1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Core i7-4960X "Ivy Bridge-E" Roughly 10% Faster than i7-3970X: Early Tests

Discussion in 'News' started by btarunr, Apr 25, 2013.

  1. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,425 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    873
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    3770k is 309 EUR here and it's the cheapest importer for my country where i buy most of components. Still soaking up like a cardboard submarine? And if you do this every time for a mere 10% boost... do the math...

    I'm placing big hopes for Skylake architecture when it arrives sometime next year (probably) but who knows.
  2. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,154 (5.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Location:
    Home
    How much was 920 in your place back when it was the most popular chip? Without knowing that there is no comparison. Regardless of what is costs, even if the 920 is cheaper than €309 the problem lies with your country's importers, not Intel. On top of that no one forces you to shell out every time Intel releases a new chip. New chip releases works wonders only for people either looking for more performance regardless of cost, or those with older chips (still rocking in their E8xxxx chips etc).
  3. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,425 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    873
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    Digged the order mail from June 2009. Core i7 920 D0 that i bought was 262 EUR at that time (same store). And i know i paid tiny bit extra just to get the D0 version specifically. It'll soon be exactly 4 years ago when i bought it and i still think it's superb. Paired it with Antec H2O 920 cooler and overclocked it and it's up to every gaming task that i have and all the compression/encoding needs. 8 threads at 4+ GHz is not that weak despite the CPU age.

    Granted, no one forces me to shell out such amount of money, but with such tiny boosts it makes even less sense. I was looking at Q6600 back then and then decided to shell out some more and take the newer Core i7 920. And i made a great decision. I don't think any of the current CPU's would last as long as this one did.
  4. AsRock

    AsRock TPU addict

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Messages:
    10,687 (4.15/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,618
    Location:
    US
    And even if you live in America don't mean ya be able to get to one our closest one is 315 miles away LMAO
  5. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,154 (5.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,958
    Location:
    Home
    In trays of 1000s, i7 920 sold for USD284 in 2009, which is about €200 with June 2009 exchange rate. You paid €262, which is about 30% markup
    In trays of 1000s, 3770K is selling for $332, which is about €255. Shop is selling for €309 for 20% markup.

    Performance difference between both is much more than 20% in most cases(with or without overclock), so I would say that you are not getting an inferior product in any way (from 1000s tray prices, to exchange rates, to mark up). Inflation has not been taken to account yet. On top of that, its cheaper to assemble a system with 3770K rather than a 920 system, iirc it costs about $1500 for a fully functioning 920 system (with graphics card etc), while you will need to shell out about $1000 for an equivalent system (equivalent used extremely loosely here).

    Have you considered 3570K instead? Much cheaper than 3770k, and performance wise not too far behind. Granted the upgrade from 920 to 3570K is not as significant but that is large due to the strength and performance of the 920 more than anything else.

    http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/47?vs=551
  6. mlee49

    mlee49

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,474 (3.55/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,098
    Good news is the 3k series chips will come down in price some :)

    edit: I'm still on X58, my 970 Hex-core has just been great for the last 3 years.
  7. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,163 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    170
    :eek:
    :roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

    seriously though the entire cpu landscape is changing..... raw power is not the dominate factor anymore. 10% is more than enough for anything out there. Better temps and power consumption are king right now. Software is years behind. And it'll prob take a 20 CORE amd to match it. Most Intel users are fine with this and paying for a new board. ....There is not a lot of price haggling on Porsche lots...this is High End Desk Top. Mainstream is the value minded....and mainstream intel usually beats highend Amd
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  8. midnightoil

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    ~2 year wait for a ~10% performance increase. That's pretty dire.

    Shame that the desktop/enthusiast 'E' line only exists as a dumping ground for defective or very low bin Xeon-E parts. If this weren't the case, Intel might have actually skipped straight to Haswell-E ... but if they'd done that, nowhere to dump.

    Really hope Steamroller and Excavator are on time and up to expectations. It's become patently clear that Intel won't make any push unless absolutely forced to.
  9. midnightoil

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    They are soldered, yes. 'E' enthusiast / desktop parts are rebranded low-binned / defective Xeon-E parts.
  10. arterius2

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    491 (0.43/day)
    Thanks Received:
    103
    meh, 10% is good enough for me to shell out
  11. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    698 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    64
    I think the reality is that Intel's priorities have changed somewhat.

    AMD x86 / x64 chips are no longer much of a threat but ARM processors are selling like mad and the market for ARM based hardware is still growing. Whereas the PC industry is seeing negative growth. Intel knows they need to answer the ARM initiative. A big way of doing that is with decent performance and power efficiency not raw processing power. So this is likely where Intel is focusing their efforts.

