# Sandy Bridge-E Benchmarks Leaked: Disappointing Gaming Performance?



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

Just a handful of days ahead of Sandy Bridge-E's launch, a Chinese tech website, www.inpai.com.cn (Google translation) has done what Chinese tech websites do best and that's leak benchmarks and slides, Intel's NDA be damned. They pit the current i7-2600K quad core CPU against the upcoming i7-3960X hexa core CPU and compare them in several ways. The take home message appears to be that gaming performance on BF3 & Crysis 2 is identical, while the i7-3960X uses considerably more power, as one might expect from an extra two cores. The only advantage appears to come from the x264 & Cinebench tests. If these benchmarks prove accurate, then gamers might as well stick with the current generation Sandy Bridge CPUs, especially as they will drop in price, before being end of life'd. While this is all rather disappointing, it's best to take leaked benchmarks like this with a (big) grain of salt and wait for the usual gang of reputable websites to publish their reviews on launch day, November 14th. Softpedia reckons that these results are the real deal, however. There's more benchmarks and pictures after the jump.



 

 

 






 

 





 

 



*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

Thanks to Damn_Smooth for this awesome lead!


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 13, 2011)

So, what do Chinese benchmarks matter?  

Before anyone else points it out, we've heard the same from Tom's Hardware.  Even taking it with a grain of salt, this seems sadly disappointing.  Not disappointing enough to forego a ramdisk and awesome video processing, but definitely disappointing.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

I'll take this with a grain of salt... Besides, we know many games are GPU intensive

btw, Power consumption, more is better... yup very trustworthy lol


----------



## bear jesus (Nov 13, 2011)

I thought the architecture was really similar to the normal sandy bridge but with more cores so most games (single to 4 core using ones) would perform exactly the same at the same clocks?

*edit*
I forgot about the dual threading, would that possibly mean ones that use up to 8 threads could perform the same on a 2600k and 3960X?


----------



## Bundy (Nov 13, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I thought the architecture was really similar to the normal sandy bridge but with more cores so most games (single to 4 core using ones) would perform exactly the same at the same clocks?
> 
> *edit*
> I forgot about the dual threading, would that possibly mean ones that use up to 8 threads could perform the same on a 2600k and 3960X?



I agree. If they clock similarly at stock, they will perform similarly. These chart prove what we already know.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Nov 13, 2011)

Power consumption chart reads: More is better
Wait, what?


----------



## ShRoOmAlIsTiC (Nov 13, 2011)

same reason why the bulldozer was a so called fail.  these new processors will  be better when more games are made for 6+ cores.   plus it looks like the benchies were gpu limited.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 13, 2011)

If these are correct (which if you remember all the Bulldozer "benchmarks" that were BS, probably not) then it just goes to show how great Intel's current "Performance" platform (LGA 1155) is for current, realistic workloads. I'm sure some of us here have the $$$$ to throw at an "Extreme" LGA 2011 SB-E rig, 32GB of DDR3 and >9000 GTX 580 graphics cards to show off some fancy benchmark scores or whatever, but for those looking for great (but not maximum) performance in games and everyday tasks with sane pricing, I wouldn't be skeptical of what is supposed to be a mid-range platform that has already proven itself for nearly a year.


----------



## arnold_al_qadr (Nov 13, 2011)

power consumption, more is better??


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

bear jesus said:


> I thought the architecture was really similar to the normal sandy bridge but with more cores so most games (single to 4 core using ones) would perform exactly the same at the same clocks?



Higher IPC so you may need higher clocks to make up for in theory



bear jesus said:


> *edit*
> I forgot about the dual threading, would that possibly mean ones that use up to 8 threads could perform the same on a 2600k and 3960X?



HT actually decreases gaming performance. Games don't concurrently scale over 4 multiple cores, as it's just a few threads getting thrown across, which is one of the reasons why BD is underperforming.

Some people still haven't realized 2500k is the way to go. 2500k and a solid GPU. Anything else isn't worth it unless you simply want the best, or can't afford it.


----------



## 1c3d0g (Nov 13, 2011)

Uhm, duh.  If you're after gaming, you should go for Ivy Bridge, Haswell etc. If you're doing heavy lifting like HD video processing, BOINC/Folding@Home, in short anything that needs more processing power than a quad core can offer, then, and only then, is the Sandy Bridge-E for you.


----------



## Jstn7477 (Nov 13, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Power consumption chart reads: More is better
> Wait, what?



Only during Winter (and maybe on Thursdays). 

I'm enjoying my rig keeping my room warm while it does Folding@Home. Who needs heaters, anyway?


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Power consumption chart reads: More is better
> Wait, what?



Yeah, good innit?


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> btw, Power consumption, more is better... yup very trustworthy lol



Lol, that's the first thing I noticed too. 


I have doubts about these "slides" or whatever they are. If they are real.. "Dissapointing gaming performance"? Really? Since the SB platform can handle a GPU and the most demanding of games just fine, I don't see how having a SB-E or a processor two times the performance of that is going to make any difference. How about "SB-E benchmarks leaked" for a title?  I suppose one should understand that before making the statement that it dissapoints in games. X264 and Cinebench look to be promising. I see nothing disappointing about this chip with the information given.


----------



## hat (Nov 13, 2011)

>power consumption
>more is better


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> I have doubts about these "slides" or whatever they are. If they are real.. *"Dissapointing gaming performance"*? Really? Since the SB platform can handle a GPU and the most demanding of games just fine, I don't see how having a SB-E or a processor two times the performance of that is going to make any difference. How about "SB-E benchmarks leaked" for a title?  I suppose one should understand that before making the statement that it dissapoints in games. X264 and Cinebench look to be promising. I see nothing disappointing about this chip with the information given.



Well the article isn't in English. If you read the THG article (who tested the platform), they say the chip isn't suited for gaming due to it's size. Higher TDP, slower per-clock and when it costs $1000, you have no reason to get it over a $250 chip. That is given your primary object is gaming.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 13, 2011)

You guys make me want to bash my head against the wall sometimes. Leaked? Disappointing? Expectations are being met. Intel already showed us this. I am not linking to that damn preview again. Everyone should have seen it by now. X79 = people that need ass loads of ram. Nothing else.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> X79 = people that need ass loads of ram. Nothing else.



More like more cores (for renders and such) but...



LAN_deRf_HA said:


> X79 = people that need loads of ass.



can be said as well.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

These results do not look disappointing to me at all.

Since when is gaming the only relevant metric we measure cpus by?


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> These results do not look disappointing to me at all.
> 
> Since when is gaming the only relevant metric we measure cpus by?



I do, as well many people. Any CPU can run Windows just fine. Gaming performance is what matters. Well unless you do editing work, which breaks the formula. People build their systems for games, not for much else.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> I do, as well many people. Any CPU can run Windows just fine. Gaming performance is what matters. Well unless you do editing work, which breaks the formula. People build their systems for games, not for much else.



Actually, gamers are in the minority for people that buy and build computers.

And x264 performance is way more important to me than gaming performance. Any modern cpu games just fine in most cases, but try re-encoding BD's on a 2500K compared to a hexacore with HT.

So, if you ask me, gaming is the least useful metric in determining a cpu's performance capability. The hardware is way ahead of the software in gaming right now.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Power consumption chart reads: More is better
> Wait, what?





arnold_al_qadr said:


> power consumption, more is better??





hat said:


> >power consumption
> >more is better



Yea I beat you all to it lol



John Doe said:


> More like more cores (for renders and such) but...



I'm doing for RAM as a main reason



Wile E said:


> These results do not look disappointing to me at all.
> 
> Since when is gaming the only relevant metric we measure cpus by?



Since CPUs are the most important thing because the difference between a Q9650 and a 2500K is the difference between a 3850 and a 6850.... oh wait

I meant since I beat Chuck Norris... 

If you game only, most of the time 2500K is your best bet


----------



## LiveOrDie (Nov 13, 2011)

looks fine to me no real bench marks of games that really use CPU power like RTS games.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Actually, gamers are in the minority for people that buy and build computers.
> 
> And x264 performance is way more important to me than gaming performance. Any modern cpu games just fine in most cases, but try re-encoding BD's on a 2500K compared to a hexacore with HT.
> 
> So, if you ask me, gaming is the least useful metric in determining a cpu's performance capability. The hardware is way ahead of the software in gaming right now.



No, between the people here they aren't.

Also, you're wrong about the 2500k. Even in threaded situations, it's still capable of beating the Westmere architecture.

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles3/cpu/intel-ci7-limits-p2.html

If you ask _me_, I buy my CPU's mainly due to their gaming performance. That's what matters to people building PC's on these forums.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

I do not see a 2500k in those tests.

And the words "in these forums" was never once mentioned prior to this.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I do not see a 2500k in those tests.
> 
> And the words "in these forums" was never once mentioned prior to this.



You don't have to. Point is, Sandy is faster as long as you don't load it %100. It's faster per-clock, can OC more and does it under cooler temps.

I don't need to say that either. Just because you can afford a $1000 CPU, and have use for it, doesn't mean everyone else does. 2500k has the best balance right now, and, is the CPU to get. End of story.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> You don't have to. Point is, Sandy is faster as long as you don't load it %100. It's faster per-clock, can OC more and does it under cooler temps.
> 
> I don't need to say that either. Just because you can afford a $1000 CPU, and have use for it, doesn't mean everyone else does. 2500k has the best balance right now, and, is the CPU to get. *End of story.*



End of whose story? Certainly not mine. The fact is, you cannot speak for everybody, and gaming performance does not represent a cpu's true potential.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> End of whose story? Certainly not mine. The fact is, you cannot speak for everybody, and gaming performance does not represent a cpu's true potential.



That's right, I can't speak for everybody. However I can speak for majority. You, on the other hand, is speaking for minority. How many enthuasiast buy their systems mainly for decoding? They certainly aren't as much as people that build for gaming.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> That's right, I can't speak for everybody. However I can speak for majority. You, on the other hand, is speaking for minority. How many enthuasiast buy their systems mainly for decoding? They certainly aren't as much as people that build for gaming.



except the majority of the 2011 market is servers?


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> except the majority of the 2011 market is servers?



Except this forum or people on similar forums aren't in the corporate market.

