Friday, July 22nd 2011

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

Jul 22nd, 2011 08:48 Discuss (116 Comments)

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

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

Source: Donanim Haber

Add your own comment

116 Comments on Core i7-3960X About 47% Faster On Average Than Core i7-990X: Intel

#101

Wile E

Power User

Lazzer408I wish Intel would just pick a f!@#ing socket and stick with it like they did the 775. I can't afford to drop $500 every time they change it. I finally got on the i7 boat and before I knew it there's the 2600k taunting me, now this? >.< In my case their strategy is working against them because I'll wait and see what's going to be next. Watch, one week after this CPU is out they'll change the socket to LGA2012 and it'll be the end of the world when I flip out because I just got a 2011. :D

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

#102

HammerON

The Watchful Moderator

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

#103

wolf

Better Than Native

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

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

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

Googoo24Notice I didn't say "why are folks excited over this product?," I said, "why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't that expected."

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

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

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

#104

Lazzer408

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#105

Wile E

Power User

Lazzer408True but weren't you somewhat happy when your Q6600 ran in the same board your E6600 was in? And then it still supported your new Q9650? (For example).

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

#106

trt740

Lazzer408True but weren't you somewhat happy when your Q6600 ran in the same board your E6600 was in? And then it still supported your new Q9650? (For example).

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

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

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

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

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

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

#107

xenocide

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

#108

Xaser04

trt740I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed. The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all. I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz. This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game. I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one. I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.

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

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

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

#109

dr emulator (madmax)

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

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

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

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

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

#110

xenocide

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

Sense... that makes not...

dr emulator (madmax)i hope the 990x will go down in price a little bit though,

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

#111

PaulieG

trt740I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed. The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all. I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz. This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game. I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one. I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.

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

#112

dr emulator (madmax)

xenocideSense... that makes not...

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

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

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

#113

Lazzer408

trt740I have to tell you I have owned the following cpus in the last few years Q6600 3.6ghz, E8600 4.3ghz, QX9650 4.0ghz, I7 920 4.2ghz, 945 PHII 3.8ghz , 955 II 4.2ghz , 1090TX6 4.3ghz and now a Sandy Bridge 2500k at 4.5 to 5.0ghz all on air depending on the voltage and things have radically changed. The performance difference is crazy on Sandy Bridge over them all. I am a giant AMD fan but I'm dumb struck at the performance jump of this chip even over my I7 920 at 4.2ghz and 1090T at 4.3ghz. This 2500K at 4.5 absolutely destroys them and it will go as high as 5.0ghz 24/7 at reasonable voltage. Prior to this, I could not tell you the difference in what cpu was in my computer if you didn't tell me going from a I7 920 to a 1090T at max overclock, both were fast and there was truely zero real world difference, but Sandy Bridge has changed the game. I see a giant leap here in even simple things like boot time etc... not a little difference a very noticable one. I'm tell you this is unreal, I cannot imagine what a 2600K at 5.0ghz is like but to say things have not changed is truely wrong and this is from a guy who believed like you do until about 3 days ago.

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

#114

sno.lcn

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

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

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

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

#115

Wile E

Power User

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#116

dr emulator (madmax)

:cool:thanks for the offer Wile E i'll pm ya soon :D (i'm moving house in the next week or so

)
ye i'll have to get some more ram ;) and an ssd ,

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

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

nvm ey

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

Add your own comment

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

116 Comments on Core i7-3960X About 47% Faster On Average Than Core i7-990X: Intel

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts

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

Related News

116 Comments on Core i7-3960X About 47% Faster On Average Than Core i7-990X: Intel

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts