| Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition CPU |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | |
| Written by David Ramsey | |
| Monday, 14 November 2011 | |
|
Page 17 of 17
Intel Core i7-3960X ConclusionBenchmark tests should always be taken with a grain of salt. It's difficult to try and isolate the performance difference a single component in a computer system makes, especially when it's necessary to compare across different manufacturers and platforms. Complicating the matter is the fact that benchmarks change, a manufacturer may change the technical details of a product, and the retail price may change as well. So please use this review as just one piece of information, and do your research before making a buying decision.
We've known Sandy Bridge Extreme has been coming for some months now, and we even knew pretty much what it would be: a six-core CPU based on the Sandy Bridge core architecture. Things like the gigantic 15M cache and expanded overclocking options are nice surprises, and at this point we can only wonder what Intel has in store for the forthcoming 22nm "Ivy Bridge" CPUs. Industry buzz has it that Ivy Bridge CPUs will drop right into existing Socket 1155 motherboards with only a BIOS upgrade needed, and the 22nm fabrication process may unlock even more performance. Costing $1049.99 at Newegg, the top-end Sandy Bridge Extreme CPU is the most expensive consumer CPU (high end Xeon server processors can cost thousands of dollars each). Add the $300+ cost of an X79 motherboard to put it in, as well as a new cooler (remember that Intel doesn't package a cooler with this CPU) and probably some more memory, and the cost of upgrading your existing X58 system could easily run to $1500 or more. That's a lot of money, especially in this economy, but as I mentioned before, for some segments of the market, it's a no-brainer. Assume that 29% average performance increase over a 980X holds true in a production environment: suddenly, rendering work that took, say, four hours now takes less than three hours. That's a huge win. This makes the value proposition hard to assess: even the most avid gamer's super rig won't generate noticeably more frames per second than it would with a Core i7-2600K, but for a professional graphics designer who spends hours rendering, it's cheap at twice the price. But at the end of the day, regardless of how much sense this CPU might or might not make in your application, the Core i7-3960X firmly establishes Intel's dominance in performance computing at the consumer level. It's simply an amazing product. Pros:
|
|
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!