Except you're asking me that when you know what we're actually on about.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

k fine, people who will buy 2011 will buy it for the extra features more than for the extra performance


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> k fine, people who will buy 2011 will buy it for the extra features more than for the extra performance



Thing is, this platform didn't deliver those as well. It was said to, but it didn't. That's why it doesn't look great. It lacks USB 3, PCI-E 3.0 (which currently doesn't have use) and so.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026.html


----------



## Over_Lord (Nov 13, 2011)

I don't see why anyone even needs to buy anything above Core i7 2600k for more than 90% gamers and otherwise.

No point really spending more than 300$ when it performs so admirably well, and can be overclocked to beat the crap out of additional core processors.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Thing is, this platform didn't deliver those as well. It was said to, but it didn't. That's why it doesn't look great. It lacks USB 3, PCI-E 3.0 (which currently doesn't have use) and so.
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-performance,3026.html



I'd hardly trust TH to know this for sure... It is said it will be an unlockable feature in mobos maybe... and there are already 4 USB 3 ports from the controllers which isn't bad


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

thunderising said:


> I don't see why anyone even needs to buy anything above Core i7 2600k for more than 90% gamers and otherwise.
> 
> No point really spending more than 300$ when it performs so admirably well, and can be overclocked to beat the crap out of additional core processors.



Yeah, the 2500k is even better for just games. If you need HT for multi-threaded work, 2700k happens to sell $10 more something. 2700k's seem to do over 5 Ghz easier than the 2600k does.



n-ster said:


> I'd hardly trust TH to know this for sure... It is said it will be an unlockable feature in mobos maybe... and there are already 4 USB 3 ports from the controllers which isn't bad



Neither do I trust TH most the time, but you can't deny that they "got" the hardware. One can say it's legitimate.

With that aside, they say they doubt mobo's will have those built-in. PCI-E expanders (like Lucid) break the original purpose of platform. You can have the same on Sandy.


----------



## ramcoza (Nov 13, 2011)

Why 1680x1050 resolution? What will be the benchmarks(Games) at 2560x1440 resolution? will it be the same story?


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

ramcoza said:


> Why 1680x1050 resolution? What will be the benchmarks(Games) at 2560x1440 resolution? will it be the same story?



It's better off testing at a lower res to take GPU out of equitation. You still need the same amount of CPU power regardless of resolution.


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

*Thread title is fine*

New architecture gives same gaming framerates as old architecture = disappointing. What's hard to see?

Of course, we need to hold our breath for the official results on release day to be sure, which is why I pose it as a question.


----------



## claylomax (Nov 13, 2011)

The question is: Can Sandy Bridge-E beat Bulldozer's "awesome" multi-GPU performance? http://hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

claylomax said:


> The question is: Can Sandy Bridge-E beat Bulldozer's "awesome" multi-GPU performance? http://hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/



Fail is fail I guess, no need to mention it again by going off-topic... but if I was to take it serious, even my old i7 870 can beat it. BD's performance is miserable.


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

ramcoza said:


> Why 1680x1050 resolution? What will be the benchmarks(Games) at 2560x1440 resolution? will it be the same story?



When benching CPU framerates, one should reduce the resolution as much as possible, to remove the GPU as the bottleneck, otherwise, you just get all the results for the CPUs under test topping out and hence showing the same performance, when they actually all have different performances. If anything 1680x1050 is too high and that's why they look the same in those slides. I would test at 800x600.

Regardless, I'll say it again, wait for the official benchies tomorrow before passing judgment.

And welcome to TPU.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> When benching CPU framerates, one should reduce the resolution as much as possible, to remove the GPU as the bottleneck, otherwise, you just get all the results for the CPUs under test topping out and hence showing the same performance, when they actually all have different performances. If anything 1680x1050 is too high and that's why they look the same in those slides. I would test at 800x600.



800x600:


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> 800x600:
> http://i.imgur.com/QVEn9.png



That's hard to believe. You got a link?

If it was true, then one would simply buy the cheapest CPU and be done with it.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> That's hard to believe. You got a link?
> 
> If it was true, then one would simply buy the cheapest CPU and be done with it.





You don't know what Touhou is? 

It's not exactly known for its graphics, considering the games were all made by one guy. So even if I don't have a 3960X yet, I'm sure that such results are true. AFAIK you can't do anything with the frame cap at 60fps, and even an Atom and Intel integrated graphics can play the game.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> New architecture gives same gaming framerates as old architecture = disappointing. What's hard to see?
> 
> Of course, we need to hold our breath for the official results on release day to be sure, which is why I pose it as a question.



Who actually games at horribly low resolutions anymore? If they do, I don't think they are the marketing target for these chips anyways. Theoreticaly if a GPU needs two "lanes" to achieve it's maximum performance adding more "lanes" won't make any difference. Now, unless this new CPU has a GPU that can work with a discreet GPU or perhaps magic it won't increase framerates in gaming.


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> You don't know what Touhou is?
> 
> It's not exactly known for its graphics, considering the games were all made by one guy. So even if I don't have a 3960X yet, I'm sure that such results are true. AFAIK you can't do anything with the frame cap at 60fps, and even an Atom and Intel integrated graphics can play the game.



No, I've never heard of it before, enlighten me?

And measuring gaming performance with a softaware frame cap or vsync on is pretty stupid, isn't it? :shadedshu



erocker said:


> Who actually games at horribly low resolutions anymore? If they do, I don't think they are the marketing target for these chips anyways. Theoreticaly if a GPU needs two "lanes" to achieve it's maximum performance adding more "lanes" won't make any difference. Now, unless this new CPU has a GPU that can work with a discreet GPU or perhaps magic it won't increase framerates in gaming.



One wouldn't game at it, but one would certainly bench at it when comparing CPU performance, to remove the GPU from the equation.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> One wouldn't game at it, but one would certainly bench at it when comparing CPU performance, to remove the GPU from the equation.



Which is a useless way to test a CPU as the data provided shows no useful and/or real world benefit. Benchmarks/applications that actually use the CPU show it as being quite a bit better than SB.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> No, I've never heard of it before, enlighten me?



Just go check it's page in Wikipedia, "Touhou Project."



qubit said:


> And measuring gaming performance with a softaware frame cap or vsync on is pretty stupid, isn't it? :shadedshu



Depends though. Comparing over 200 fps to another over 200fps is pretty stupid too. 

It should have been obvious already what I was trying to point out already. There are "benchmarks" where CPU power doesn't really matter at all. 

Touhou is just a very extreme and ridiculous example.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

erocker said:


> Which is a useless way to test a CPU as the data provided shows no useful and/or real world benefit. Benchmarks/applications that actually use the CPU show it as being quite a bit better than SB.



No, he's right. Numbers are numbers. If one chip is showen to be faster (regardless of resolution), you know it'll have more potential and less chance of a CPU slowdown. Look at this chart for example, he's limited by GPU (and game) so no difference.






---------------------

Then see this. At a lower resolution, there's a big difference in frametime (in a more CPU intensive case at the same time). This is a properly done test, that one above isn't:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=70,76&tid=3


----------



## ramcoza (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> When benching CPU framerates, one should reduce the resolution as much as possible, to remove the GPU as the bottleneck, otherwise, you just get all the results for the CPUs under test topping out and hence showing the same performance, when they actually all have different performances. If anything 1680x1050 is too high and that's why they look the same in those slides. I would test at 800x600.
> 
> Regardless, I'll say it again, wait for the official benchies tomorrow before passing judgment.



But I couldn't get the point. People who buy this series of CPUs will never play at such lower resolutions(whoever afford to buy this, should be already owning at least a top tier GPU & Display). So there is no sense to test it at lower res, even though you have to test it's processing power while gaming. Is it fair to test Today's CPU with a decade old configuration and come to a conclusion according to those results? I didn't stand for SB-E or Intel. I thought it's unfair to come to a conclusion with these low Res benchies. I may be wrong. But anyway we can find out the real story tomorrow..  



> And welcome to TPU.


Thank you..


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

ramcoza said:


> But I couldn't get the point. People who buy this series of CPUs will never play at such lower resolutions(whoever afford to buy this, should be already owning at least a top tier GPU & Display). So there is no sense to test it at lower res, even though you have to test it's processing power while gaming. Is it fair to test Today's CPU with a decade old configuration and come to a conclusion according to those results? I didn't stand for SB-E or Intel. I thought it's unfair to come to a conclusion with these low Res benchies. I may be wrong. But anyway we can find out the real story tomorrow..



You're thinking of it wrong. One can't test true potential of a CPU at high res (hence the GPU). You have to lower down resolution to take GPU out of question, only then you can see how fast a CPU can get. Look at this:

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=70,76&tid=3

Then this;


----------



## r9 (Nov 13, 2011)

It is funny how they promote CPUs. When they market Atoms they say how it can do everything why some one would need anything more and for Sandy they are trying to convince us that with anything less you could not surf the web.


----------



## Dent1 (Nov 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Besides, we know many games are GPU intensive



That rule was forgotten when Bulldozer was launched. And remembered when Sandy Bridge-E is showing signs of floppping.



Wile E said:


> gaming performance does not represent a cpu's true potential.



I wish people remembered that saying when Bulldozer was received negatively on launch.


----------



## Super XP (Nov 13, 2011)

This sounds quite logical, how much faster can Intel make its already fast CPU? If these Benchmarks reflect its true performance, then my question was answered.
I would also have agree with Wile E in regards to gaming performance does not represent a CPU’s True Potential, and IMO the blame needs to go to the lazy gaming developers.


----------



## ramcoza (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> You're thinking of it wrong. One can't test true potential of a CPU at high res (hence the GPU). You have to lower down resolution to take GPU out of question, only then you can see how fast a CPU can get. Look at this:
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=70,76&tid=3
> 
> ...



I understand, dude. You look at those chart again. So a $120 cpu matches $999 cpu and $245 AMD flagship at higher resolution. So what the past and present say is, a $120 CPU matched/matches flagship $999's performance(high res), when it comes to games. So why you see this weird when a $310 matches a probable $999 cpu in gaming performance(low res)?

What I told already is, the people, who buy this cpu will already have a top GPU, if not having a multiple card configuration. So they won't get any performance boost when comparing SB-E with an i3 even. But that is what the story we already know. 

The people who buy this CPU, will only buy this for bragging rights(having world fastes CPU) or to work with a heavy threaded environment like photoshop works, encordings, encryptions, etc., (like they did on i7 980x/990x). But one thing is for sure, this thing is not for me.


----------



## Disparia (Nov 13, 2011)

I'm liking it, as one of those few who game and get stuff done.

