| Intel Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition CPU |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | |
| Written by David Ramsey | |
| Monday, 14 November 2011 | |
|
Page 7 of 17
PCMark Vantage TestsPCMark Vantage is an objective hardware performance benchmark tool for PCs running 32- and 64-bit versions of Microsoft Windows Vista or Windows 7. It's well suited for benchmarking any type of Microsoft Windows Vista/7 PC: from multimedia home entertainment systems and laptops, to dedicated workstations and high-end gaming rigs. Benchmark Reviews has decided to use a few select tests from the suite to simulate real-world processor usage in this article. Our tests were conducted on 64-bit Windows 7, with results displayed in the chart below. TV and Movies Suite
Gaming Suite*
Music Suite
* EDITOR'S NOTE: Hopefully our readers will carefully consider how relevant PCMark Vantage is as a "real-world" benchmark, since many of the tests rely on unrelated hardware components. For example, per the FutureMark PCMark Vantage White Paper document, Gaming test #2 weighs the storage device for 100% of the test score. In fact, according to PCMark Vantage the video card only impacts 23% of the total gaming score, but the CPU represents 37% of the final score. As our tests in this article (and many others) have already proven, gaming performance has a lot more to do with the GPU than the CPU, and especially more than the hard drive or SSD (which is worth 38% of the final gaming performance score). 
The TV and Movies suite concentrates on video playback and transcoding, but only uses two threads at a maximum, so performance here is based more on clock speed and IPC (instructions per clock) than anything else. Here we see one of the closest performance clusters of this review, with the overclocked 3960X only 38% faster than the FX-8150 and 8% faster than the 2600K. The Gaming benchmark relies on the hard disk and video card for over 50% of its score (see the Editor's Note above), and we're using the same HDD and video card for all platforms, so the Intel decisive win in this test simply means that Vantage's gaming code is more optimized for Intel processors. Bear in mind, however, that most "real world" games will not show this difference; generally, in games, your video card matters most, followed by the clock speed (not number of cores) of your processor. The PCMark Vantage gaming test can use up to 16 threads, so it's very strange that the eight core FX-8150 turns in markedly lower scores than the four-core Intel processors, even considering Hyper-Threading. Unlike the Gaming test, the Music test results have more real-world relevance, since multi-threading is much more common in music transcoding applications than it is in games. Even so, the advanced Sandy Bridge cores mean that the four-core i7-2600K beats the six-core i7-980X. The 3960X wins again, albeit not by much. The wins are piling up in the Intel column. Let's move on to CINEBENCH.
|
|
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!