Friday, July 22nd 2011

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

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

#1
Platibus
Pestilence said:
A month? I can purchase an 990X processor with 1 weeks paycheck. Do you think everyone on TPU works at Mcdonalds? :laugh:
Do you think everyone on TPU lives in a first world country? Oh wait, most of them do :laugh: Still, show some respect, man.:shadedshu
And thank for answering my question. I'm hoping to get a SB i5 with a H67 MB for christmas, and if what you say is true I could upgrade to IB on the same platform m/ Thanks again.
Posted on Reply
#3
nINJAkECIL
looking at the pics of some lga2011 mobos,they dont has video output, so i'm sure all lga2011 doesnt has integrated gpu.
even if it does,who buys a 1000 dollar cpu and NOT using dedicated gpu? hell they would even goes multi-gpu setup.
Posted on Reply
#4
ensabrenoir
AsRock said:
Thing is INTEL want your pay checks for a month for their stuff.

Whats turning me of INTEL is noit just the price is they keep changing the sockets every time some one farts.
They have different option to suite your needs. Its as simple as find one that fits and run with it. I choose 1156. I7 860. Haven't found anything it can't handle yet. Will upgrade because I can to 2011. Will give 1156 to wife and it will keep her happy for about ... 10 years.
Posted on Reply
#5
Wile E
Power User
Trackr said:
:rolleyes:

Wow, you took the results of 4 realistic tests (10-30%), and averaged it out with the results of 4 COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC tests yielding 110% improvement..

Then you postered it as the title of this thread.

CANNOT .. HOLD .. BACK .. FACEPALM
You have no reason to facepalm. If anybody should be on the receiving end of one, it's you. What part of "From these test results" is difficult for you to follow? Seems to me he made it perfectly clear the results were from a very specific set of circumstances.
Posted on Reply
#6
Jonap_1st
nINJAkECIL said:
looking at the pics of some lga2011 mobos,they dont has video output, so i'm sure all lga2011 doesnt has integrated gpu.
even if it does,who buys a 1000 dollar cpu and NOT using dedicated gpu? hell they would even goes multi-gpu setup.
talking about overkill the gpu :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#7
swaaye
ensabrenoir said:
Will give 1156 to wife and it will keep her happy for about ... 10 years.
Yeah I'm still helping people with their Athlon XPs and P4s. It's something how we used to think that was speed. Hell, I used to think 486s were inspiring. ;)
Posted on Reply
#8
bostonbuddy
swaaye said:
Yeah I'm still helping people with their Athlon XPs and P4s. It's something how we used to think that was speed. Hell, I used to think 486s were inspiring. ;)
I'm sure in a few years i7s will be laughable
Posted on Reply
#9
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Same. I'm about the only one in the area with a Core i7. Most are between Athlon XP/Pentium 4 and early Core 2/Athlon X2 (AM2).

Most people don't game on their computer around here so they have little/no reason to get a high performance nor modern computer. Internet, email, Word, and Excel is all they care about and a Atom processor can handle that.
Posted on Reply
#10
mastrdrver
TheMailMan78 said:
47% = 23.5% in the marketing world.
....and by looking at the slides that 23.5% = ~10% in reality.......of the benchmark world. In other words, the only performance improvement that is seen in actually using a program is because of clock speeds.
Posted on Reply
#11
ensabrenoir
swaaye said:
Yeah I'm still helping people with their Athlon XPs and P4s. It's something how we used to think that was speed. Hell, I used to think 486s were inspiring. ;)
Dude when i got a p4 with hyper threading you couldn't tell me nothing. :laugh: But going from that p4 with ht to an i7 with an ssd. ....:rockout: Gonna take years to capture that feeling again. :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#12
Googoo24
wolf said:
my only question about this is will current H67 and P67 chipsets support Ivy Bridge 1155 chips, or will we need a new 1155 board becuase it has a new chipset.

as for this new i7.... freakin wow. ~47% faster with the same amount of logical/physical cores, and a lower clock speed, bar turbo.

Intel you've done it again.

http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/images3/palestine_2004/destroyed_bulldozer.jpe
I'm a bit confused......Why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't this expected?
Posted on Reply
#13
LordJummy
Googoo24 said:
I'm a bit confused......Why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't this expected?
That's not why people are excited. People are excited because the new intel cpu's will be the most powerful single desktop CPU's on the planet. Most of us who like to buy high end intel processors don't care that the AMD processor is much cheaper, because it doesn't compete in performance. A lot of people seem to be unable to realize this...

To some people it's not about cost. It is purely about performance, and if AMD can't compete then I won't use it if it's FREE. Well, I might use it for my wife's PC's....
Posted on Reply
#14
Googoo24
If it's not about cost, then of course you would go with this particular Intel CPU. It's guaranteed to be the more powerful product. Why would anyone expect less of an $800 (potentially $1000) Intel cpu? Did anyone really expect AMD's $300 CPU, which they've slated as competition for SB, to compete with this beast? And we still don't know if it even surpasses that.

