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

Sandy Bridge-E Benchmarks Leaked: Disappointing Gaming Performance?

Discussion in 'News' started by qubit, Nov 13, 2011.

  1. entropy13

    entropy13

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,988 (2.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,228
    What picture? That it's a power hog like Bulldozer? :confused:

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  2. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,174 (4.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,432
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    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.
     
  3. entropy13

    entropy13

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,988 (2.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,228
    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  4. ramcoza New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2011
    Messages:
    17 (0.01/day)
    Thanks Received:
    6
  5. entropy13

    entropy13

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,988 (2.28/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,228
  6. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,174 (4.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,432
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Bigger list:

     
  7. claylomax

    claylomax

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,642 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    272
    Location:
    London
    I meant that "doesn't change the picture of power consumption" compared to HARDOCP's review :)
     
  8. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,174 (4.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,432
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    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.
     
  9. claylomax

    claylomax

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    1,642 (0.92/day)
    Thanks Received:
    272
    Location:
    London
  10. Recus

    Recus

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2011
    Messages:
    550 (0.41/day)
    Thanks Received:
    196
  11. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    10,154 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,699
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    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. :ohwell:

    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. :p

    EDIT: Here's more IPC comparisons by Hardware Canucks.
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
  12. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,992 (2.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Location:
    Italy
    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 :D
     
  13. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    10,154 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,699
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    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.
     
  14. radrok

    radrok

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,992 (2.45/day)
    Thanks Received:
    803
    Location:
    Italy
    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!
     
    qubit says thanks.
  15. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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 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.
     
  16. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,406
    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
     
  17. qubit

    qubit Overclocked quantum bit

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    Messages:
    10,154 (3.84/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,699
    Location:
    Quantum well (UK)
    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. :p

    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?

    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. :ohwell:
     
  18. nt300

    nt300

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    868 (0.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    160
    Location:
    Toronto, ON. Canada
    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.
     
  19. n-ster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867 (3.96/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1,406
    But it is EXACTLY what we thought it would be :/
     
  20. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,174 (4.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,432
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Who is this "we"?


    :laugh:


    I don't care to speculate on Bulldozer.


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

    ensabrenoir

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,293 (0.73/day)
    Thanks Received:
    242
    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2011
  22. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,800 (0.77/day)
    Thanks Received:
    547
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    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. :D
     
  23. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,174 (4.37/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,432
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta

    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. ;)
     
  24. Wile E

    Wile E Power User

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2006
    Messages:
    24,324 (7.91/day)
    Thanks Received:
    3,778
    Ditto. Prior to them releasing the lineup details, I thought an 8/16 beast was definitely gonna happen.
     
  25. Benetanegia

    Benetanegia New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    2,683 (1.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    694
    Location:
    Reaching your left retina.
    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.
     

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

Share This Page