And on a strictly gaming perspective, I'm not disappointed either. Should be able to get four users running at a decent performance on a quad GPU, 32GB RAM, 6-core SB-E box.


----------



## dicobalt (Nov 13, 2011)

Just another case of "MOAR CORES!!!!!11"


----------



## KieX (Nov 13, 2011)

Disappointment? 6c/12t CPUs are intended for those that require performance for multi-threaded software (and those who can afford it for the sake of it).

These are chips for those who want to set new benchmark records, video editing/encoding, run distributed computing projects, run Virtual Machines... Which these benchmarks don't really show much of.

For gamers, the only realistic criteria is: how well does it run multiple-GPU setups. Which again.. these benchmarks aren't showing.

The one thing this does show is that per-core performance is as expected. So when the NDA is lifted, we should start seeing more meaningful results. And those who have money to spend for fun, won't care either way. If anyone thinks this is disappointing they really need to reconsider their point of view and vent their frustration at game devs


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> One wouldn't game at it, but one would certainly bench at it when comparing CPU performance, to remove the GPU from the equation.



For some reason, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion by various posters here over the above statement, starting with erocker:



erocker said:


> Which is a useless way to test a CPU as the data provided shows no useful and/or real world benefit. Benchmarks/applications that actually use the CPU show it as being quite a bit better than SB.



People, I don't see how I can put it any more clearly. The idea is to isolate each individual CPU's true performance, so the last thing you want to do is give the graphics card any significant work to do. Heck, if the card could be switched off altogether (possible in Unreal Tournament 2003/4) then you'd have an even more accurate result.

And it doesn't matter if one CPU achieves 200fps and the other 1200fps (6 times faster) you're measuring performance differences between them. This difference will become plenty obvious as time goes by and games become more demanding, giving the faster one a longer useful life. So for example, when the slower one achieves only a useless 10fps, the faster one will still be achieving 60fps and be highly useable.

Of course, it's also a good idea to supplement these tests with real-world resolutions too, as there can be unexpected results sometimes.

Thanks to John Doe for replying with some excellent answers to this misunderstanding. 





entropy13 said:


> Just go check it's page in Wikipedia, "Touhou Project."


Will do. 



entropy13 said:


> Depends though. Comparing over 200 fps to another over 200fps is pretty stupid too.



It isn't, as I've explained above in this post.




entropy13 said:


> It should have been obvious already what I was trying to point out already. *There are "benchmarks" where CPU power doesn't really matter at all*.
> 
> Touhou is just a very extreme and ridiculous example.



Yes, of course, lol. Benchmark a bunch of older games with vsync on and they'll all peg at a solid 60fps.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 13, 2011)

*mustangs and bugattis*

Um guys....*en·thu·si·ast*. CHIP. ENTHUSIAST as in sr2-ed  quad sli 580 or tri fired 6990s water cooled mountain mod case...you get the idea.  We have more money/credit than common sense will spend an extra $300 for a 3% increase... we want the best period. Not price/performance... just the highest high end. yeah we know the speed limit is 65 and the mustang  is an adequate sports car but no...give me that Bugatti. Thats the market for this thing. People who run six screens eyefinity.  Our 3 screened 6870 xfired logic don't apply.


----------



## MilkyWay (Nov 13, 2011)

What are people expecting? Its a tweaked Sandybridge with 2 extra cores. Its not going to be miles better just a bit better in some tasks due to the 6 cores.


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> What are people expecting? Its a tweaked Sandybridge with 2 extra cores. Its not going to be miles better just a bit better in some tasks due to the 6 cores.



I wish they'd hurry up and release an 8 core version. I'd totally nerd out to having one of those in my rig!


----------



## MilkyWay (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> I wish they'd hurry up and release an 8 core version. I'd totally nerd out to having one of those in my rig!



People would probably expect double the performance lol. Honestly id get a 2500k now with a decent motherboard and wait for Ivybridge (which im doing). I personally wouldn't even bother with Sandybridge-E.

An 8core version would cost me a house mortgage.


----------



## KieX (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> I wish they'd hurry up and release an 8 core version. I'd totally nerd out to having one of those in my rig!



They are releasing a bunch of 8c/16t on Xeon E5 platform. At this stage it's unknown whether they're compatible with the X79 chipset though.. and with up to 150W TDP it's also unknown what type of OC can be expected.

http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2011/2011102701_Prices_of_Xeon_E5-2600-series_CPUs.html


----------



## qubit (Nov 13, 2011)

MilkyWay said:


> People would probably expect double the performance lol. Honestly id get a 2500k now with a decent motherboard and wait for Ivybridge (which im doing). I personally wouldn't even bother with Sandybridge-E.
> 
> An 8core version would cost me a house mortgage.



Ah, you're right about the price. 

I'm waiting for the SB-E reviews tomorrow to decide. If it really doesn't provide a significant gaming boost and/or prices are sky high (they likely will) then I'll just get a 2700K and be done with it.

Note that while Ivy Bridge is an improvement over SB and has those high res integrated graphics, it's not considered an enthusiast platform by Intel.


----------



## johnnyfiive (Nov 13, 2011)

I highly doubt people who can afford a 2011 setup are even reading this with any inkling of giving a crap about what some random chinese benchmark says.

Gaming is almost always GPU limited anyway, especially when you compare Sandy Bridge to Sandy Bridge-E. 

Hey chinese people, leak something that actually matters.


----------



## radrok (Nov 13, 2011)

Can't wait to see some encoding and rendering results other than that (C4D)CB 11.5
Sandy Bridge was already an awesome architecture performance wise, 6 core Sandy Bridge-E will be more than awesome  

I'm not talking gaming wise though, can't really expect much improvement on them unless games start using 6+ threads


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> You're thinking of it wrong. One can't test true potential of a CPU at high res (hence the GPU). You have to lower down resolution to take GPU out of question, only then you can see how fast a CPU can get. Look at this:
> 
> http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/charts/index.php?pid=70,76&tid=3
> 
> ...



You're thinking of it wrong. One can't test the true potential of a cpu by using games, period.

Again, I don't care how many people here buy chip specifically for gaming. That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that gaming is still a TERRIBLE cpu benchmark. SB-E isn't the only thing I mention this about. 

All current chips will allow you to have essentially the same gaming experience, because they are not the main bottleneck. What I want to know is, who actually expected the 2 extra cores of SB-E to make a difference in gaming?

These results are not disappointing at all, they are expected. Games do not take advantage of this much cpu power. Anybody that expected a significant difference obviously hasn't been paying attention to the gaming industry.



Dent1 said:


> That rule was forgotten when Bulldozer was launched. And remembered when Sandy Bridge-E is showing signs of floppping.
> 
> 
> 
> I wish people remembered that saying when Bulldozer was received negatively on launch.



My negativity towards BD had nothing to do with gaming. I am disappointed in it's per core IPC.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 13, 2011)

This is nothing new and the same thing was evident last gen. 

Westmere vs Bloomfield/lynnfield.

Unless you are doing something that requires the extra cores there usually isn't much of a benefit.

Why this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me.

Nothing to see here move along folks!


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> One wouldn't game at it, but one would certainly bench at it when comparing CPU performance, to remove the GPU from the equation.



Except most don't realize that depending on VGA, this doesn't move the bottleneck from the GPU to the CPU...it moves it from the GPU to the memory controller. IT does NOT move the bottleneck to JUST the CPU proper.

Triangle and setup data is sent from the CPU to the GPU for every single frame, so really, by lowering resolution and increasing framerate, you are not exactly getting the same effect as it's portrayed by reviewers. You need to lower resolution, and NOT use a high powered-VGA, unless you are just testing CPU-GPU communication. It is NOT 100% just testing CPU performance, and this way of testing is SERIOUSLY flawed.

Falsely increasing the workload turns a real-world benchmark into a synthetic benchmark. Except this synthetic benchmarking practice has no correlation to real-world workloads, at all.


This is why I don't do CPU reviews. I WILL NOT review perforamcne for a CPU in the manner it is currently, by nearly every reviewer out there.


----------



## erocker (Nov 13, 2011)

qubit said:


> For some reason, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion by various posters here over the above statement, starting with erocker:
> 
> 
> 
> People, I don't see how I can put it any more clearly.




There's no confusion. The other actual CPU benchmarks give a good indication of what this chip is capable of. You seem to be the one who is confused, afterall, the title of your news post is a question. cadaveca and Wile E have the rest of my thoughts covered.




MilkyWay said:


> What are people expecting? Its a tweaked Sandybridge with 2 extra cores. Its not going to be miles better just a bit better in some tasks due to the 6 cores.



Thank you, well said.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 13, 2011)

Just a few observations...

The 3960X for all intents and purposes is a slightly slower version of the 2600K if the app uses up to 4C/8T  (3.3G vs 3.4G)

Gaming would depend heavily on how much of the coding load is handled by the CPU. Typically compute-heavy games (i.e. RTS- once the maps start filling up esp.) would likely show a small benefit for the hexcore.

Of the three commonly used methods to test CPU gaming performance, all could be said to be in some way flawed:
Testing a low res and/or 0xAA/0xAF takes the GPU out of the equation but isn't indicative of "real world" use, and not likely a scenario that anyone would encounter in actual gaming.

Testing at common resolution and default game i.q. more often than not presents a GPU-bound result...in which case a Core i3 makes as much sense as BD, i7 or Xeon

Testing at common res and standard game i.q. with CFX/SLI removes some of the GPU limiting factor...but can also introduce new factors - drivers and PCI-E bandwidth constraints- the latter probably minor, but would be an influence if you were testing quad GPU (say dual HD6990/GTX590) in a heads-up comparison ( X79 PCI-E @ 2 x 16 versus Z68 PCI-E @ 2 x 8)...adding a lane multiplier such as the NF200 would possibly open the system to increased latency also from what I understand.

From a personal PoV, I would use my system as much for content creation (Handbrake, Photoshop etc.) and productivity (Excel, PowerPoint etc.) as I do gaming. If the performance metric is in favour of all the apps I use then I would definitely consider the platform. I would like a better understanding of where the launch stepping/revision stands before I'd commit - My C0 step for Bloomfield was noticeably inferior to D0 I upgraded to.


----------



## jblanc03 (Nov 13, 2011)

*this processor is ment for SICK gamers*

You all forget that there is no z68 Motherboard that will support 4way-sli!

so those of you who want to do only 3 way, than this processor is a waste.

remember that this processor can handle 40 PCIE lanes.


