# Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition 6-core Processor Starts Selling



## btarunr (Oct 31, 2012)

Intel's newest flagship desktop processor, the Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition, started selling. In Singapore, the chip is being sold at S$ 1,425 (US $1,167), including local taxes. Based on the 32 nm "Sandy Bridge-E" silicon, and built in the LGA2011 package, the i7-3970X is a six-core processor clocked at 3.50 GHz, with maximum Turbo Boost frequency of 4.00 GHz. The six-core chip is bolstered by HyperThreading, enabling 12 logical CPUs, 256 KB L2 cache per core, 15 MB shared L3 cache, and a quad-channel DDR3 integrated memory controller, supporting up to 128 GB of memory. Surprisingly, the chip's 200 MHz speed bump over the Core i7-3960X affected its TDP, which is rated at 150W, up from 130W of the i7-3960X.



 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## RejZoR (Oct 31, 2012)

Not an 8 core. Boooooring...


----------



## btarunr (Oct 31, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Not an 8 core. Boooooring...



Buy an FX-8350 then. It should interest you.


----------



## de.das.dude (Oct 31, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Not an 8 core. Boooooring...



i was about to say that XD


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Oct 31, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Buy an FX-8350 then. It should interest you.



We want technology that actually delivers performance.:shadedshu


Intel hurry up and give us Ivy Bridge - E already!


----------



## btarunr (Oct 31, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> We want technology that actually delivers performance.:shadedshu



3970X already is the fastest processor money can buy.


----------



## LTUGamer (Oct 31, 2012)

It is better to take twice cheaper Core i7-3930K...


----------



## Wile E (Oct 31, 2012)

btarunr said:


> 3970X already is the fastest processor money can buy.



I still want more.

I'm not changing out my system until Intel gives me 8 cores with HT or better.


----------



## ChaoticG8R (Oct 31, 2012)

btarunr said:


> 3970X already is the fastest processor money can buy.



I think everyone here was hoping they had actually binned some chips where they didn't have to turn off two cores like the current LGA2011 chips require.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 31, 2012)

8-cores on Sandy Bridge-E silicon was never impossible for client CPUs, but at the kind of clock speeds Core i7 buyers look for, those chips would have to cut down clock speed to maintain acceptable TDP, and that would reduce per-core performance. The fastest Xeon E5-series chip based on this silicon, with 8-cores maintains 130W with 2.70 GHz core clock.


----------



## BazookaJoe (Oct 31, 2012)

Yeah, there are still MANY MANY applications & environments where "per-core" performance is way more important than collective total output.

And even then, if we are talking total throughput of a fully multi-threaded function,  most top Intel quad cores CAN  outperform an AMD 6 core, or Intel 6 core CAN  outperform an AMD 8 core depending on what you are doing. 

AMD may be good at "*bang for your buck*" but "*bang for your buck*" still translates to "*relatively lesser bang, but don't worry, it is also cheaper*" and when you don't just need bang, and instead need "*BOOM MOTHAFUNKA!*" Intel is the hands down champion.

I wish I had the budget for one of these.


----------



## repman244 (Oct 31, 2012)

btarunr said:


> 8-cores on Sandy Bridge-E silicon was never impossible for client CPUs, but at the kind of clock speeds Core i7 buyers look for, those chips would have to cut down clock speed to maintain acceptable TDP, and that would reduce per-core performance. The fastest Xeon E5-series chip based on this silicon, with 8-cores maintains 130W with 2.70 GHz core clock.



I doubt anyone would be looking at single thread performance for an 8 core SB chip. It would be used for crunching/rendering or any other heavy multithread scenario.
You can buy the 8 core Xeon but you cannot overclock it, and I've seen a lot of people who would like to have an unlocked 8 core SB (especially over at XS).

EDIT: seeing that this new EE CPU is rated at 150W of TDP I see no reason for not having an 8 core CPU (E5-2690 or clock it higher).


----------



## KissSh0t (Oct 31, 2012)

You could build a pretty good gaming system for the price of this CPU....