    Intel should be able to engineer monster performance chips for desktop, workstations, servers and so on while engineering power efficient chips for tablets, phones and so on,.... but that doesn't mean that they wont cut corners by focusing on power efficiency on the platforms that would better benefit from raw power,..

    ***edit***

    Also an upcoming Intel Core i7 4960X Ivy Bridge-E processor is likely to cost just as much as its predecessor in the ~$1,000+ USD range. I'm not willing to spend that kind of money on a processor and judging from the system specs in this thread not many if any people here would either. Its all very academic to argue about the finer points of something you'll likely never buy,....
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
    arterius2 and ensabrenoir say thanks.
  12. midnightoil

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    There's no possible way for Intel to match ARM though, and they know that. The only way they can even come close is using vastly more expensive, complicated and smaller processes ... but they're still a long way behind in performance per watt and massively behind in performance per $.

    There's no way that Intel can make any inroads into the phone, tablet or embedded devices market, and ARM will continue to chew through vast swathes of the server (and soon workstation) market. The rate of market share loss is likely to increase exponentially for Intel once the the 64bit ARM chips start making their way into systems later this year.

    It's going to get to the point soon where they either admit complete defeat or they start making more use of their existing ARM licenses (Intel are heavy licensees of ARM IP, contrary to popular belief).

    The main reason Intel aren't pushing the envelope in desktop or E Xeons is because whilst they have a reasonable lead over AMD in absolute performance and performance per watt, they need the absolute maximum return possible on the minimum investment. Outside of the SSD business, their margins and marketshares are dropping like a stone everywhere else.
  13. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    698 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    64
    Intel may make no inroads into the ARM segment of the market but that doesn't mean they wont try. The same goes for Microsoft and their efforts with Windows 8 and Windows RT with respect to the mobile market.
  14. midnightoil

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    Messages:
    42 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    the i7-920 was a much, much more expensive chip to produce, at the time, than the i7-3770k. there is a much, much higher margin for intel.
  15. RejZoR

    RejZoR

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,425 (1.24/day)
    Thanks Received:
    873
    Location:
    Europe/Slovenia
    I don't care what was the price for 1000 pieces. I don't buy thousand of them, i only need 1. And the price of one is never this low...
  16. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,163 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    170
    True.....the landscape is chaning hence why intel's greater focus and resouces will be else where... But they do have the resources though so i wouldnt count them out just yet. Arm....was a larger pivot point than many realize...its evolve or die and im sure intel knows this
    Myn new rig is an x79 in a cosmos 2(only posted on your pcatm) i got a 3820(on an asrock x79 exteme 9) to hold me over until the 6 core ivy-e comes out.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  17. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,131 (1.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    620
    b o l o g n a.
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2013
  18. HD64G

    HD64G

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    150 (0.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    31
    I cannot understand that everyone thinks there is a 10% bump in IPC! It isn't! Max gain is almost 10%. In the majority of the tests the gain is 5-7%. And that is sad since the clocks are the same as IB. Total gain is none to move somone to upgrade. I hope AMD's SR is what expected. Only then Intel is going to bring faster CPUs or lower the prices.
  19. tastegw

    tastegw

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    312 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Stock tests on these chips don't mean a whole lot, show us the overclocking comparison between the two on non engineering samples, that would make for a better article.
  20. Mindweaver

    Mindweaver Moderato®™ Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,139 (2.68/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,646
    Location:
    Statesville, NC
    10 percent over the old chip will be good if it overclocks as well. I mean a 10% increase and then you can bump it up another 10% with overclock would be a great upgrade, but if there isn't any overclocking head room then ho hum.. I'll wait to upgrade my i7 2600k. :toast:
    Crunching for Team TPU
  21. buggalugs

    buggalugs

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    919 (0.42/day)
    Thanks Received:
    135
    Location:
    Australia
    Intel killed the highend for me with sandy-e and X79. Ivy-e doesn't look much better. Haswell looks a much better option.
  22. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    698 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    64
    This is an Extreme class processor on an enthusiast level platform (currently X79). The prices are not going to go down.
  23. ensabrenoir

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,163 (0.75/day)
    Thanks Received:
    170
    ...oh geeeshh lets not start that again
  24. Sasqui

    Sasqui

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    7,430 (2.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,270
    Location:
    Manchester, NH
    You're not the only one who noticed.

    3.5 ghz (3970X) vs 3.6 ghz(4960X) turbo and not being able to see the MB for the 4960X makes the whole article from coolaler.com WORTHLESS.
  25. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,980 (3.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    798
    Location:
    Italy
    If Intel wants us X79 hexa users to upgrade they need to give us either an unlocked 8 core cpu or an unlocked qpi 6 core to play with on enthusiast 2p mobos.

    Not worthy draining my loop for a 5% increase in IPC.

    Might aswell bump my 3930k to 5,3Ghz and call it a day until Haswell-E comes.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)

Share This Page