----------



## lashton (Nov 13, 2011)

*lol amd vs Intel*

its funny everyones posiutive praise when intel releases early benchies and when AMD does it EVERYONE is critical, typical human population though, unintelligent


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 13, 2011)

lashton said:


> its funny everyones posiutive praise when intel releases early benchies and when AMD does it EVERYONE is critical, typical human population though, unintelligent



Haven't seen ANYONE "praising" Intel in this thread.

All I saw is everyone discussing the validity of how the benchmarks are presented, according to their own uses and needs. Nothing here is disappointing, as those htat tend to know hiow hardware works, realize that CPUs mean very little in day-to-day tasks, and most of us here game @ 1920x1080, not 1680x1050 or lower.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 13, 2011)

lashton said:


> its funny everyones posiutive praise when intel releases early benchies and when AMD does it EVERYONE is critical, typical human population though, unintelligent


Inpai is Intel ? I know they both start with "I" and have five letters, but you should realize they aren't actually the same outfit.

Tom's Hardware had an officially sanctioned preview of SB-E, in much the same way as Anand has in the past previewed Intel products (C2E,C2D,Bloomfield etc.)...AMD had no such preview for BD.

As far as I'm aware the only early benches for BD were people not bound by NDA (OBR in particular)....Inpai would seem to be of the same variety.

Keep up that "intelligent" posting


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

lashton said:


> its funny everyones posiutive praise when intel releases early benchies and when AMD does it EVERYONE is critical, typical human population though, unintelligent



Everybody has been trying to say SB-E sucks in this thread with others defending it, which turned into a benchmark validity discussion. I see no praise of intel either. 

BD failed, ESPECIALLY in the gaming department... You want us to fake it being godly?




claylomax said:


> The question is: Can Sandy Bridge-E beat Bulldozer's "awesome" multi-GPU performance? http://hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/



That's a great review, and I think that people who have the argument about how low res benchmarking isn't as useful as other types, this is a great example



Dent1 said:


> That rule was forgotten when Bulldozer was launched. And remembered when Sandy Bridge-E is showing signs of floppping.
> 
> I wish people remembered that saying when Bulldozer was received negatively on launch.



I'll give you that, but there is a reason. SB-E is at least as good as SB in gaming... BD is getting beat by old hardware like i7 870s or something. TBH, BD gets handed it's ass many times by intel, that is the reason of the low price. If it weren't for the price, BD would have been practically useless except in particular situations.



qubit said:


> For some reason, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion by various posters here over the above statement, starting with erocker:
> 
> People, I don't see how I can put it any more clearly. The idea is to isolate each individual CPU's true performance, so the last thing you want to do is give the graphics card any significant work to do. Heck, if the card could be switched off altogether (possible in Unreal Tournament 2003/4) then you'd have an even more accurate result.
> 
> ...



Ideally, you would be looking at gaming performance without the influence of GPU, but that is called a synthetic benchmark  sadly I got beat to it though lol



MilkyWay said:


> What are people expecting? Its a tweaked Sandybridge with 2 extra cores. Its not going to be miles better just a bit better in some tasks due to the 6 cores.



This is very true. The main advantages of SB-E are in the features and upgrade path



cadaveca said:


> Except most don't realize that depending on VGA, this doesn't move the bottleneck from the GPU to the CPU...it moves it from the GPU to the memory controller. IT does NOT move the bottleneck to JUST the CPU proper.
> 
> Triangle and setup data is sent from the CPU to the GPU for every single frame, so really, by lowering resolution and increasing framerate, you are not exactly getting the same effect as it's portrayed by reviewers. You need to lower resolution, and NOT use a high powered-VGA, unless you are just testing CPU-GPU communication. It is NOT 100% just testing CPU performance, and this way of testing is SERIOUSLY flawed.
> 
> ...



This. The more synthetic you make your game benchmark, the closer it will look like a synthetic benchmark and the further it will look like the gaming benchmarks. I think the best way is to have very CPU intensive games benchmarked if anything, but it is hard to benchmark a CPU, and technically you should benchmark the CPU in every possible way to truly be able to assess it's performance


----------



## General Lee (Nov 13, 2011)

It's not a big surprise that SB-E doesn't fair any better in gaming. Extra cores do little when games use 2-4 threads at best. Also SB-E doesn't improve IPC nor does it raise the clocks.

The only benefit for enthusiasts is more PCIe lanes for CF/SLI and even that is of limited benefit unless going for triple/quad SLI/CF with triple monitor resolutions.


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> No, Inpai is benchmarking Intel. We though you were talking about that?


Not really.
Here's lashton's quote:


			
				lashton said:
			
		

> when *intel releases *early benchies


This thread concerns someone posting benches to a tech site does it not? I don't see Intel *releasing* benchmarks here.



n-ster said:


> If not then you were completely off-topic with the first post


How so? My first post concerned benchmarking practice in general and my particular system usage. So how is...


			
				Me said:
			
		

> The 3960X for all intents and purposes is a slightly slower version of the 2600K if the app uses up to 4C/8T (3.3G vs 3.4G)...etc, etc...


...off topic ? I don't believe I wandered off into Bulldozer discussion like some.


n-ster said:


> we understand english at least as well as you do.


It's *E*nglish -requires capitalization


----------



## brandonwh64 (Nov 13, 2011)

I wouldn't expect SB-E to be a game changer in the gaming world. 2600K does very nicely for gaming. If you see the BF3 CPU benches, It doesn't take much to play the game even Athlon X2's were getting as much FPS as quads.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 13, 2011)

So my i7 920, running stably at 3.5 day to day, is still a viable cpu, I simply have to do without some of the modern interface like USB 3.0, Sata 3.0, PCI-e 3.0...I'm pretty much okay with that.


----------



## HalfAHertz (Nov 13, 2011)

SB-e Should be moderately faster in games than SB at stock because if games use more than 4 cores, they can utilize the 2 extra and if they use less, SB-e can clock to a higher turbo mode because of its higher TDP. Tho once you start overclocking that difference should indeed shrink.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

HumanSmoke said:


> Not really.
> Here's lashton's quote:
> 
> This thread concerns someone posting benches to a tech site does it not? I don't see Intel *releasing* benchmarks here.
> ...



Lol I confused you and lashton xD


----------



## HumanSmoke (Nov 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Your post was unnecessarily attacking towards cadaveca when all he did was bring an excellent point.


I did not either reference cadaveca, nor refute any of his argument. In fact I would say we are much closer in agreement than not...at least from my viewpoint.
My post was ENTIRELY in reply to lashton's argument...hence why I *quoted* him/her.

So, that makes two ill-directed presumptions on your part, including one as an excuse for the first.

I have a tendency to re-evaluate a stance, and to apologise if my original position is found to be in error...doesn't look like I'm in any danger of starting a trend, does it?


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

HumanSmoke said:


> I did not either reference cadaveca, nor refute any of his argument. In fact I would say we are much closer in agreement than not...at least from my viewpoint.
> My post was ENTIRELY in reply to lashton's argument...hence why I *quoted* him/her.
> 
> So, that makes two ill-directed presumptions on your part, including one as an excuse for the first.
> ...



ZOMG I can't read lol sorry my bad  Makes much more sense now 

rofl I made a fool out of myself for a bit there


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> You're thinking of it wrong. One can't test the true potential of a cpu by using games, period.
> 
> Again, I don't care how many people here buy chip specifically for gaming. That has absolutely no bearing on the fact that gaming is still a TERRIBLE cpu benchmark. SB-E isn't the only thing I mention this about.



Uhm, yeah. Just because games don't load up a chip to %100, doesn't mean they're a "terrible" way of testing. The Supreme Commander bench I regularly refer to is a good way of measurement. It scales well over multiple cores while giving performance numbers in _frametime_, which actually is more relavent than FPS; since FPS stands for how many frames you see per-clock, and frametime = how fast an instruction will come up. So a shorter frametime equals to faster response, which is what you want out of a CPU.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Uhm, yeah. *Just because games don't load up a chip to %100, doesn't mean they're "terrible".* The Supreme Commander bench I regularly refer to is a good way of measurement. It scales well over multiple cores while giving performance numbers in _frametime_, which actually is more relavent than FPS; since FPS stands for how many frames you see per-clock, and frametime = how fast an instruction will come up. So a shorter frametime equals to faster response, which is what you want out of a CPU.



Ummm, that's actually *EXACTLY* what that means.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Ummm, that's actually *EXACTLY* what that means.



No, it doesn't. Per-thread performance is what matters, not total performance. The chips rarely get %100 usage, so your point doesn't make much sense. Although BD is a 4+4 core logic, it clearly loses to a quad core even when the software is heavily threaded. BD's problem for example is lack of per-thread performance.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> No, it doesn't. Per-thread performance is what matters, not total performance. The chips rarely get %100 usage, so your point doesn't make much sense. Although BD is a 4+4 core logic, it clearly loses to a quad core even when the software is heavily threaded. BD's problem for example is lack of per-thread performance.



But doesn't BD lack total performance as well?


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> No, it doesn't. Per-thread performance is what matters, not total performance. The chips rarely get %100 usage, so your point doesn't make much sense. Although BD is a 4+4 core logic, it clearly loses to a quad core even when the software is heavily threaded. BD's problem for example is lack of per-thread performance.



Nope, total performance is what matters when talking about the available power in a cpu.

Whether you need that power or not is another matter altogether.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> BD's problem for example is lack of per-thread performance.



This is the biggest mis-conception floating around currently. Alot of people will focus on the poor single-thread test results, but not one person has properly identified WHY single-thread performacne in BD is "subpar". Now that I have a chip, I think I can safely say that what I surmised about "why BD performance would not be exciting" prior to the launch, is correct.


Likewise, when it comes to SB-E, unless you truly understand where the extra performance comes in, of course it's going to look poor.

Of course, there is still NDA on SB-E, but that's not something I signed, myself. I can comment all I like about performance, and all I have to say is that I think benchmarking practice by many sites is flawed, and until those practices change, true performance comparisons with actual meaning to end users is not possible. I eagerly await reviews to see what people say. I don't expect much. And I'm NOT talking about performance.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

n-ster said:


> But doesn't BD lack total performance as well?



Yes, but it has more potential under threaded situations. It's more suited for server enviroments and such with being closer to an 8 core CPU than a 4 core chip with HT.