----------



## D4S4 (Oct 31, 2012)

why would the tdp be an issue? i doubt anyone but enthusiasts would buy these and enthusiasts most likely have a wc loop waiting for one.


----------



## radrok (Oct 31, 2012)

D4S4 said:


> why would the tdp be an issue? i doubt anyone but enthusiasts would buy these and enthusiasts most likely have a wc loop waiting for one.



This, I have a 1080 rad plus a couple of 420 in my loop, TDP would not be an issue at all, I could care less if the CPU draws 220W or more.


----------



## Morgoth (Oct 31, 2012)

im still waiting for prices to drop on 6 core LGA1366 Xeons


----------



## scazbala86 (Oct 31, 2012)

Tell me again how AMD not competing in the high end won't affect Intel's pricing? What happened to the $1k~ extreme edition pricing. :shadedshu


----------



## Octavean (Oct 31, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Buy an FX-8350 then. It should interest you.



Well I definitely want a new Intel Core i7-3970X Extreme Edition CPU and I don’t find the FX-8350 the least bit interesting.  I’ll be fine with my Core i7-3930K for a while though. I doubt that even Ivy Bridge-E would motivate an upgrade.  However, when Ivy Bridge-E is released I look forward to reading about it here at TPU,…!!!


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 31, 2012)

btarunr said:


> 8-cores on Sandy Bridge-E silicon was never impossible for client CPUs, but at the kind of clock speeds Core i7 buyers look for, those chips would have to cut down clock speed to maintain acceptable TDP, and that would reduce per-core performance. The fastest Xeon E5-series chip based on this silicon, with 8-cores maintains 130W with 2.70 GHz core clock.



Excellent point.  In the consumer market 6 faster cores are better than 8 slower cores.


----------



## Vlada011 (Oct 31, 2012)

That is power. I cross this year on Intel, before that more than 8 years with AMD. I have some Intels in past and AMD before that but last many years only AMD. 85% i used AMD.
I like OC with Intel more than with AMD and I will stay with Intel in next years. 
This 3930k, 3960x and 3970x is for me real Intel Extreme and for me only for that worth cross on 2011 from some other platform. 
AMD non stop you look around you, almost look is it enough or on Intel work better and how much better and than I decide to leave that. 
And it's to much for me when you need to OC 8cores on 5.0GHz and 300-400W consumption for same CINEBENCH results like i7 IB everything in heat go. Especially when you know single tread is Intel almost double faster and that's same usual things every day. Only that power consumption for 2 years difference between 8350 and 3770k you have for 3930k or you save fastest single Classified NVIDIA if choose Intel one beginning for two years.It's not because PSU power and heat... I never care for that and this moment but when you put on paper so much power consumption for one year period numbers are not so little, it's scary...

This Intel Black Extreme is ...
Because people compare AMD Vishera in some applications where people usually buy Extreme if work that kind of jobs and again Intel is much better than.
i5 and i7 is usual gaming CPUs, i7 you can use little for some jobs but real working CPU is i7 if you earn money with that every day.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Oct 31, 2012)

snore.... 32nm SB-E .... just a OCd 3930k? 2011 has done nothing to impress me and even more so when I don't see the point in dropping $1100+ on something that does what  a $400 cpu can.


----------



## trickson (Oct 31, 2012)

Too rich for my blood. Nice chip just way too much money! I can buy a car for that!


----------



## Lionheart (Oct 31, 2012)

Is it silly that the only thing I found interesting is the black box packaging?


----------



## drdeathx (Oct 31, 2012)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> snore.... 32nm SB-E .... just a OCd 3930k? 2011 has done nothing to impress me and even more so when I don't see the point in dropping $1100+ on something that does what  a $400 cpu can.





No its not. Ever hear of L3 cache?


----------



## camoxiong (Oct 31, 2012)

Damn for US $1,167 I can build a new system already


----------



## mtosev (Oct 31, 2012)

overpriced extreme cpus like always


----------



## Akrian (Oct 31, 2012)

Does it come with a free butler ? If they didn't include Alfred, then I'm not  buing it. =P


----------



## Disparia (Oct 31, 2012)

They should included a free Xeon Phi to make up for lack of cores...


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Oct 31, 2012)

drdeathx said:


> No its not. Ever hear of L3 cache?



Go smash your face into a wall... 3MB more L3 Cache isn't worth the extra coin... sorry.

I looked that the specs... I even know what L3 cache does and I am positive you wouldn't notice the difference of 3MB


----------



## The Von Matrices (Oct 31, 2012)

Morgoth said:


> im still waiting for prices to drop on 6 core LGA1366 Xeons



This will never occur.  They'll be discontinued before prices drop.


----------



## TheHunter (Oct 31, 2012)

They should release that IvyBridge-E 8core (16threads) already, instead of milking SB-e to death.. 


lol Intel u disappoint


----------



## m1dg3t (Oct 31, 2012)

I see the specs and i'm like "Oh! Interesting" then i see the price and i'm like "wTf is wrong with Intel?" then i remember there is no competition for them in this bracket  And so the monopoly/set pricing continues...

I have been looking at these EE CPUs for the last 8 years or so and i can honestly say that i don't think the pricing "scheme" has changed at all in that time. They still want ~ $1200 for a single CPU :shadedshu


----------



## largon (Oct 31, 2012)

Seems to me LGA2011 is heading the way of LGA1366. 
I have a feeling Intel might just axe IB-E altogether and launch a new HEDT platform based on Haswell in mid-late and leave LGA2011 out dying much like they did with LGA1366, only worse as this time as users hoping to upgrade to IB-E would have just aging SB-E to poke at.


----------



## Octavean (Oct 31, 2012)

Actually,  from my perspective the LGA2011 platform ranges in price from about ~$229.99 for the Core i7 3820 on up (at least for me at Microcenter). There are also Xeon E5 processors for way less then the EE line.

I think people look at EE chips, often like what they see then freak when they see the price.  I’m not saying it isn’t a justified sticker shock but clearly the product isn’t priced for you if its going to cause conniption fits. 

It’s a classic case of I want the best money can buy (or high-end) but don’t want to pay for it. EE pricing has always been consistently high from what I can recall so this is nothing new. 

Having said that, Intel has done there job with the lower-end LGA1155 platform very well indeed.  Therefore there is a lower cost but highly powerful option and this will likely continue on the upcoming LGA1150 platform as well.


----------



## Binge (Oct 31, 2012)

KissSh0t said:


> You could build a pretty good gaming system for the price of this CPU....



and you wouldn't be able to reduce your render times with a good gaming system.


----------



## tacosRcool (Oct 31, 2012)

overpriced...


----------



## jihadjoe (Nov 1, 2012)

tacosRcool said:


> overpriced...



Not gonna argue with that, but the price is including Singapore's GST. If you visit Singapore and buy the chip to use overseas, you can get a refund on the 7% tax.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 1, 2012)

btarunr said:


> The fastest Xeon E5-series chip based on this silicon, with 8-cores maintains 130W with 2.70 GHz core clock.



Someone is forgetting about the Xeon E5-2687W. 3.1Ghz, 3.8Ghz turbo, 8C, 150 Watt TDP.

http://ark.intel.com/products/64582...5-2687W-20M-Cache-3_10-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI

I also find that the 10Mb L3 is a nice perk with the 3820.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 1, 2012)

trickson said:


> Too rich for my blood. Nice chip just way too much money! I can buy a car for that!



Not bad but This is to be replaced next year by IVB-E already


----------



## Melvis (Nov 1, 2012)

150w??  and people are complaining about 8 core PD at 125w, seriously?


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2012)

Melvis said:


> 150w??  and people are complaining about 8 core PD at 125w, seriously?






Most people OC far above that. THAT is why it's an issue. Far different to start at 77W than to start @ 150 W...


I'm tempted to try to get a sample, but at 150W, I dunno.

4.0 GHz turbo clocks though...yeah, I'mma gonna ask for one. 


Because my current 3960X @ 5.0 GHz is too damn slow.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 1, 2012)

cadaveca said:


> Most people OC far above that. THAT is why it's an issue. Far different to start at 77W than to start @ 150 W...
> 
> 
> I'm tempted to try to get a sample, but at 150W, I dunno.
> ...



