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. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,155 (1.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    628
    Im more than certain that is your entire SYSTEM idling at that wattage. Its what I idle at with a 3770K at stock with power saving features on. ;)

    HDD's are NOTHING at idle (or when spun up for that matter, several watts). Your GPUs however, compared to the 7 series, dont drop to a 3W idle state, so I would imagine its that, the mobo itself, and the CPU
  2. LAN_deRf_HA

    LAN_deRf_HA

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    Messages:
    4,502 (1.95/day)
    Thanks Received:
    931
  3. Delta6326

    Delta6326

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    3,823 (1.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    667
    Location:
    Iowa, USA
    I agree with you any current or next gen CPU can realistically last for ages(4-8years) My Q6600 is still rocking. I'm a very light gamer and people need to realize that Intel is thinking about the other 90% of it's sells, Energy is a key factor now.

    Side note jihadjoe what volts are you running on your Q6600?, I've been thinking of OC'ing mine, it should last me to the end of this year, then I will go Haswell then wait another 5years+
  4. NeoXF

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    615 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    If you held out this "long", might as well wait for mainstream Intel hexacores (or AMD 5-module+) or at least DDR4... or see how A12 Kaveri turn out...

    Otherwise I'd shrug thinking physically nothing consistent has changed from such an upgrade, just IPC, new instructions and added HyperThreading.


    Then again, Q6600 to Haswell i5/i7 is a 5-6 generation jump... which then AGAIN, makes it even more sad that so little has changed.
  5. james888

    james888

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,279 (3.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,423
    Change for change sake is pointless. What do you think has needs changing.
    Crunching for Team TPU
  6. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,506 (4.99/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,947
    if i take a guess, it will be 10% faster but should cost 50% more?
  7. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,942 (6.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,915
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    Last I checked the 6950 wasn't a 7-series card either. We're talking about ASRock's computer that has a 6000-series card in it, not your with your power sipping 7-series card. :p

    The point is that despite the numbers being low, that's not all the CPU and there are other components that use power and even if you say those numbers are low, low numbers add up pretty quick when you're usage isn't a whole lot to begin with.

    A hard drive consuming 7 watts on a machine that draws 200 like mine is nothing, but on a computer that draws 70 watts at idle (I'm assuming the drives aren't spinning down,) that 7 watts just went from being well under 4% of your power usage to 10% of your consumed power. So the ratio of those smaller usages impact you more because the number is already so low.

    Also spinning up and slowing down drives a lot on a regular basis actually puts more stress on the motor in the drive. I've had the best luck leaving drives spun up because I'm perfectly willing to use the extra 25 watts to do it. (I'm rounding, I suspect 7200 RPM drives use more then 5400 ones like where i got the numbers from.)

    The only real point I'm trying to make is the lower the draw, the more other components can impact that usage, such as add some hard drives or adding a PCI-E expansion card.

    We already know how low it idles and that isn't in dispute, it's just the method.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2013
  8. NeoXF

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    615 (0.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    80
    What sake of change? We're busting quad-cores since 2006, within the same or slightly higher GHz range with almost the same tired instruction sets, with minimal IPC increase (if any) from generation to generation.

    Meanwhile, things like ARM are catching up to x86 like fungus on a 3rd world gym ceiling.

    Look at AMD's APU/heterogeneous initiative, at least on paper, it sounds like a huge f ing breakthrough, way bigger than gigahurtz wars and their diminishing returns or many-cores processing from awhile ago.
    james888 says thanks.
  9. Octavean

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    706 (0.31/day)
    Thanks Received:
    64
    It's a phenomenon of convergence whereby Intel is attempting to increase power efficiency in order to move in to the same segment of the market as ARM and ARM is attempting to improve its performance in order to move into the segment of the market traditionally dominated by more powerful x84 / x64 Intel / AMD solutions.
  10. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,340 (2.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    547
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    Once your into this chip and a decent motherboard territory ($$££€€)its more about how high it will oc with crazy cooling imho that and the max is min crowd.
  11. Hilux SSRG

    Hilux SSRG

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    867 (1.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    134
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Intel is not catering to people like me who don't give a fig about power efficiency. Like I and other gaming/tech users really care about spending $20 bucks more on electricity costs p/year.

    I really want an eight [8] core, sixteen [16] hyper-threading beast of a x86 cpu running at 8k-10k gigahertz stock speed.

    Forget the 1-10% power effeciency gains per "upgrade" cycle. These are not mobile chips Intel !!

