Overclocking: Can Sandy Bridge-E Be Made More Efficient?

Intel's Core i7-3000 Family: Dominating The High-End

First let’s look at the processors in detail. In Intel Core i7-3960X Review: Sandy Bridge-E And X79 Express and Sandy Bridge-E: Core i7-3960X Is Fast, But Is It Any More Efficient?, we examined Intel's architecture, the X79 Express chipset, and the efficiency in terms of performance per watt. Our conclusion was that the Core i7-3000 family is the fastest you can put in a desktop, though the six-core models burn up notably more power than the familiar Sandy Bridge-based chips launched more than a year ago.

Socket 1155, 1366, 2011: two, three, and four memory channels. Two or four channels on socket 1155, four or six on socket 1366, and between four and eight on socket 2011.Socket 1155, 1366, 2011: two, three, and four memory channels. Two or four channels on socket 1155, four or six on socket 1366, and between four and eight on socket 2011.

Naturally, in order to get the most out of this platform, you'll need an X79 Express-based motherboard and a four-channel DDR3 memory kit, at the very least. As with past flagships from Intel, it's also probably a good idea to use an SSD with a system this quick; mechanical storage is going to slow down boot-up, app launches, random I/O, and the shut-down process.

Intel currently offers three versions of the Core i7-3000 processor family. The first is its Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition, with 15 MB of shared L3 cache between six cores and a 3.3 GHz base clock rate. With second-gen Turbo Boost enabled, the processor's power control unit can turn the clock rate up to 3.9 GHz in lightly-threaded workloads, and as long as thermal headroom allows for it. Unfortunately, a street price of $1050 is prohibitively expensive for almost everyone. Moreover, Intel doesn't bundle the chip with a cooling solution, adding one more component to your shopping list.

The Core i7-3930K is significantly less expensive. Intel sells that model for $600, also without a cooler. It has a 12 MB instead of 15 MB shared cache, but it's hardly slower. A base frequency of 3.2 GHz jumps up as high as 3.8 GHz in lightly-threaded workloads through Turbo Boost. Although it still costs a lot, we like that the Core i7-3930K includes an unlocked multiplier, which lets you get just as much performance from it through overclocking as the $1000+ flagship. That's one of the reasons we awarded it the very-rare Best of Tom's Hardware award in Intel Core i7-3930K And Core i7-3820: Sandy Bridge-E, Cheaper.

And then there's the Core i7-3820, which only sports four cores, but operates at a base clock rate of 3.6 GHz. Although this less-complex chip could probably hit higher Turbo Boost frequencies, Intel limits it to 3.9 GHz to keep it from outshining the top-end Core i7-3960X in single-threaded tasks. Limited to 10 MB of shared L3 cache, we had expected this chip to be out already, but it seems to be missing in action still.

Intel's Core i7-3000 series requires a motherboard with the x79 chipset. PCBs are available from all major manufacturers, but the prices in this high-end segment are hefty.Intel's Core i7-3000 series requires a motherboard with the x79 chipset. PCBs are available from all major manufacturers, but the prices in this high-end segment are hefty.

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
28 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • Yargnit
    What about trying to under-volt it at slight under-clocks to slight-overclocks. How much room is there to reduce it's stock voltage to gain better efficiency?
    20
  • Other Comments
  • mayankleoboy1
    This article appeared on tomshardware.de weeks before.
    2
  • Combat Wombat
    Good to know!
    0
  • Yargnit
    What about trying to under-volt it at slight under-clocks to slight-overclocks. How much room is there to reduce it's stock voltage to gain better efficiency?
    20
  • billj214
    Was there an efficiency chart made for the Core i7 2600k or 2700k?
    Nice to know Intel doesn't just set the stock clock speed for just performance!
    0
  • Marcus52
    Quote:
    And then there's the Core i7-3820, which only sports four cores, but operates at a base clock rate of 3.6 GHz. Although this less-complex chip could probably hit higher Turbo Boost frequencies, Intel limits it to 3.9 GHz to keep it from outshining the top-end Core i7-3960X in single-threaded tasks.


    Did someone at Intel tell you that was the reason for a lower Turbo Boost limit, or did you just assume it?

    I think we should be careful of this kind of guess at another person's, or company's, reasoning. There could be some other cause for the limit - for example, they will obviously sell it for a lower price, so wouldn't a possible reason be they have looser binning specs to allow for chips that wouldn't make it under more strenuous tests through? (Remember, Intel, or any CPU manufacturer, doesn't warrant the product based on what it can be pushed to, and is generally going to provide it at a clock rate they feel is safe over time to guarantee.)