Unless the conclusion is that Bulldozer will surpass SB, why would anyone be concerned about this thing crushing Bulldozer? That's all I'm baffled about. This product is exciting, but if history repeats itself, I'll be damned if I can afford one.
Posted on Reply
#15
Steven B
if AMD is charging $300 for a CPu that stands up to Intel sandybridge then AMD has a problem(B/C a 2600K is less), as Intel will release a market segment at that same price range with better performance like they have done with i7 930.
Posted on Reply
#16
Googoo24
Steven B said:
if AMD is charging $300 for a CPu that stands up to Intel sandybridge then AMD has a problem(B/C a 2600K is less), as Intel will release a market segment at that same price range with better performance like they have done with i7 930.
AMD's doing the same thing, essentially. There will be 3 products utilizing the Bulldozer name. Next year (whenever) is supposed to see the release of enhanced Bulldozer (running on a new socket, so probably not the same thing as you mention) and an APU using a Bulldozer CPU. They're also releasing newer steppings of the current architecture.

But, meh, the Core i7-3960X will slap anything currently in existence silly.
Posted on Reply
#17
LordJummy
Googoo24 said:
If it's not about cost, then of course you would go with this particular Intel CPU. It's guaranteed to be the more powerful product. Why would anyone expect less of an $800 (potentially $1000) Intel cpu? Did anyone really expect AMD's $300 CPU, which they've slated as competition for SB, to compete with this beast? And we still don't know if it even surpasses that.

Unless the conclusion is that Bulldozer will surpass SB, why would anyone be concerned about this thing crushing Bulldozer? That's all I'm baffled about. This product is exciting, but if history repeats itself, I'll be damned if I can afford one.
You are seriously misunderstanding the entire thing.

The 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?

PS: this thread is about an intel processor, and is not about bulldozer even if some people mention it.
Posted on Reply
#18
Wile E
Power User
LordJummy said:
You are seriously misunderstanding the entire thing.

The 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?
I'm one of those people. I save my money to buy the fastest at the time I'm ready to purchase. I don't do the routine that most budget enthusiast go thru where they buy a budget product, then buy the next step or 2 up a couple months later, etc., etc. Those people generally spend just as much as me in the long run, but it's compromise after compromise. Unless, of course, they just like testing new hardware, that's different.

I just keep using my old top end hardware until I can afford the new top end hardware. I usually use a tic-toc approach (with one year between tics and tocs). CPU & whatever else needed to make it run on tics and gpu on tocs. Bought my cpu, mobo and ram last year(upgrade from QX9650 2 years prior), bought the 580 this year (upgrade from 4870X2 2 years prior). Next year I'm due for a CPU upgrade, but I'll postpone this one to get a high end 8 core chip
Posted on Reply
#19
Googoo24
You are seriously misunderstanding the entire thing.

The 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.
And you are you telling me this, why? My whole point was why are people bringing up Bulldozer in this topic. Period. Did you understand that?

Where did I indicate that people shouldn't be excited about this product, or that the only reason they are excited is because of BD crushing? Hell, I'm excited about this product.
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?
Gee, I don't recollect saying (or indicating) anything of the sort. Here's what I wrote; I'll quote myself for posterity's sake.
I'm a bit confused......Why are folks excited that a (more than likely) $800+ Intel CPU is going to better than AMD's $320 offering? Wasn't this expected?
Notice 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.
PS: this thread is about an intel processor, and is not about bulldozer even if some people mention it.
Yeah. I know.
Posted on Reply
#20
trt740
Wile E said:
I'm one of those people. I save my money to buy the fastest at the time I'm ready to purchase. I don't do the routine that most budget enthusiast go thru where they buy a budget product, then buy the next step or 2 up a couple months later, etc., etc. Those people generally spend just as much as me in the long run, but it's compromise after compromise. Unless, of course, they just like testing new hardware, that's different.

I just keep using my old top end hardware until I can afford the new top end hardware. I usually use a tic-toc approach (with one year between tics and tocs). CPU & whatever else needed to make it run on tics and gpu on tocs. Bought my cpu, mobo and ram last year(upgrade from QX9650 2 years prior), bought the 580 this year (upgrade from 4870X2 2 years prior). Next year I'm due for a CPU upgrade, but I'll postpone this one to get a high end 8 core chip
Willie, I have to say upgrade wise you are smart and disciplined. Didn't you have a rampage with your QX9650. QX9650 is still a beast even today.
Posted on Reply
#21
Wile E
Power User
Yep, well sort of. Maximus Formula flashed to Rampage. Still have them both. They are now my file/media/mumble server.
Posted on Reply
#22
trt740
Wile E said:
Yep, well sort of. Maximus Formula flashed to Rampage. Still have them both. They are now my file/media/mumble server.
I miss that board as I recall we had the same set up but in my case for about 6 months and now I have a new intel system and just hit 5.0ghz on average air cooling unreal BD better be a monster.
Posted on Reply
#23
Wile E
Power User
Yeah, it's a good, stable board with good features.
Posted on Reply
#24
Lazzer408
I 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
Posted on Reply
#25
trt740
Lazzer408 said:
I 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
Yes AMD is unreal In that department, my last board supported like 30 plus cpus.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment