't budge much in price.  I know the FX-62 back in the day stayed around $1000 well after it was displaced from it's throne.  I believe it was the same with the highest Q9xxx CPU (on a much lower scale) too.


----------



## PaulieG (Jul 25, 2011)

trt740 said:


> I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed.  The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all.  I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz.   This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game.  I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one.  I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.



Now just add an SSD for your OS drive. Then the overall difference is just ungodly. Trust me on this.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Jul 25, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Sense... that makes not...
> 
> 
> 
> Unlikely.  Ultra High-End CPU's usually don't budge much in price.  I know the FX-62 back in the day stayed around $1000 well after it was displaced from it's throne.  I believe it was the same with the highest Q9xxx CPU (on a much lower scale) too.



ye it may not make any sense until you realise that i was going for a i7 980x in the first place for my new build, but didn't get one, not because of cost, but because noone at the shop could tell me what bios the motherboard came with, so i went with the i7 920 simply because of it being compatible out the box 

so as i said i'm going with one when i turn 39 (which is soon ) as a birthday present to myself


----------



## Lazzer408 (Jul 25, 2011)

trt740 said:


> I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed.  The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all.  I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz.   This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game.  I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one.  I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.



Arn't you running spinner hard drives anyways?  If so, I hardly see a CPU change helping your boot time. But you see what I'm saying. Sounds like it took awhile before a chip came out that impressed you. If I do jump on sandybridge now that'll probably be my last major build. I'm getting to old for this. lol Plus I'm afraid of what the price is going to be for Intels new ones.


----------



## sno.lcn (Jul 25, 2011)

Pestilence said:


> Sandy Bridge uses Socket 1155... 1156 was Lynnfield.
> 
> There's been a rumor floating around XS that was first suggested over at [DH] that intel will drop prices on the 2500K/2600K from 219.99 to 199.99 and  314.99 to 289.99 to make way for a 2800K that will be 6 cores with no HT for 349.99 but this is PURELY speculation and i haven't seen any ES of it.
> 
> ...



I know champ, I was pointing out that there won't be four (active) sockets


----------



## Wile E (Jul 26, 2011)

dr emulator (madmax) said:


> tbh i think i'm still going to buy an i7 990x simply because i can still use the antiquated xp on it
> 
> ye ye i can here everyone saying move on ffs  but i'm happy with what i've got,
> and all i need is the processor, nothing else
> ...


The more cores you have, the more ram you need to feed them. Even with the 990X, you should move away from XP. You just aren't using your hardware to it's potential in XP anymore. The 990X is a waste as an upgrade for you.

Seriously, PM me, I have a fully legit way for you to have 7 for free.


----------



## dr emulator (madmax) (Aug 22, 2011)

thanks for the offer Wile E i'll pm ya soon  (i'm moving house in the next week or so 
) 
ye i'll have to get some more ram  and an ssd , 

ye sure everyone, i could go with a 2011 processor, but i bet they'll be daft prices 
and i need my pc now not next year ,

although i'm kinda curious as to when they are bringing out the i7 995x and what that'll cost ,as they always bring the previous iteration down in price a bit (the last sold i7 980x went down to £650 or 1 072.435 US$ from about £750 or 1 237.425 US$  but i kinda missed the boat getting one  

nvm ey 

weird thing is one of the shops i was thinking of ordering the 990x from has shot there price up from £779 to £800 ,which is like an increase of about 34.64 US$


----------