I can understand that for OC, but most people dont and honestly its a 6core CPU thats at 150w? in my eyes that pretty dam high considering AMD's 8 core dont ya think?


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 1, 2012)

Melvis said:


> I can understand that for OC, but most people dont and honestly its a 6core CPU thats at 150w? in my eyes that pretty dam high considering AMD's 8 core dont ya think?



I think they tend to overestimate the TDP in some cases - like the FX-4170 with a tdp of 125W.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 1, 2012)

Melvis said:


> I can understand that for OC, but most people dont and honestly its a 6core CPU thats at 150w? in my eyes that pretty dam high considering AMD's 8 core dont ya think?





dude12564 said:


> I think they tend to overestimate the TDP in some cases - like the FX-4170 with a tdp of 125W.



First TDP has nothing to do with power drawn..it has to do with the cooling needed. very different figures, and se yes, it's going to be overstated, because when it's understated ,the chip will overheat.


Yet......


I had 3960X pull 155 W @ STOCK. Through 8-pin only.


FX-4100 STOCK 122 W.


150W is NOT that high, really a 7950 or GTX670 is like 225W, cooled with a dinky little cage fan and a cooler that is barely an inch thick.:shadedshu


150 W is NOTHING.


Now, my 3770K, at stock, pulls 50 W.


But then, I don't see many others pulling 4.6 GHz or more @ less than 1.2 V, like my chip does, although there are definitely others out there... I've seen a handful better, for sure.

Silicon quality is actually in far greater variation than most think, it seems.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 1, 2012)

largon said:


> Seems to me LGA2011 is heading the way of LGA1366.
> I have a feeling Intel might just axe IB-E altogether and launch a new HEDT platform based on Haswell in mid-late and leave LGA2011 out dying much like they did with LGA1366, only worse as this time as users hoping to upgrade to IB-E would have just aging SB-E to poke at.



Ivy Bridge-E is a reality so far. LGA1366 lived through two micro-architectures: 45 nm Nehalem and 32 nm Westmere. I'd imagine the same for LGA2011: 32 nm SnB-E and 22 nm IvB-E.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 1, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> We want technology that actually delivers performance.:shadedshu
> 
> 
> Intel hurry up and give us Ivy Bridge - E already!



read this post and actually laughed my ass off for a sec.

can't wait for the TPU reviews to show that its not worth the extra money over the i7-3930k :shadedshu




Lionheart said:


> Is it silly that the only thing I found interesting is the black box packaging?



I haven't bought a AMD Chip for my personal rig in a long time (FX53 personal, JUSt purchased a A8-5600k for the HTPC); But I gotta say AMD does the packaging better.  Look at thos FX-8XXX boxes.  So nice.


----------



## largon (Nov 1, 2012)

btarunr said:


> Ivy Bridge-E is a reality so far.


_If_ IB-E actually launches I wonder how Ivy Bridge arch chippery can remain relevant against LGA1150 Haswell and it's Xeon counterparts that will launch before it. But ofcourse, it's another story if Haswell offers no CPU-side performance bump vs. Ivy...


----------



## SIGSEGV (Nov 1, 2012)

meh..


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 1, 2012)

Well, I got a 3820 knowing (or at least thinking that I knew,) that IVB-E was going to be coming down the road for skt2011. Intel did a good job with their 22nm chips, but I bet you they can do better. Look at SB-E over SB for example, SB-E added support for native DDR3-1600 where SB was native at 1333 and SB-E "supports" PCI-E 3.0 and plenty of it just to name a couple big ones. I suspect that IVB-E might have some Haswell-like features if SB-E was any indication.


----------



## Vego Actina (Nov 1, 2012)

question is: does it clock better

i have at e5 1660 from 2012 and it needs lower v for everything below 5ghz than my last 3960x

hope to see some improvement with thisone


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 1, 2012)

Vego Actina said:


> question is: does it clock better
> 
> i have at e5 1660 from 2012 and it needs lower v for everything below 5ghz than my last 3960x
> 
> hope to see some improvement with thisone



seems to be alot of vid cards just for a small monitor


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 1, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> seems to be alot of vid cards just for a small monitor



4-way SLI just has e-peen written all over it.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 1, 2012)

Any reviews yet?