    Waiting forever to upgrade from my i7-920 and Intel has not moved the bar much in 5+ years.
  12. EarthDog

    EarthDog

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,155 (1.89/day)
    Thanks Received:
    628
    Your bar... is high. LOL!
  13. Fourstaff

    Fourstaff Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    9,157 (5.39/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,959
    Location:
    Home
    3930K is quite a lot more powerful than 920
    Aquinus and EarthDog say thanks.
  14. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,942 (6.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,915
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    +1: Even the 3820 isn't a bad step up from the 920 in terms of performance. It's not mindboggling but there is an IPC improvement and it also runs at higher clocks and has a more powerful IMC. In general I would say SB-E was a decent step up from skt1366 because in general it's faster across the board regardless what CPU you get compared to the 920, but it's not necessarily a reason to upgrade. It's a good platform if you're upgrading anyways imho but that depends on what you're using it for.
  15. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404 (5.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,345
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    No it was'nt..... look at the clock for clock performance as opposed to stock clocks which will give you an accurate picture of the architecture advancement, I think you will find across the board we would be talking 10-12%.
  16. Hilux SSRG

    Hilux SSRG

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    867 (1.06/day)
    Thanks Received:
    134
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Now I know I should "try" to find a comparison between the 920 and the 3930k [if one exists!] but let's say its 20-30% faster overall. I'm wondering why anyone should shell out $500+ for a new mobo and chip for just 20-30% improvement in 5+ YEARS.

    I'm not looking to start an arguement but am willing to say intel has coasted for a few years now. I'd rather spend the money on a better gpu from amd or nvidia.
  17. HumanSmoke

    HumanSmoke

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,203 (1.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    367
    Then again, you could fire up the calculator...
    45% better in Mental Ray, 44% better in V-Ray, 39% better in Visual Studio......

    Depending on the users intended workload, it may (or may not) look advantageous - and that's the whole platform I mean (X79 vs X58)
  18. Tatty_One

    Tatty_One Senior Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    Messages:
    16,404 (5.27/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,345
    Location:
    Worcestershire, UK
    But as I said earlier, those differences are not a reflection of huge architectural improvements, when you actually look at the 2 offerings and see that the 920 stocks at 2.66Gig and had 4 cores/8 threads, the 3930 stocks at 3.2gig and has 6 cores/12 threads, it leaves me with the feeling that there is a scary amount of hype and very little real substance to the architecure, but then again I am a 930 owner so i perhaps would say that!
  19. Ikaruga

    Ikaruga

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2011
    Messages:
    866 (0.69/day)
    Thanks Received:
    182
    There is a test on a Chinese page which claims almost no performance gain compared to Ivy Bridge. I hope it's wrong.

    Attached Files:

  20. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,981 (2.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Location:
    Italy
    You got to count in that the 3930K overclocks way more than a Nehalem chip.

    My old i7 920 couldn't do more than 4,2Ghz.

    My 3930K does 5,1-5,2Ghz.
  21. Aquinus

    Aquinus Resident Wat-man

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2012
    Messages:
    5,942 (6.54/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,915
    Location:
    Concord, NH
    That's all your motherboard. My P9X79 Deluxe doesn't like 4.5Ghz or higher without some serious bumps in voltage (>1.425v). 4.92Ghz @ 1.51v was the highest I was ever able to achieve with this board and I've seen people use the RIVE to hit >5Ghz with the same CPU and similar voltages.

    Not to say that I'm not happy with my 4.37Ghz under 1.4v, but it really depends on the motherboard. Unless I'm missing some important settings on my motherboard but I don't think that is the case.

    You forget that SB-E has a better IPC than its 1366 predecessors, not by a lot but it starts counting more and more the higher the CPU clock goes because IPC scales linearly.

    It was my impression that even the 3820 was a sizable improvement from a 920, forget a 3930k.
  22. HumanSmoke

    HumanSmoke

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,203 (1.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    367
    They appear to be graphics (and GPU dependant) benchmarks, so hardly surprising.
    Of more interest would be 5GHz at 0.9v
    Last edited: May 12, 2013
  23. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,981 (2.97/day)
    Thanks Received:
    800
    Location:
    Italy
    I've had quite a lot to tweak to reach those clocks stable.

    I think your motherboard has the same settings hidden in somewhere but I won't deny it's easier to overclock on a RIVE than with another kind of motherboard.

    On top of my head I had to set LLC for both VCCSA and CPU to Ultra, had to fiddle with CPU current capability, CPU switching frequency and some strange settings that are on BIOS that I never heard or remember of... :roll:

    The voltage slope from 4,7/4,8 Ghz to 5,1/5,2Ghz is insane though, we are talking from a comfy 1,35v to 1,52-1,55v.

    I wouldn't be surprised to see my motherboard VRM toast someday even though they are watercooled but the backside is not and you can't touch that backplate without getting almost burned.


    Speaking of HEDT platform I wish Intel would BCLK unlock the upcoming Haswell-E Xeons to have back some glory like X58 westmeres had.
  24. theoneandonlymrk

    theoneandonlymrk

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    3,340 (2.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    547
    Location:
    Manchester uk
    Er didn't intel focus mostly on gpu improvements this time round and claimed a 50% improvement in that area though , I think given intels cpu ipc performance is bordering optimal already they are doing well but clearly they are as they should be, focused on power efficiency and gpu grunt.
  25. D007

    D007

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,060 (1.13/day)
    Thanks Received:
    374
    Location:
    Pompano beach, Florida
    I'm glad I got my 960 when it came out..
    Has been a little monster for me and a hell of a boost from a dual core.
    This however doesn't make me want to upgrade at all..lol

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page