Wile E said:


> Nope, total performance is what matters when talking about the available power in a cpu.
> 
> Whether you need that power or not is another matter altogether.



False. It's about how you distribute that power. Single threaded, multi-threaded etc. You can have a ton of slow cores (say Quad Opteron) yet it'll get outperformed by a Sandy chip. Have a read on the IXBT link, Gulftown loses to Sandy although it has more threads (even in multi-threaded apps).


----------



## Wile E (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Yes, but it has more potential under threaded situations. It's more suited for server enviroments and such with being closer to an 8 core CPU than a 4 core chip with HT.
> 
> 
> 
> False. It's about how you distribute that power. Single threaded, multi-threaded etc. You can have a ton of slow cores (say Quad Opteron) yet it'll get outperformed by a Sandy chip. Have a read on the IXBT link, Gulftown loses to Sandy although it has more threads (even in multi-threaded apps).



Wait, how does that contradict what I said? I said that all that matters is overall performance potential when you are talking about a cpu's potential. How does SB beating Gulftown have anything to do with this? In fact, it proves my point that per thread doesn't mean shit.

SB-E is SB with more memory bandwidth, and up to 2 extra cores. Come back with this line of reasoning when SB beats SB-E in the same tests.


----------



## CyberDruid (Nov 13, 2011)

John Doe said:


> No, between the people here they aren't.
> 
> Also, you're wrong about the 2500k. Even in threaded situations, it's still capable of beating the Westmere architecture.
> 
> ...


Sez the new guy


----------



## Damn_Smooth (Nov 13, 2011)

lashton said:


> its funny everyones posiutive praise when intel releases early benchies and when AMD does it EVERYONE is critical, typical human population though, unintelligent



AMD's leaked benchmarks were claimed to be "unrepresentative" by the company. Unfortunately for everybody, they were very representative. 

I don't see any reason why anybody would praise AMD for the performance that those leaked benchmarks showed, or the end product itself.

SB-e is another beast altogether. It is Sandy with more cores. That is everything I was expecting from it, so I am not disappointed at all. It still has the gaming performance of SB, which is the best in the world right now, with added cores for multi-threaded apps. I don't foresee anybody that does a lot of encoding or runs a lot of programs that use more threads being let down by it. 

The fact of the matter is, if you want the absolute best CPU you can buy, this will be it.

That's my opinion on this subject.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 13, 2011)

Wile E said:


> Wait, how does that contradict what I said? I said that all that matters is overall performance potential when you are talking about a cpu's potential. How does SB beating Gulftown have anything to do with this? In fact, it proves my point that per thread doesn't mean shit.
> 
> SB-E is SB with more memory bandwidth, and up to 2 extra cores. Come back with this line of reasoning when SB beats SB-E in the same tests.



It doesn't. Point is, most apps don't scale over 6 cores, which is why Sandy outdoes Gulftown at 4 cores. So yes, per thread means a lot.

SB-E seems to have (from the given info) worse IPC than SB, and could have been worked on further to improve per-clock performance. Like Nehalem to Gulftown. But Intel didn't because they have no reason to. They're standing on top of AMD. Just add 2 more cores and leave it at that, right? Then jack up the price. There you have it, a $1000 CPU with higher TDP that, most the time, doesn't outperform a $350 chip.



CyberDruid said:


> Sez the new guy



Says the guy who were watching you when you were trying to talk with pipe in mouth. There was no need for that, please. I think you need to wake up a little before posting.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> It doesn't. Point is, most apps don't scale over 6 cores, which is why Sandy outdoes Gulftown at 4 cores. So yes, per thread means a lot.
> 
> SB-E seems to have (from the given info) worse IPC than SB, and could have been worked on further to improve per-clock performance. Like Nehalem to Gulftown. But Intel didn't because they have no reason to. They're standing on top of AMD. Just add 2 more cores and leave it at that, right? Then jack up the price. There you have it, a $1000 CPU with higher TDP that, most the time, doesn't outperform a $350 chip.
> 
> ...



You do know that LGA 2011's quad is supposed to be around the same price as a 2700K and the i7 3930K is supposed to be around 70% more expensive (50% more cores + unlocked + premium for being 6 core). It seems reasonable to me. The only 1000$ chip will be the extreme, but Intel would be an idiot to not release such a chip


----------



## John Doe (Nov 14, 2011)

n-ster said:


> You do know that LGA 2011's quad is supposed to be around the same price as a 2700K and the i7 3930K is supposed to be around 70% more expensive (50% more cores + unlocked + premium for being 6 core). It seems reasonable to me. The only 1000$ chip will be the extreme, but Intel would be an idiot to not release such a chip



Intel is milking the cash cow as usual. This chip isn't like going from Nehalem to Gulftown. Gulftown improved performance, clocked up easier while working cooler. It was a solid successor over Nehalem, and still is. This chip on the other hand isn't according to the info out there. Do we have it? No. Do they? Yes. Who should I listen to, someone making assumptions here, or the guys that seem to properly preview the platform?

Extra cores of this chip, as said many times before, doesn't help unless your applications are heavily threaded. Being unlocked doesn't mean much either as it's harder to OC a bigger chip. The 2700k can do 5.2-5.4 (yes) under a good cooler. Think of it.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> Intel is milking the cash cow as usual. This chip isn't like going from Nehalem to Gulftown. Gulftown improved performance, clocked up easier while working cooler. It was a solid successor over Nehalem, and still is. This chip on the other hand isn't according to the info out there. Do we have it? No. Do they? Yes. Who should I listen to, someone making assumptions here, or the guys that seem to properly preview the platform?
> 
> Extra cores of this chip, as said many times before, doesn't help unless your applications are heavily threaded. Being unlocked doesn't mean much either as *it's harder to OC a bigger chip*. The 2700k can do 5.2-5.4 (yes) under a good cooler. Think of it.



Gulftown was 32nm vs the 45 of Nehalem... When Gulftown was received, many were criticizing Gulftown much like you are SB-E right now... Gulftown did not bring higher memory bandwidth or more PCI-E lanes... SB-E will, much like Nehalem did in the past.

What do you mean by that bolded part?


----------



## John Doe (Nov 14, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Gulftown was 32nm vs the 45 of Nehalem... When Gulftown was received, many were criticizing Gulftown much like you are SB-E right now... Gulftown did not bring higher memory bandwidth or more PCI-E lanes... SB-E will, much like Nehalem did in the past.
> 
> What do you mean by that bolded part?



More complicated internal die so it could be harder to OC, which is what TH also says.

The Gulftown that was criticized was the 980x due to it's weak price/performance (hence the Extreme chip). The 970 was considerable after the first price cut and people bought it for it's lower temps, higher potential and so. In fact, if you can score one on the cheap from eBay (like me), it still is. I got a 4 core Westmere at 4.25 although it's crippled by 18x multi. Got the UD9 with binned IOH so I can do 220-240 BCLK. 

That said, you can have those lanes with NF200, and memory bandwidth doesn't mean much either. For example, you can use dual channel on X58 with a %1-5 performance hit. 

Sandy is the best choice for everyday users/for games. Sandy-E leaves to be... for those that want to show off or need the extra cores.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> More complicated internal die so it could be harder to OC, which is what TH also says.
> 
> The Gulftown that was criticized was the 980x due to it's weak price/performance (hence the Extreme chip). The 970 was considerable after the first price cut and people bought it for it's lower temps, higher potential and so. In fact, if you can score one on the cheap from eBay (like me), it still is. I got a 4 core Westmere at 4.25 although it's crippled by 18x multi. Got the UD9 with binned IOH so I can do 220-240 BCLK.
> 
> ...



I didn't go 970 as I think I would be wasting my money and I would rather get X79 than get stuck with X58 for a while.

One of the reasons I am going X79 is definitively the 8 DIMM slots.

The 2500K is obviously the king for games/everyday use here for sure. The only exception I can see to that is perhaps multi-GPU and upgradability and if games ever being fully multi-threaded to take advantage of the extra cores. For the short term, like most people in TPU think because they upgrade more often than the average, 2500K can't be beat, especially if you have a Microcenter near you


----------



## John Doe (Nov 14, 2011)

n-ster said:


> *One of the reasons I am going X79 is definitively the 8 DIMM slots.
> *
> 
> The 2500K is obviously the king for games/everyday use here for sure. The only exception I can see to that is perhaps multi-GPU and upgradability and if games ever being fully multi-threaded to take advantage of the extra cores. For the short term, like most people in TPU think because they upgrade more often than the average, 2500K can't be beat, especially if you have a Microcenter near you



RAMdisk? 8 GB is more than sufficient right now so eh.

And yes, the second paragraph is what I've been trying to say from the beginning. Cheers.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> It doesn't. Point is, most apps don't scale over 6 cores, which is why Sandy outdoes Gulftown at 4 cores. So yes, per thread means a lot.
> 
> SB-E seems to have (from the given info) worse IPC than SB, and could have been worked on further to improve per-clock performance. Like Nehalem to Gulftown. But Intel didn't because they have no reason to. They're standing on top of AMD. Just add 2 more cores and leave it at that, right? Then jack up the price. There you have it, a $1000 CPU with higher TDP that, most the time, doesn't outperform a $350 chip.
> 
> ...



SB only beats Gultown in tests that do not take advantage of the available threading. All of the fully threaded tests prove my point nicely. Lower clock speed on the 990X and it lacking the new AVX instruction set and architectural improvements the SB has, and it still comes out on top. Now, take that same AVX and improvements, and up the clock speeds like SB-E is likely to do, and the 2600/2700k stands no chance.

And most apps not scaling over 4 cores is again irrelevant when talking about how powerful a cpu is. As long as there is ANY application that is capable of using the cpu to it's full potential, the additional potential power is fully relevant. 

Gaming, in no way, leverages the full potential of these cpus, (or even Gultown, for that matter).


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> RAMdisk? 8 GB is more than sufficient right now so eh.
> 
> And yes, the second paragraph is what I've been trying to say from the beginning. Cheers.



RAMDisk, cache, VMs, extreme multi task... I have 24GB and 8GB more on the way to use the total of 32GB on X79 

But I don't think there is any disagreement here about the 2nd paragraph... I believe Wile E's point to be completely different and definitively something to consider.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 14, 2011)

Wile E said:


> SB only beats Gultown in tests that do not take advantage of the available threading. All of the fully threaded tests prove my point nicely. Lower clock speed on the 990X and it lacking the new AVX instruction set and architectural improvements the SB has, and it still comes out on top. Now, take that same AVX and improvements, and up the clock speeds like SB-E is likely to do, and the 2600/2700k stands no chance.
> 
> And most apps not scaling over 4 cores is again irrelevant when talking about how powerful a cpu is. As long as there is ANY application that is capable of using the cpu to it's full potential, the additional potential power is fully relevant.
> 
> Gaming, in no way, leverages the full potential of these cpus, (or even Gultown, for that matter).