----------



## radrok (Nov 1, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Any reviews yet?



I would not expect any performance surprise over a 3930K or 3960X, it's just a higher clocked 3960X, maybe they refined it with another stepping so it could clock higher but that's all.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 1, 2012)

largon said:


> _If_ IB-E actually launches I wonder how Ivy Bridge arch chippery can remain relevant against LGA1150 Haswell and it's Xeon counterparts that will launch before it. But ofcourse, it's another story if Haswell offers no CPU-side performance bump vs. Ivy...



And what about SB-E vs IVB?  

Its no question the SB-E products are far the superior chip to IvB.  The question is are you willing to spend the money for the HexaCore 2011 vs QuadCore 1155.  

And I'm pretty positive that when the HexaCore IvB will out perform Haswell 1150.  The only issue being Haswell will have a pretty nifty iGPU.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 2, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> And what about SB-E vs IVB?
> 
> Its no question the SB-E products are far the superior chip to IvB.  *The question is are you willing to spend the money for the HexaCore 2011 vs QuadCore 1155. *
> 
> And I'm pretty positive that when the HexaCore IvB will out perform Haswell 1150.  The only issue being Haswell will have a pretty nifty iGPU.



Why yes, yes I am.


----------



## Vego Actina (Nov 2, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> seems to be alot of vid cards just for a small monitor



i do not understand


----------



## mediasorcerer (Nov 2, 2012)

Very expensive, who really needs this much power for the price?


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 2, 2012)

My 3820 costed 300 USD, which at the time was cheaper than the 2600k, 2700k, and eventually cheaper than the 3770k when it came out. I would have to say that it is just as capable. Maybe not clock as high as a 2700k, but 4.5-4.8 is not unreasonable on a decent air cooler. With water, we've seen Dumo pump out some nice numbers when he was rocking a 3820. The IMC is very solid and the CPU is much more forgiving at higher voltages. I get about 60*C fully loadeded at 1.392v after LLC. How hot do you think a SB chip would be at that voltage? I bet it wouldn't be 60*C with the same cooler.


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 2, 2012)

[H]@RD5TUFF said:


> We want technology that actually delivers performance.:shadedshu
> 
> 
> Intel hurry up and give us Ivy Bridge - E already!














kthxbye


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 2, 2012)

Found also this:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive/6

For gaming users this proc is a HUGE waste of money....


----------



## sx452 (Nov 2, 2012)

the most expensive computer I want is cheaper than this processor. and it's not even 8-core. I have zero idea why anyone would care


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 2, 2012)

sx452 said:


> the most expensive computer I want is cheaper than this processor. and it's not even 8-core. I have zero idea why anyone would care



Why do the emirs which never worked 1 day in their life have a garage full of Ferrari, Lambo, Buggatti, etc etc etc....Same with ubber expensive CPU, GPU's, etc.....*E-PEN !!!*


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 2, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Why do the emirs which never worked 1 day in their life have a garage full of Ferrari, Lambo, Buggatti, etc etc etc....Same with ubber expensive CPU, GPU's, etc.....*E-PEN !!!*



Not even just for who has the larger internet dick, I would just like to have a real justification of owning a intel Extreme series CPU.


----------



## radrok (Nov 2, 2012)

When Gulftown came out with the i7 980x EE it completely wiped the floor with what was already present on consumer market and I gladly paid the premium to have the best IPC paired with a lot of physical cores on a single CPU.

I am a gamer and I require that my CPU is fast on lightly threaded workloads AND I am someone who works with a few rendering engines and 3D suites so I've seen tons of improvements compared to my old i7 920, which yes I didn't buy the EE when there was the i7 965 because that was just an unlocked multiplier 920 AND yes it would have been stupid to shell out 1k for that kind of difference.

On socket 2011 Intel has given us the chance to separate smart buyers from who just wants to throw their money at Intel, the 3930K is the only socket 2011 CPU that should be bought, the 3960/70X aren't even worth considering because the increased L3 cache (only 3MB) just doesn't make any difference nor justifies the premium.

