| Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge Processor |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | |
| Written by David Ramsey | |
| Monday, 23 April 2012 | |
|
Page 5 of 19
AIDA64 Extreme Edition TestsAIDA64 is a full 64-bit benchmark and test suite utilizing MMX, 3DNow! and SSE instruction set extensions, and will scale up to 32 processor cores. An enhanced 64-bit System Stability Test module is also available to stress the whole system to its limits. For legacy processors all benchmarks and the System Stability Test are available in 32-bit versions as well. Additionally, AIDA64 adds new hardware to its database, including 300 solid-state drives. On top of the usual ATA auto-detect information the new SSD database enables AIDA64 to display flash memory type, controller model, physical dimensions, and data transfer performance data. AIDA64 v1.00 also implements SSD-specific SMART disk health information for Indilinx, Intel, JMicron, Samsung, and SandForce controllers. All of the benchmarks used in this test— Queen, Photoworxx, ZLib, hash, and AES— rely on basic x86 instructions, and consume very little system memory while also being aware of Hyper-Threading, multi-processors, and multi-core processors. Of all the tests in this review, AIDA64 is the one that best isolates the processor's performance from the rest of the system. While this is useful in that it more directly compares processor performance, readers should remember that virtually no "real world" programs will mirror these results. 
The Queen and Photoworxx tests are synthetic benchmarks that iterate the function many times and over-exaggerate what the real-world performance would be like. The Queen benchmark focuses on the branch prediction capabilities and misprediction penalties of the CPU. It does this by finding possible solutions to the classic queen problem on a chessboard. At the same clock speed theoretically the processor with the shorter pipeline and smaller misprediction penalties will attain higher benchmark scores. Like the Queen benchmark, the Photoworxx tests for penalties against pipeline architecture. The synthetic Photoworxx benchmark stresses the integer arithmetic and multiplication execution units of the CPU and also the memory subsystem. Due to the fact that this test performs high memory read/write traffic, it cannot effectively scale in situations where more than two processing threads are used, so quad-core processors with Hyper-Threading have no real advantage. The AIDIA64 Photoworxx benchmark performs the following tasks on a very large RGB image:
In the Queen test, the 3770K turns in a score only 3.5% higher than the 3600K, and 5.5% higher in the PhotoWorxx test (at stock speeds). 
In the ZLIB test, the Ivy Bridge is 6.8% better, while in the Hash test it's 14.4% better. 
In the AES test it's only 3.3% better. Oddly the Ivy Bridge score drops slightly in this test when it's overclocked. We've seen the Sandy Bridge's insensitivity to overclock in this test in our reviews of the Core i7-2600K and the Core i7-3960X Extreme CPUs. AMD CPUs, on the other hand, dramatically improve their scores in this test when overclocked. Let's move on to the PCMark 7benchmark.
|
|
Comments
Ivy Bridge does enable the mainboard's PCI-E 3.0 features, but I don't think that your card is 3.0 compliant. If there is a huge advantage to PCI-E 3.0 as opposed to 2.0 operation, that would make me want to change over.
Thanks for the review. It was a good read.
In any case right now PCI-E 3.0 bandwidth improvements have no discernible effect on graphics performance since no card is anywhere close to saturating the bandwidth of 16x or even 8x PCI-E 2.0.
Speaks volumes for the entry-level market, though, not much for the market the 3770K is in.
-Hank
I have an A8 APU and when paired with the 1GB XFX HD6670 Radeon card I have, it performs pretty good. It's a good overclocker and most of the available socket FM-1 mainboards have a ~lot~ of useable features on them. It represents excellent value for the low cost of ownership.
But, as you say, it is Apples and Oranges in the marketplace.
If you look at some of the other articles going around the net on this topic, you'd think IB is the second coming.
Hilbert Hagedoorn (Mr. GURU 3D, himself) says that the i7-3770K is an excellent overclocker, (guru3d.com/reviews) while you say otherwise.
Is there such a large difference between Engineering Samples, or is this the same-o, same-o from Intel, where there's a large gap in performance from one (supposedly) identical cpu to another?
It's fairly common knowledge that retail bought cpu's OC better than the engineering samples given out to review sites. Is this the case concerning the cpu that you tested, and that a retail version may actually OC much, much better than the one you have?
If so, then the reviewing of any free sample should never be done. Ever.
If any reviewer can't afford, or is too cheap, to buy a random retail component for reviewing, then the review is completely suspect, since it does NOT apply to what real people buy themselves off-the-shelf.
So yes, in answer to your question, there is a difference between engineering samples; in fact there's a difference between retail samples, as any overclocker knows. And as for "large difference", the 4.9GHz Hilbert reached was a mere 4.2% better than the 4.7GHz I reached, so your definition of "large" seems a little off to me.
No review sites normally buy retail samples of the products they review. Even if we did, waiting for a retail Ivy Bridge CPU would mean you'd read all these reviews weeks later than you would otherwise. And I'm not sure I could wait that long for your appreciation.
benchmarkreviews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11003
I'm not going to bother visiting his site to find out, but I presume he might have cooled it differently or simply received a better sample.
Going to hate forever?
It looks possible that even if it brings better power usage, throttling might bring overall performance down if a manufacturer isn't attentive to their cooling system design.
So doubling the potential throughput from x16 2.0 to x16 3.0 won't make any difference because no current software is trying to pump that much information across PCI-E.
The real win for PCI-E 3.0 would be with non-video card devices, like PCI-E SSDs. Of course the trouble is that with current Ivy Bridge systems only the CPU has PCI-E 3.0 lines (the X77 Express chipset is still limited to PCI-E 2.0...and two SATA6 ports...and four USB 3.0 ports...because Intel is lazy), so the only slots with this connectivity are the one or two X16 slots a board will have, and these aren't the slots you'd put a non-graphics card in. Sigh.
Where this will make a real difference, as I notice in the review, is with laptop/ultrabook/portable devices. The lower power draw should make a real difference in battery life, allowing either smaller batteries (and smaller devices), longer life with the same size batteries, or any combination. This would be hard to test since you'd need two mobile devices with the only difference being the processor...and I only had a desktop CPU anyway.
Just today I have gotten three spams claiming they were new posts in Benchmark Reviews articles (including this one).
I enjoy reading the reviews here but if you guys can't do anything about the spam, I'll have to unsubscribe.
We immediately remove comments and block IPs, but unless you want to enter a long complex code then one spam message per week isn't the end of the world.
Last week I started getting a few more and today there were three when I got home for work. There's no way to block the sneaky buggers without blocking Benchmark Reviews.
If it goes back to one a week that would make me happy. If it increases again then I don't think I would stick around. We'll see how it goes. Maybe you guys can change the character test to four or five alphanumeric characters instead of three, or two short words. If it's spam bots that might help, if someone posts the spam manually then it wouldn't.
Good luck with it anyway.