Saturday, November 12th 2011
Sandy Bridge-E Benchmarks Leaked: Disappointing Gaming Performance?
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.
Source:
wccftech.com
171 Comments on Sandy Bridge-E Benchmarks Leaked: Disappointing Gaming Performance?
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
And yes, the second paragraph is what I've been trying to say from the beginning. Cheers. :)
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).
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.
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.
www.tomshardware.com/forum/332479-33-performance
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. :p
Kyle's conclusion: So, because he can't find a use for it, the CPU is fail. HMMM...Sounds like Bulldozer. :laugh:
:rockout:
Oh, and...
Cache, cache, cache, cache.
That is all. :p
www.tweaktown.com/reviews/4414/intel_core_i7_3960x_extreme_edition_lga_2011_cpu_review/index.html
hothardware.com/Reviews/Intel-Core-i73960X-Extreme-Edition-Sandy-BridgeE-Review/
hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/32591-intel-core-i7-3960x-extreme-edition-cpu/
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.