What I am trying to say that there are smart buyers who happen to need the performance that is given by Intel enthusiast lineup, so if a CPU costs 1k but it makes me gain more I don't really see what's wrong on purchasing one.

After all you can't have strong multi threaded performance and strong lightly threaded performance with another platform, so if you happen to need both then you are stuck with Intel X chipset/socket.


----------



## largon (Nov 3, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-40.jpg
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-61.jpg
> 
> 
> kthxbye


I wonder if you could find more of such results? Some with non-synthetic benchies perhaps? Maybe it would be possible to find a couple slides where AMD is on top, but that's about it.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 3, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-40.jpg
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-61.jpg
> 
> 
> kthxbye



Way to cherry pick.




































Etc., Etc.


AMD lost in 29 out of 31 tests, including all gaming tests *AND* power consumption. Nice try.


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 3, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-40.jpg
> http://images.hardwarecanucks.com/image//skymtl/CPU/FX-8350/FX-8350-61.jpg
> 
> kthxbye


Cherry pick and troll less please. 



sx452 said:


> the most expensive computer I want is cheaper than this processor. and it's not even 8-core. I have zero idea why anyone would care



Just because it doesn't fit your needs doesn't mean that it won't fit someone elses' but there is a good bet that if the user benefits from a 6 core Intel chip, that they will benefit from a multi-processor system as well, so now you're in the realm of server CPUs that are just as expensive as the i7 EE. Just because you don't care doesn't mean others don't. I don't think I would have gotten the 3820 otherwise...



Rei86 said:


> Not even just for who has the larger internet dick, I would just like to have a real justification of owning a intel Extreme series CPU.


Encoding, rendering, servers, multi-threaded data compression, multi-threaded software compilation, the list can go on. Some people who actually work on computers for a living might see benefits from having systems that handle parallel tasks better than others. Not everyone builds a computer to just  play video games. I know that I certainly don't.


Wile E said:


> AMD lost in 29 out of 31 tests, including all gaming tests AND power consumption. Nice try.


Depends on what you consider when you say "Lost" because you know the 8350 isn't directly targetting SB-E, it's competing with the 3570k.


----------



## Melvis (Nov 3, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Found also this:
> 
> http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive/6
> 
> For gaming users this proc is a HUGE waste of money....



http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_7970_CPU_Scaling/

Dont link to anandtech there reviews on gaming is just crap, try linking to a place (like TPU) that has done a full game proper review  BD still behind but not as much as you think, and PD is even less again.

For a good review on the 8350 go here > http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_fx_8350_8320_6300_processor_4300_performance_review,1.html

Over all its even to the 2600K minus the gaming results, but of course nothing can touch the 12 threaded monster >i7-3970X


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 3, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Way to cherry pick.
> 
> Bla bla images bla
> 
> AMD lost in 29 out of 31 tests, including all gaming tests *AND* power consumption. Nice try.



Please come back when you've found images/slides where i7-3960X is 5x faster than FX-8350, you know... the price difference.


Thank you for playing, goodbye.

Yeah, I really have it in for fanboys and ignorant people in general.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Nov 3, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Please come back when you've found images/slides where i7-3960X is 5x faster than FX-8350, you know... the price difference.
> 
> 
> Thank you for playing, goodbye.
> Yeah, I really have it in for fanboys and ignorant people in general.



Wile-E is not a fan boy.

And for those whose money is no object, performance is everything.


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 3, 2012)

WhiteLotus said:


> Wile-E is not a fan boy.
> 
> And for those whose money is no object, performance is everything.



You're talking about those 0,4% of the market? Cool story. Not to mention, I'm sure they're all well informed *cough* indoctrinated by Intel people *cough* about what to buy.


My original post was a bitchslap reply to a post implying AMD is only words, performance-wise. So I made a proof-of-concept, Like a... "WOW, I just saved 80% off of spending on that 1grand+ processor and I'm still encrypting faster!"


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 3, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Please come back when you've found images/slides where i7-3960X is 5x faster than FX-8350, you know... the price difference.
> 
> 
> Thank you for playing, goodbye.
> ...



