| Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition CPU |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Written by David Ramsey | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Monday, 14 November 2011 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Page 15 of 17
Core i7-3960X OverclockingBenchmark Reviews has always been a fan of overclocking, with its historical roots of getting better performance from budget components. It might seem silly (and, frankly, kinda is) to overclock Intel's $990 Core i7-3960X CPU...but more performance is always better, right? The non-Extreme Sandy Bridge CPUs limit your overclocking in a number of ways: first, since the base clock is used to derive most of the other clocks in the system, to overclock by increasing the base clock frequency is virtually impossible, since increases of more than a few MHz will render the entire computer unstable. This leaves turbo ratio overclocking as the only real mechanism, and while all Sandy Bridge processors can increase their stock turbo multipliers slightly, only the unlocked "K-series" CPUs allow enough headroom for significant performance increases. And you must ensure that the chipset on the motherboard you're running allows this: putting the latest Core i7-2700K in an H67 motherboard will result in a functional computer, but one without any overclocking ability, which is limited to the P67 and Z68 chipsets. The X79 chipset brings a separate base clock back into the overclocking world, so this time-honored mechanism is again available. The CPU itself adds a new twist: in addition to increasing the voltage to the chip to support higher speeds, you can now increase the sustained maximum and burst maximum current draw as well. You should consider these overclocking results as preliminary: time pressure and the fact that the only cooler available was Intel's Asetek-sourced liquid cooler (which, while certainly competent, isn't a super-high-end cooler) means that we'll probably see better results in the future. Still, I achieved a solid 4.8GHz clock, sustainable on all cores under load, simply by increasing the turbo multiplier and tweaking ASUS' advanced digital power system on their new TUF Sabertooth X79 motherboard. This motherboard's active VRM cooling helped, too. The chart below shows how overclocking affected the 3960X's performance on each benchmark, with the stock clocked benchmark score normalized to 1.0 and the overclocked benchmark score represented as how much faster it was than the base clocked benchmark.
The 13% overall performance improvement is less than I'd hoped for, for a 900MHz overclock, but bear in mind that not all benchmarks used all cores, and indeed didn't necessarily load the cores enough to elicit the maximum turbo ratio. In any case, the 3960X is a performance beast even at its stock settings.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments
"For most of us, though, the Core i7-3960X makes as much sense as a 1,000 horsepower street car. It's fun at the dragstrip (running benchmarks), but a Core i7-2700K on a nice Z68 motherboard will be a fraction of the price and just as fast in "real world" terms."
This is a new era in power that will remain almost completely unused and unnecessary for most people, like you say, even us enthusiasts will need to think twice, except those who have money to needlessly burn.
You would think in these economic times, R&D of high dollar items like this would slow down. Interesting. At the same time, my i7 920 cost 1000.00 back in 2008, so the price to power ratio has dramatically fallen too.
But rich fanbois have big egos to satisfy so there will always be market for for stuff priced way out of line with what it is really worth. Useless - if I'm paying $1000 for a CPU it better be a multi CPU server chip in a render farm - something where you can get a return on your money at least. just my 2 cents for an alternate perspective.
I think petty envy speaks always more to one's ego state. Anyone's needs that are "really satisfied" by todays computing power will probably have a "cute device" for their "cute needs" soon enuff. and good riddance.
My needs are far from even close to being satisfied... though cinebench over 12 is at least progressing ( not enough knowing the Ivy Extreme will be released in 2012. And hopefully that benchmark gives more distance )
Catch 22 is really depressing! There is an army of artists whose talent could bring yer boss machine to it's knees given the chance. Instead they compromise to console greed economics. And instead of buying hardware that can push the boundries a market without that entertainment actually believes that we are at "good enuff".
Thanks for the consolitic ball and chain!
Buy it and they will make it/ Make it and they will buy it.
What do "most" users do with their computers that does not desperately need more computing power? Don't they have an app for that yet?
Also, if by FPS you're referring to frames per second, I suggest you do a bit MORE reading here at Benchmark Reviews... so you'll learn that the CPU has very little to do with frame rates.
Look on the bright side: now that Intel's Core i7-3960X has significantly raised expectations, you might soon find AMD processors selling in the blue-light section over at K-Mart. I understand they fired their entire marketing staff of 1400 workers after Bulldozer launched, so the only people saying anything good about them these days are the fan boys, and even they're unhappy.
You're right about frame rates with some games, and I over-simplified my statement. Battlefield 3 is one such game, and DirectX-11 effects drive all processor cores to nearly 50% usage even when played with a GTX 590. Obviously, there are times when the CPU will make a difference in game performance, but that requires advanced technology at a time when most developers are keeping to console (a la Modern Warefare 3).
Amatures ... This David R guy sounds like he has it together though ...
This was a very comprehensive review. It left me with no questions about the comparison of power.
FSX: enough said.
For example, my 2600K at 4.9Ghz + water can run the SPECapc rendering suite in 443 seconds. From your chart in the review it shows an overclocked 3930X does it in 408 seconds.
Simply put, that would be a 10% improvement from what I have now for a 300% price tag. :-)
I just wanted to say the fact you include this test in your reviews is very helpful to me, so thanks again. :-)
So yes, you pay 300% more, but that is a one time cost compared to getting that 10% every single time you run a model.
I believe the 3d ivybridge will be a better bargain than these.
Idont know if ivybridge extreme will be compatible with x79 mobo but P67 mobos will all for ivybridge upgrades making the 2600k chips a better deal from the getgo.
If you're asking about six core non-extreme Sandy Bridges, well, there aren't going to be any.
The NVIDIA Maximus announced release sounds pretty sexy ( quadro and tesla sandwich please!). Kind of makes me wonder if the mercury engine might deserve a second look.
Would appreciate a review if could score a copy.
geforce.com/Active/en_US/shared/images/articles/x79/3way.jpg
Still will probably wait for ivy bridge - E as the cinebench numbers do not justify dropping $1500 for x79 porn. But if the 3 way scaling is even close to the truth then I am very happy that the IVY Bridge solution will most likely do as much.
Makes waiting a few more seasons for my new dragster pretty hard though.
I must say I am very satisfied!