What I'm saying is, if you don't do much multi-threaded work (like most here), go Sandy. It's a better bang for buck and can be highly OC'ed on a cheap cooler. If you do (yes, you do), then go SB-E. But you're in a minority. Seems like majority or minority doesn't matter as long as it's your opinion. Because your perspective is the best of all.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> What I'm saying is, if you don't do much multi-threaded work (like most here), go Sandy. It's a better bang for buck and can be highly OC'ed on a cheap cooler. If you do (yes, you do), then go SB-E. But you're in a minority. Seems like majority or minority doesn't matter as long as it's your opinion. Because your perspective is the best of all.



I don't think that is his argument... He's arguing the proper way of assessing a CPU's performance. I think he'll agree that for most gamer/normal use SB is better than SB-E


----------



## Wile E (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> What I'm saying is, if you don't do much multi-threaded work (like most here), go Sandy. It's a better bang for buck and can be highly OC'ed on a cheap cooler. If you do (yes, you do), then go SB-E. But you're in a minority. Seems like majority or minority doesn't matter as long as it's your opinion. Because your perspective is the best of all.



I never said SB-E was the choice for everybody. I said games are a terrible cpu test. I don't see how you are confusing this. Any test that does not fully stress a cpu is not a good cpu test.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 14, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I never said SB-E was the choice for everybody. I said games are a terrible cpu test. I don't see how you are confusing this. Any test that does not fully stress a cpu is not a good cpu test.



A test doesn't have to load a CPU to %100. It comes down on what you're testing the CPU for. If for playing just older, single threaded games, you can look at tests with one core then make your decision from there. A %100 loaded CPU wouldn't have any power left, yes. But that's not what I'm saying. It's about how effective a CPU's threads are. Not how many threads is has. An SR-2 gets beaten by Sandy. Why? Because most apps don't make use of the second chip (Windows just throw loads across), it has lower build quality with coil-chokes, and struggles to do beyond 185-200 BCLK.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 14, 2011)

SR-2 does not get beat when used with apps that use all of it's available threads, or under heavy multitasking. Does that mean you have to buy it to game? No. But that still doesn't validate games as a good indicator of a cpu's performance.


----------



## John Doe (Nov 14, 2011)

Wile E said:


> SR-2 does not get beat when used with apps that use all of it's available threads, or under heavy multitasking. Does that mean you have to buy it to game? No. But that still doesn't validate games as a good indicator of a cpu's performance.



No, it depends on your goal. What you're testing/need the CPU for. But yeah, this isn't going anywhere. It's only your opinion that matters. Fact or fiction or in between it doesn't matter as long as it's your opinion.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> No, it depends on your goal. What you're testing/need the CPU for. But yeah, this isn't going anywhere. It's only your opinion that matters. Fact or fiction or in between it doesn't matter as long as it's your opinion.



To have a representative idea of a CPU, you need something that stresses it to 100%, to think otherwise is insane. Just because most people will browse the internet with their PCs, does not mean people should benchmark that. Technically, to have a full assessment of a CPU, you have to have many tests, including gaming and application, but that's not the point. To have a a test that doesn't stress the CPU completely doesn't show you it's real performance.

If you are a gamer, then yes, you look mostly at gaming benchmarks, but to say a gaming benchmark (that doesn't take full advantage of the CPU) is a good way to evaluate what CPU is best, then no, that is factually not true.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 14, 2011)

John Doe said:


> No, it depends on your goal. What you're testing/need the CPU for. But yeah, this isn't going anywhere. It's only your opinion that matters. *Fact or fiction or in between it doesn't matter as long as it's your opinion.*



Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## ramcoza (Nov 14, 2011)

People, who say we can stress a CPU when play a game at a lower res, should take a look at this forum post and what is the recommendation he got after all. 

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/332479-33-performance


----------



## jewie27 (Nov 14, 2011)

LOL notice Power Consumption:  MORE IS BETTER?  FAKE!


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

ramcoza said:


> People, who say we can stress a CPU when play a game at a lower res, should take a look at this forum post and what is the recommendation he got after all.
> 
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/332479-33-performance



A lower res stresses the CPU less but eliminates in a certain sense the possibility of a GPU bottleneck



n-ster said:


> I'll take this with a grain of salt... Besides, we know many games are GPU intensive
> 
> btw, *Power consumption, more is better... yup very trustworthy* lol





jewie27 said:


> LOL notice Power Consumption:  MORE IS BETTER?  FAKE!



You've been beat since a looooooong time... Over a 110 replies ago


----------



## claylomax (Nov 14, 2011)

First one I found: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/14/intel_core_i73960x_sandy_bridge_e_processor_review


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

Crap review is crap review. No stock numbers, all CPUs benched at "max" OC = FAIL review.


Of course, if your sample of CPU doesn't clock as well, that review is useless. I really did expect better out of Kyle. But, as I said earlier, I didn't expect much out of reviews. 

Sucks being right. 

Kyle's conclusion:



> I am not sure who is supposed to buy a 3960X. I really do not see it benefiting gamers. I do not see it being a boon too overclocking enthusiasts due to price, power usage, and subsequently heat output. I guess if I sat around all day ripping Blu-ray disks and encoding those for torrent sites, it would be awesome. *Maybe that could be Intel's new 3960X motto, "Sandy Bridge E, maximizing BitTorrent ratios, one desktop at a time." Meh. Let's see what the K series brings before we totally turn our noses up at this beast of a processor...that none of us really need, or I think even want. *I think we have enough cores for now. Get your noses back on the grindstone and give us stellar IPC gains or even better, 5GHz stock clocks.



So, because he can't find a use for it, the CPU is fail. HMMM...Sounds like Bulldozer.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Crap review is crap review. No stock numbers, all CPUs benched at "max" OC = FAIL review.
> 
> 
> Of course, if your sample of CPU doesn't clock as well, that review is useless. I really did expect better out of Kyle. But, as I said earlier, I didn't expect much out of reviews.
> ...



Damn I guess Gulftown sucked ass


----------



## claylomax (Nov 14, 2011)

I love this part: "But I guess if you are looking for a new way to heat your computer room this winter, Sandy Bridge E should be on your short list. Maybe they will start selling these at Home Depot?" This platform with my GPU set-up and I would save some on gas bills this winter.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

My i7 920 beats it in power consumption.... awesome


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

n-ster said:


> Damn I guess Gulftown sucked ass



At least you get where I'm coming from here. Kudos.



Oh, and...


Cache, cache, cache, cache. 


That is all.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 14, 2011)

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1773/1/


----------



## claylomax (Nov 14, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1773/1/



This is a better review than HARDOCP's, but doesn't change the picture.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 14, 2011)

http://techreport.com/articles.x/21987
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/44...xtreme_edition_lga_2011_cpu_review/index.html
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73960X-Extreme-Edition-Sandy-BridgeE-Review/
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32591-intel-core-i7-3960x-extreme-edition-cpu/


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 14, 2011)

claylomax said:


> This is a better review than HARDOCP's, but doesn't change the picture.



What picture? That it's a power hog like Bulldozer? 











So you're saying those graphs are made-up?


Unlike Bulldozer, that increase in power consumption actually lead to an increase in performance. Hence the fact that even though it "consumes" more power, it does so in a shorter amount of time.


The only "issue" here is the price. But that has always been the case with the Extreme Editions.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

Again..Cache, Cache, cache, cache. Whadda you expect?

The fact the lwoer-binned chips have cache disabled should speak VOLUMES as to what the story is with power consumption, nevermind the seemingly more efficient utilization of memory bandwidth, no matter how slight.

At least with the EE, you get all the cache enabled. It will eb interesting to see how the lack fo cache pans out performance-wise for the "K" 6-core chip, and the "locked" quad.


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 14, 2011)

Tech Report predicts that the 3930K would be around the "point" of the i7 970 (if following along the x-axis) but be way higher up (if following along the y-axis), making it a more likely buy than the new EE.


----------



## ramcoza (Nov 14, 2011)

well, i7-3960X matches i7 2600K's power consumption at Idle and consume less than FX-8150 at load.

I didn't expect this. 











http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive/7


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 14, 2011)

Here's all the reviews I can find thus far:
http://hardocp.com/article/2011/11/14/intel_core_i73960x_sandy_bridge_e_processor_review/1
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1773/1/
http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/44...treme_edition_lga_2011_cpu_review/index1.html
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21987
http://hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73960X-Extreme-Edition-Sandy-BridgeE-Review/?page=1
http://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32591-intel-core-i7-3960x-extreme-edition-cpu/
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071.html
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...dy-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive
http://pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Sandy-Bridge-E-Review-Core-i7-3960X-and-X79-Chipset-Tested
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/intel_core_i7_3960/
http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-3960x-processor--msi-x79agd65-review/


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

Bigger list:



> Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...dy-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive
> Benchmark Review: http://benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=826&Itemid=63
> Bjorn3D: http://www.bjorn3d.com/articles/Intels_X79_Chipset_Core_i7_3960X__DX79SI_Motherboard/2146.html
> ExtremeTech: http://www.extremetech.com/computing/104835-intel-end-sandy-bridge-e-3960x-review
> ...


----------



## claylomax (Nov 14, 2011)

entropy13 said:


> What picture? That it's a power hog like Bulldozer?



I meant that "doesn't change the picture of power consumption" compared to HARDOCP's review


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

All reviews are using ES chips.

I do not think that's of any importance, other than that it should be noted that retail sample clocking is still in question at this point.

That said, many ES chips feature overly high power consumption, and aren't stellar overclockers, as they are intended to test functionality of the platform, including cooling.

I really wish AMD and Intel would stop giving out ES chips to reviewers, and start giving out the same chips end users will get. I suppose that's just me though.


----------



## claylomax (Nov 14, 2011)

Look at them motherboards prices: http://www.scan.co.uk/shop/computer-hardware/all/motherboards-intel/socket-2011-intel-x79


----------



## Recus (Nov 14, 2011)

One more:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...e-i7-3960x-processor-review-introduction.html


----------



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

*Yep, disappointing gaming performance, a real shame*

Looked at a handful of reviews and yeah, gaming performance is no better than a 2600K, in some cases just a teeny bit worse, so it's disappointing alright. I had suspected that the Chinese website I reported on in the news article was right. 

I'd have expected a new revision to show _some_ improvement, surely? Basically, it's working like plain vanilla SB with a couple of extra cores. It does overclock better, though. I'm not commenting on other types of app however, because gaming performance is the only thing I'm personally interested in.

I'll be buying that 2700K system Real Soon Now.

HardOCP had an IPC comparison here, which shows that SB & SB-E are the same.

This is what happens when Intel doesn't have any head-to-head competition. :shadedshu

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this post by ye fanbois out there, so I've put on my strongest flameproof jacket. 

EDIT: Here's more IPC comparisons by Hardware Canucks.


----------



## radrok (Nov 14, 2011)

Excuse me but, why would it be disappointing? If you expected this to give any gaming performance advantage with today bad coded games that hardly use more than 4 cores then you'll have to explain me where you'd be expecting it, because there is no architecture change at all, it's just a Sandy Bridge with 2 more cores, an abysmal amount of L3 cache and a bigger memory controller.
It's a multi-threading chewer beast, and that's what I wanted it to be... Honestly I'm not going to buy this for gaming, that would be crazy!
I'm buying this because that's what I need for my work  and believe me, it's not a disappointment


----------



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

radrok said:


> Excuse me but, why would it be disappointing? If you expected this to give any gaming performance advantage with today bad coded games that hardly use more than 4 cores then you'll have to explain me where you'd be expecting it, because there is no architecture change at all, it's just a Sandy Bridge with 2 more cores, an abysmal amount of L3 cache and a bigger memory controller.
> It's a multi-threading chewer beast, and that's what I wanted it to be... Honestly I'm not going to buy this for gaming, that would be crazy!
> I'm buying this because that's what I need for my work  and believe me, it's not a disappointment



You've said it right there (except you're wrong about the bit where it's because the games are coded "badly"). Because it's basically just SB with a couple of cores bolted on, there's no IPC improvement, which is where the real R&D money has to be spent to improve performance.

This is what happens when there's no competition in the marketplace. And believe me, Bulldozer and its derivatives are zero competition to Intel right now and for the forseable future.

Intel are just sitting on there laurels and laughing all the way to the bank.


----------



## radrok (Nov 14, 2011)

Wouldn't you see an improvement over the 2600k/2700k if we had games capable of addressing 6-12 threads? That was my point about bad coded games.
To be honest I have a little disappointment...
I would have loved the 3960X to be an 8 core(16t), without the 2 fused off cores... that would have justified the price tag over the 3930K!


----------



## Benetanegia (Nov 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> You've said it right there (except you're wrong about the bit where it's because the games are coded "badly"). Because it's basically just SB with a couple of cores bolted on, there's no IPC improvement, which is where the real R&D money has to be spent to improve performance.
> 
> This is what happens when there's no competition in the marketplace. And believe me, Bulldozer and its derivatives are zero competition to Intel right now and for the forseable future.
> 
> Intel are just sitting on there laurels and laughing all the way to the bank.



While I agree with the no competition part, I just cannot understand your frustration about this particular chip. How could you be expecting an IPC improvement if these are the exact same SB cores? The "next generation" is Ivy Bridge, and not even that since Ivy is the tick, Sandy Bridge was the tock (and brought an impressive IPC increase over past gen), and so is SB-E. The name should have hinted it's the exact same architecture, it just has more cores. Intel has been doing the tick-tock strategy for how long now? SB was the tock, the architectural change, next thing is the tick, new process on old architecture (Ivy). SB-E is not even on a new process so how could you posibly think it was a new architecture? 

Also I think you are not being reasonable with the timeframes, "resting on their laurels"? Of course they are relaxed, but to say as much as that they are sitting on their laurels... it's just not true since they started with the tick-tock. Have you been paying attention these last years (decade I'd say)? The days of 1 year cycle for each new architecture were over more than 10 years ago, now it's typically 2-3 years if things go perfectly and you are Intel, or just simply ask AMD, Via or hell even the quite successful ARM how easy it is to create a new arch every <insert random number> months. SB was introduced 10 months ago, expecting another new architecture this soon is delusional. 5 years and look what happened with Bulldozer, it's not easy.

I agree that Intel could advance faster if they took some capital risks, like the rest are doing, but why should they take any risk? Why abandon the tick-tock strategy that is working so well fr them? They are already 50%+ faster than competition and the difference grows with every tick-tock cycle. AMD just can't keep up at this pace, no one can really, so Intel is not objectively sitting on their laurels.

I understand your desire to get better and better CPUs (in all fronts, i.e. gaming) with every release, but I think it's not very realistic to expect huge improvements on every chip, at least when they belong to the same architecture. Like many people have said already, SB-E delivers where it was designed to deliver: in hevily threaded apps.

Sorry for the long post and sorry if it seems I'm picking at you, not at all my intention.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

qubit said:


> You've said it right there (except you're wrong about the bit where it's because the games are coded "badly"). Because it's basically just SB with a couple of cores bolted on, there's no IPC improvement, which is where the real R&D money has to be spent to improve performance.
> 
> This is what happens when there's no competition in the marketplace. And believe me, Bulldozer and its derivatives are zero competition to Intel right now and for the forseable future.
> 
> Intel are just sitting on there laurels and laughing all the way to the bank.



Except coded badly is indeed part of it. Theoretically, if a game was perfectly multi-threaded, you would see 50% improvement on the 6 core/12thread, and the i7 2600K would be significantly better than the i5 2500K


----------



## qubit (Nov 14, 2011)

radrok said:


> *Wouldn't you see an improvement over the 2600k/2700k if we had games capable of addressing 6-12 threads? That was my point about bad coded games.*
> To be honest I have a little disappointment...
> I would have loved the 3960X to be an 8 core(16t), without the 2 fused off cores... that would have justified the price tag over the 3930K!



Ok, fair enough.  I'm just a little gutted that the single threaded performance wasn't actually improved. That defines the core performance level of the processor, the multi cores simply "multiply" it up. Mind you, that's a dangerous statement to make, as perfect scaling never happens, especially as all the cores are seldom used to full capacity.

However, then Bene "picks" on me, lol, with this terribly well reasoned post and he's actually perfectly right.  I was expecting the wrong thing at the wrong time - but at least I was in good company. 



Benetanegia said:


> While I agree with the no competition part, I just cannot understand your frustration about this particular chip. How could you be expecting an IPC improvement if these are the exact same SB cores? The "next generation" is Ivy Bridge, and not even that since Ivy is the tick, Sandy Bridge was the tock (and brought an impressive IPC increase over past gen), and so is SB-E. The name should have hinted it's the exact same architecture, it just has more cores. Intel has been doing the tick-tock strategy for how long now? SB was the tock, the architectural change, next thing is the tick, new process on old architecture (Ivy). SB-E is not even on a new process so how could you posibly think it was a new architecture?
> 
> Also I think you are not being reasonable with the timeframes, "resting on their laurels"? Of course they are relaxed, but to say as much as that they are sitting on their laurels... it's just not true since they started with the tick-tock. Have you been paying attention these last years (decade I'd say)? The days of 1 year cycle for each new architecture were over more than 10 years ago, now it's typically 2-3 years if things go perfectly and you are Intel, or just simply ask AMD, Via or hell even the quite successful ARM how easy it is to create a new arch every <insert random number> months. SB was introduced 10 months ago, expecting another new architecture this soon is delusional. 5 years and look what happened with Bulldozer, it's not easy.
> 
> ...



Yes, as you're quite right about the release cycle, as SB was released less than a year ago. It's still true though that if Bulldozer had been any competition, then we would have seen _some_ single threaded improvement and that's what I mean by resting on their laurels. But you're right, it's too small a time frame to see any architectural improvement other than small refinements, so I take the resting on laurels bit back. 

By the looks of it, they've basically improved memory bandwidth to handle the extra cores. So, are we going to actually see an 8 core SB-E CPU next year then?



n-ster said:


> Except coded badly is indeed part of it. Theoretically, if a game was perfectly multi-threaded, you would see 50% improvement on the 6 core/12thread, and the i7 2600K would be significantly better than the i5 2500K



Yes you would see that scaling, but as I've explained above, I'd hoped single threaded performance would have been improved, which would speed up _everything_. Obviously, my expectations were unrealistic though.


----------



## nt300 (Nov 14, 2011)

So the question is will AMD make Piledriver more competative now that SB-E is not what we all thought it would be?

What does AMD need to do to better compete? FIX Branch Prediction, Pipeline Flushing, Cache Trashing, increase the Decode unit's width, resolve this scheduling issue? Can a B3 stepping fix this? AMD has a chance to compete now.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> So the question is will AMD make Piledriver more competative now that *SB-E is not what we all thought it would be*?
> 
> What does AMD need to do to better compete? FIX Branch Prediction, Pipeline Flushing, Cache Trashing, increase the Decode unit's width, resolve this scheduling issue? Can a B3 stepping fix this? AMD has a chance to compete now.



But it is EXACTLY what we thought it would be :/


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> So the question is will AMD make Piledriver more competative now that SB-E is not what we all thought it would be?



Who is this "we"?





I don't care to speculate on Bulldozer.


Frankly, the only disappointment for me is the lack of a 8-core/16 thread monster.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 14, 2011)

nt300 said:


> So the question is will AMD make Piledriver more competative now that SB-E is not what we all thought it would be?
> 
> What does AMD need to do to better compete? FIX Branch Prediction, Pipeline Flushing, Cache Trashing, increase the Decode unit's width, resolve this scheduling issue? Can a B3 stepping fix this? AMD has a chance to compete now.



Uh......no.  sbe is the top dog period.  Beats everything out there.  Bd was over. Before it launched. If pd is done right .....naaaah sb would still take it. Not going to touch. Sbe or ib..  even 2yrs from now amd is 2yrs behind.

Hey ....did I miss the overclocking?    600 for a six core.....intels learning. Slowly.....but learning


----------



## Super XP (Nov 14, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Who is this "we"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Me, I am one of those WE's. I guess it's difficult for Intel to make a fast CPU faster and yest the prices for the new SandyBridge E's stink.


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 14, 2011)

Super XP said:


> Me, I am one of those WE's.