Even for low end CPUs, the performance doesn't scale like that, so how about you stop comparing apples or oranges and understand that the EE is targetting a much different audience than the 8150 and 8350. Clearly you have it in for yourself because you're being a hypocrite because your statements are pretty ignorant. 



WhiteLotus said:


> And for those whose money is no object, performance is everything.


That is what the extreme editions are for...



NeoXF said:


> You're talking about those 0,4% of the market? Cool story. Not to mention, I'm sure they're all well informed *cough* indoctrinated by Intel people *cough* about what to buy.
> 
> My original post was a bitchslap reply to a post implying AMD is only words, performance-wise. So I made a proof-of-concept, Like a... "WOW, I just saved 80% off of spending on that 1grand+ processor and I'm still encrypting faster!"



And in most cases, my 3820 out performs the 8150 and 8350 and I only spent 300 USD on that CPU. Just because I don't get 3x performance going to the 3960x from a 3820 doesn't mean that it isn't worth it, but once again the EE is one of the fastest CPUs you can get your hands on and Intel charges for that. Weather or not you want to pay for it is irrelevant, other people do because that is what they want and as WhiteLotus stated, when you are loaded with cash, you aim for the top. The 3960x might be a tiny portion of the share, but each of those people paid 1000 USD, so consider the revenue to Intel gets from it as well despite that it is a small market.

Not everyone's goal is to save money so obviously you have it in for yourself because you one of those ignorant people you've been talking about "having it in for." Stop trolling and get your head on straight, not everyone builds a computer for the reason reason that you do...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 3, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Even for low end CPUs, the performance doesn't scale like that, so how about you stop comparing apples or oranges and understand that the EE is targetting a much different audience than the 8150 and 8350. Clearly you have it in for yourself because you're being a hypocrite because your statements are pretty ignorant.
> 
> 
> That is what the extreme editions are for...
> ...



I look at the EEs as not necessarily for overclocking but the fact that they are the fastest CPU stock clocked from the factory. Its just like how the A64 FX, the Athlon XP 3200, were, I think the Mobility Athlon XP even called for a higher price than their desktop counterparts


----------



## Wile E (Nov 4, 2012)

NeoXF said:


> Please come back when you've found images/slides where i7-3960X is 5x faster than FX-8350, you know... the price difference.
> 
> 
> Thank you for playing, goodbye.
> ...


Your argument is invalid. A Porsche 911 Turbo is over twice as much as a Shelby GT500, but is not twice as fast. Price to performance is not a linear ratio in almost anything.

I'm not a fanboy. I bought the fastest cpu I could get for the money I was looking to spend. I had $1000 to spend on a cpu. I bought the 980X when it released. If AMD would've had something faster, I would've bought that. I am completely indifferent to brand. All I care is that the object I buy does what I desire within my price range.

This cpu will last at least another couple of years, at which point I'll again buy the fastest cpu I can in the $1000 price range (financial situation permitting).

Cost is not my concern on these upgrades, as I wait a few years between builds. So, instead of $300 every year, I save that money and buy the better cpu down the road. I'll generally only upgrade video cards and storage between builds, and wait until my cpu is a significant bottleneck before upgrading it. With the 980X, that's still quite a ways off.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 4, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> Encoding, rendering, servers, multi-threaded data compression, multi-threaded software compilation, the list can go on. Some people who actually work on computers for a living might see benefits from having systems that handle parallel tasks better than others. Not everyone builds a computer to just  play video games. I know that I certainly don't.



Forgive me, I thought those people would buy XEONs processors not those extreme craps. Just saying...


----------



## repman244 (Nov 4, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Forgive me, I thought those people would buy XEONs processors not those extreme craps. Just saying...



It's a big premium to pay over desktop CPU tho, it's the same reason why I bought my X6. Cheap 6 cores that do the job better than if I went with an X4.
It is slower in games yes, but a lot faster when you load all 6 cores.

The reason why Intel has these CPU's is: Because they can.
The reason why people buy it: Because they can.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 4, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Forgive me, I thought those people would buy XEONs processors not those extreme craps. Just saying...