Of course, this is not surprising coming from you. You seemed to expect alot of Bulldozer, too, and we all know how well THAT turned out.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 15, 2011)

cadaveca said:


> Who is this "we"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ditto. Prior to them releasing the lineup details, I thought an 8/16 beast was definitely gonna happen.


----------



## Benetanegia (Nov 15, 2011)

Yeah, prior to reading reviews I had no idea the chip itself had 8 cores. It is a little disappointment that they didn't enable all of them. I guess yields are not good at all and they are saving them for Xeons. Something inside me still tells me it's a little trick, in order to have something else to release down the line and charge $1000+ again. It's not like they really need the 8 cores in order to leave both the competition and their own previous generation in the dust. 

Maybe it's kind of better this way. While it would have been interesting to see a direct comparison between both 2 billion transistor behemoths (SB-E vs BD), it would have been a bloodbath.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah, prior to reading reviews I had no idea the chip itself had 8 cores. It is a little disappointment that they didn't enable all of them. I guess yields are not good at all and they are saving them for Xeons. Something inside me still tells me it's a little trick, in order to have something else to release down the line and charge $1000+ again. It's not like they really need the 8 cores in order to leave both the competition and their own previous generation in the dust.
> 
> Maybe it's kind of better this way. While it would have been interesting to see a direct comparison between both 2 billion transistor behemoths (SB-E vs BD), it would have been a bloodbath.



I thought the chips had 6 core and the only disable 2 cores were for the quad???


----------



## qubit (Nov 15, 2011)

Benetanegia said:


> Yeah, prior to reading reviews I had no idea the chip itself had 8 cores. It is a little disappointment that they didn't enable all of them. I guess yields are not good at all and they are saving them for Xeons. Something inside me still tells me it's a little trick, in order to have something else to release down the line and charge $1000+ again. It's not like they really need the 8 cores in order to leave both the competition and their own previous generation in the dust.
> 
> Maybe it's kind of better this way. While it would have been interesting to see a direct comparison between both 2 billion transistor behemoths (SB-E vs BD), it would have been a bloodbath.



So it _does_ have 8 cores with two masked off? I was wondering about this. It explains the enormous memory bandwidth improvement made, doesn't it?

I must look up the architecture diagram of SB-E.


----------



## ensabrenoir (Nov 15, 2011)

*sneeky blue devils....*

Unlockable later .......for a price or neutered?


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 15, 2011)

qubit said:


> I must look up the architecture diagram of SB-E.



 Bandwidth boost is there literally because this CPU is two 2600K's glued together, memory controllers included. Here ya go:







And a die shot:


----------



## Darkleoco (Nov 15, 2011)

Shame they didn't enable all 8 cores :/


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Nov 16, 2011)

questionable


----------



## HalfAHertz (Nov 16, 2011)

They couldn't enable all 8 cores and keep the high frequencies at the current tdp.


----------



## qubit (Nov 16, 2011)

HalfAHertz said:


> They couldn't enable all 8 cores and keep the high frequencies at the current tdp.



That's true, but how much higher would it be?

Surely, at this already high enthusiast level of performance and price, people will pay for the high performance cooling required (and the large electricity bills...)


----------



## Wile E (Nov 17, 2011)

I have a triple 120 rad dedicated to just my cpu. Bring on the tdp, I say.


----------



## qubit (Nov 17, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I have a triple 120 rad dedicated to just my cpu. Bring on the tdp, I say.



+1


----------



## Neuromancer (Nov 17, 2011)

Wile E said:


> I have a triple 120 rad dedicated to just my cpu. Bring on the tdp, I say.



Hell I used a quad fan rad for my i7 920 at 4.7 GHz 

As for the topic of this thread, I knew before hand that performance core for core clock for clock was no improvement. 

btarunr owes me a 4pack of Guinness in 3 months when IB comes out on 1155 and smokes 2011.  

(If timelines are correct and IB-E wont be out for another year)

TBH, it was apparent, the few things that SB-E was supposed to have that were improvements all got canceled.  So it was left with PCIE lanes and quad channel memory controller, neither of which are important at this juncture.

There is a actually a slight hit in percore/clcok production due to the overhead generated by the BUS. 

Now when IB-E comes out, will it be an improvement over IB... possibly... too early to speculate at this time. But at this time, and over the last 6 months, IB will be better than SB-E. I have nto seen any 58x SB-E chips yet... but for SB that was a matter of binning.  Not many people can afford to bin 200  $11000 chips, even ones that could afford to bin 200 $300 chips.


----------



## nt300 (Nov 18, 2011)

*Bulldozer faster & more efficient than Sandy Bridge E per thread.*

*Bulldozer faster & more efficient than Sandy Bridge E per thread.*


> ipc_specialist Nov 15, 2011 at 5:54 pm #
> No, Intel doesn’t have an IPC lead anymore, *Bulldozer is the new champion*, check this out:
> 
> SB-E beats BD by 30%, but they need:
> ...


----------



## cadaveca (Nov 18, 2011)

Um, trolling the wrong thread much?


----------



## Wile E (Nov 19, 2011)

nt300 said:


> *Bulldozer faster & more efficient than Sandy Bridge E per thread.*



I call bullshit. Faster per thread in what? A program coded by AMD?


----------



## n-ster (Nov 19, 2011)

Just disable HT if you want "per thread" performance... You get a bit lower overall performance but half the threads...

Per thread performance doesn't mean much, and overall performance is a much better indicator

You you make Bulldozer 33% bigger and more packed, the CPU would need it's own power supply and phase-change cooling


----------



## Benetanegia (Nov 19, 2011)

n-ster said:


> You you make Bulldozer 33% bigger and more packed, the CPU would need it's own power supply and phase-change cooling



Also the SB-E silicon actually has 33% more cores (8 vs 6) and cache (20 vs 15) than what it has been released for now, so any comparison that involves die size (and consequently power consumption) is moot.

For a real comparison of efficiency, compare the 3960X to the FX-6100. Both have 2 cores and a comparable amount of cache disabled.


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 19, 2011)

First,
Bottom line, nt300:

SB-E is only a little better than SB in terms of performance overall (considering most people's usage here).
BUT, it still blows away BD.

That being said, there is no BD chip comparable to the SB-E, and even if there was, per thread performance would not be better, ever.  SB tech is 50-75% faster, single threaded, which makes everything faster.

Second,
An SB-E is not comparable to an fx-6100; an fx-6100 is, from an operational standpoint, a triple core with hyperthreading.  You'd have to glue together two of them to come to some kind of comparison win a 6/12 SB-E.


----------



## Benetanegia (Nov 19, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> Second,
> An SB-E is not comparable to an fx-6100; an fx-6100 is, from an operational standpoint, a triple core with hyperthreading.  You'd have to glue together two of them to come to some kind of comparison win a 6/12 SB-E.



EDIT: Notice that I didn't compare SB-E to FX-6100, that'd be wrong, but only just as wrong as comparing a full Zambezi core to a 3960X. In both cases that's comparing a full core against a crippled core. I compared 2 crippled cores against each other.

I know you're essentially right and you know I've been saying the same thing since BD architecture was revealed. But as to your post, not really, since we are talking about competitiveness. First of all ask AMD about how many cores are there. Second, compare silicon versus silicon. Both SB-E and Zambezi have 2 billion transistors (which is key to comparing efficiency) and 8 cores (again ask AMD). Both 3960X and FX-6100 have 2 cores disabled, simple. SB-E has 4 MB more cache, which makes up for the small transistor count difference and specially die size difference.


----------



## Inceptor (Nov 20, 2011)

I understand what you're saying, but comparing AMD's marketing-speak about 'cores' to the actual cores of SB-E doesn't make sense to me.  
SB-E is definitely a more efficient design, that's crystal clear.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 20, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> I understand what you're saying, but comparing AMD's marketing-speak about 'cores' to the actual cores of SB-E doesn't make sense to me.
> SB-E is definitely a more efficient design, that's crystal clear.



Maybe he wouldn't do that, if *AMD themselves* hadn't been doing it.  They market their Octo-Core CPU's as having 8 cores when they really are just as bastardized as Intel's offerings.  AMD made a whole marketting campaign of criticizing Intel for not offering TRUE cores.  People in glass houses.


----------



## n-ster (Nov 20, 2011)

xenocide said:


> Maybe he wouldn't do that, if *AMD themselves* hadn't been doing it.  They market their Octo-Core CPU's as having 8 cores when they really are just as bastardized as Intel's offerings.  AMD made a whole marketting campaign of criticizing Intel for not offering TRUE cores.  People in glass houses.



I have to admit that it it sooooo hypocritical of them to call these true octo-cores when they and their fanboys would criticize Intel's HT and "Real men use real cores" and whatnot


----------



## Benetanegia (Nov 20, 2011)

Inceptor said:


> I understand what you're saying, but comparing AMD's marketing-speak about 'cores' to the actual cores of SB-E doesn't make sense to me.
> SB-E is definitely a more efficient design, that's crystal clear.



It makes absolute sense in this context. nt300 was speaking about efficiency, i.e. performance per core/thread and performance per mm^2. So how many cores BD trully has becomes irrelevant. AMD claims 8 cores so that's what I used for the comparison, but I could use 4c/8t and it's not going to look any better. Going with 8c is not the perfect choice, but neither is to compare 1 BD thread to 1 SB thread. They are completely different and have a completely different influence in die size. Intel's approach is almost free, a very small increase in die size and core complexity yields a small (yet bigger than die size increase) gain in performance. AMD increased die size by a lot and obtained a similar increase in performance. The chip is here, and the 20% die increase for 80% performance claim was BS.

Anyway, it doesn't matter which approach you take AMD's design is not more efficient and that's what I was saying, simply.

a) Comparing transistor count/die size. Zambezi is 8 "cores". SB-E is 8 cores/16 threads. Both have a similar transistor budget, if we are taking the approach of comparing architectures by this measure, BD and SB-E are indeed the chips to compare. Now performance wise, with 2 cores disabled SB-E is 40-50% faster compared to 8 "core" BD and twice as fast as the 6 "core" BD.

b) We go by real cores. Then Zambezi is 4c/8t. The only chip we can compare it to is SB 4c/8t. In this case transistor budget is half of that in Zambezi and it even has integrated GPU. Performance is similar, making performance per thread equal *when all 8 threads* are in use. When only up to 4 are used SB is a lot faster, and remember it's half the size.


----------