Xeons cost more for the same performance level AND they aren't unlocked. Just saying.


----------



## radrok (Nov 4, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Xeons cost more for the same performance level AND they aren't unlocked. Just saying.



This is exactly why I don't buy Xeons.

Also Intel should leave the second QPI link intact on the EE and that alone would justify its price tag instead of leaving the job to only 3MB L3 Cache.

I'd be jumpin all over a couple of unlocked 6 cores CPUs, the Asus dual socket board doesn't cost that much over the RIVE.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 4, 2012)

Wile E said:


> Xeons cost more for the same performance level AND they aren't unlocked. Just saying.



Not exactly the same performance level... 

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc...l-xeon-e5-2687w-1074013/review#articleContent


----------



## repman244 (Nov 4, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> Not exactly the same performance level...
> 
> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc...l-xeon-e5-2687w-1074013/review#articleContent



You are comparing 8 core Xeon to a 6 core i7 CPU...compare the performance of a 6 core Xeon to an i7 6 core CPU and then also compare the costs.

And that's exactly what some want, an 8 core i7 CPU which would be somewhat cheaper than the Xeons and preferably be unlocked


----------



## btarunr (Nov 4, 2012)

This little gem slipped past me. 

http://ark.intel.com/products/64582...5-2687W-20M-Cache-3_10-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI

The fastest 8-core SnB-EP chip (3.10~3.80 GHz, 8 cores, 16 threads, 20 MB L3). $1800 a pop. Quite a few top X79 motherboards support it (eg: Gigabyte X79-UP4)


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 4, 2012)

btarunr said:


> This little gem slipped past me.
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/64582...5-2687W-20M-Cache-3_10-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI
> 
> The fastest 8-core SnB-EP chip (3.10~3.80 GHz, 8 cores, 16 threads, 20 MB L3). $1800 a pop. Quite a few top X79 motherboards support it (eg: Gigabyte X79-UP4)



Was that the unlocked one?


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2012)

dude12564 said:


> Was that the unlocked one?



I was under the impression that the skt2011 Xeons are locked and don't overclock well (or at all for that matter.)


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 4, 2012)

Aquinus said:


> I was under the impression that the skt2011 Xeons are locked and don't overclock well (or at all for that matter.)



That's what I heard - but then sometime later, I heard that this was the only unlocked one ... 

http://wccftech.com/intel-sandy-bridgeep-e52687w-processor-unveiled-features-8-cores150w-tdp/


----------



## repman244 (Nov 4, 2012)

dude12564 said:


> That's what I heard - but then sometime later, I heard that this was the only unlocked one ...
> 
> http://wccftech.com/intel-sandy-bridgeep-e52687w-processor-unveiled-features-8-cores150w-tdp/



That's an ES so that could be the reason. Trust me, if there were unlocked versions you would see them (especially at XS ).


----------



## dude12564 (Nov 4, 2012)

repman244 said:


> That's an ES so that could be the reason. Trust me, if there were unlocked versions you would see them (especially at XS ).



Makes sense.


----------



## radrok (Nov 4, 2012)

btarunr said:


> This little gem slipped past me.
> 
> http://ark.intel.com/products/64582...5-2687W-20M-Cache-3_10-GHz-8_00-GTs-Intel-QPI
> 
> The fastest 8-core SnB-EP chip (3.10~3.80 GHz, 8 cores, 16 threads, 20 MB L3). $1800 a pop. Quite a few top X79 motherboards support it (eg: Gigabyte X79-UP4)



That's what I want, an isevenified version of that SKU, of course unlocked.

Man, can anyone imagine that thing unlocked at 4,8-5,0 GHz?


----------



## Aquinus (Nov 4, 2012)

radrok said:


> Man, can anyone imagine that thing unlocked at 4,8-5,0 GHz?



Not on air. 
Maybe under water, but that would require some crazy thermal dissipation to satisfy the TDP at those kinds of power draws.


----------



## radrok (Nov 4, 2012)

Yes, of course, I do have a lot of radiator space for all that TDP


----------