    I'm certainly not saying it is a bad assumption, what you said makes sense to me, but I do think there are enough other reasonable possibilities that I wouldn't have stated it as a fact unless I knew it to be.

    ;)
    6
  • Marcus52
    Thanks for the analysis!

    I do think articles like this are very important; those of us who overclock, especially when we turn off all the power-saving features in hopes of reaching that max stable a CPU can do, should be aware of how much money we are spending if we keep said OC. It's more than just the high end cooling solution.

    The people that bash higher capacity PSUs could also stand to learn a thing or two, here. An overclocked CPU can require a huge amount of peak power over and above what a stock CPU needs (349W measured here). An overclocked Sandy Bridge-E and an overclocked GTX 580 could require a peak power of 650W just considering those 2 components!

    A Kill A Watt or similar device is a great way to measure how much you actually spend a month operating your computer. You might be surprised.

    ;)
    2
  • lahawzel
    "Intel Core i7-3690X Extreme Edition"

    Tom's Parallel Universe Hardware.
    -3
  • giovanni86
    Just a thought, so at 4.7Ghz the performance increase was only 16%? For being such a High overclock i was hoping for more then that. You guys literally upped the bar from stock clock to the OC clock by 1.4ghz, seems like a small increase in performance if you look at the amount of watts it takes.. Well at least its good 2 know my future billing of electricity will sure be expensive.. =P
    1
  • Naxos
    Does anyone spending 600-1k$ on a cpu really care about efficiency??
    -7
  • cangelini
    Marcus52Did someone at Intel tell you that was the reason for a lower Turbo Boost limit, or did you just assume it?I think we should be careful of this kind of guess at another person's, or company's, reasoning. There could be some other cause for the limit - for example, they will obviously sell it for a lower price, so wouldn't a possible reason be they have looser binning specs to allow for chips that wouldn't make it under more strenuous tests through? (Remember, Intel, or any CPU manufacturer, doesn't warrant the product based on what it can be pushed to, and is generally going to provide it at a clock rate they feel is safe over time to guarantee.)I'm certainly not saying it is a bad assumption, what you said makes sense to me, but I do think there are enough other reasonable possibilities that I wouldn't have stated it as a fact unless I knew it to be.

    Hence the "probably." Of course, we don't know for sure, nor would Intel ever admit as such, but it's an educated guess nonetheless. =)
    2
  • cangelini
    mayankleoboy1This article appeared on tomshardware.de weeks before.

    Which makes sense since it was written in German =)
    1
  • visz963
    What a big surprise
    -1
  • gsxrme
    my 2600k @ 5.1GHz 1.5v (49/103) will eat this CPU for lunch when playing games. Thx to Gskills 2200Mhz cas7 ram.
    -10
  • stingstang
    gsxrmemy 2600k @ 5.1GHz 1.5v (49/103) will eat this CPU for lunch when playing games. Thx to Gskills 2200Mhz cas7 ram.

    So are all....SOOO impressed by your dangerously overclocked processor. Thank you so much for making that comment.

    In other news...
    Maybe you guys should have gone backwards a little to see if underclocking would increase the efficiency by a greater factor than the performance loss?
    5
  • nss000
    Oh Nooooooooo! All we need is a decent webzine pimp (overclocking) krak to the byteboyz (occaine addicts)! It's a waste of **MY** resources when a company "cheats down" its nominal specs , catering to a lost ranting, kanting tribe of light-shunning, babble-voiced 11-yo gamerz, gonzos and gnuguruz .. all pretty much talking and acting like ... well .. you know who!

    If they all took a bath in liquid Nitrogen then **decent-minded** casual lusr userland would be well-served with the fastest-possible **default** system performance.

    Don't feed the animals, Tommy-me-laddie.....
    -6
  • jaquith
    Very nice article! Thanks for the efficiency data - food for thought :)

    I would agree though be it a somewhat modified multiplier approach, at least for 'my' environment and dependent on 'how' your applications are threaded using 45x/44x/43x. Currently, I'm playing with x48/x47/x46 and Strap values; If you have an ASUS MOBO -- here's a good OC'ing guide -> (scrub to 16 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx2z07sFM2I Again, it all depends on your: 1. vCore (luck of the CPU draw), 2. Thermal (temps/cooling), 3. Applications used.

    In addition, I really recommend using 'BIOS Profiles'; example if during the day I'm not doing anything stressful then I'll use a 'Stock' profile, or 'Gaming' profile, or 'Rendering' profile. Each tailored to the environment, a simple BIOS load and reboot you've got what you need from the SB-E.

    'My' selection for a limiting factor is the vCore and in essence the heat, I really don't recommend a vCore >1.45v -- so that's my limit. Every SB-E will offer, luck again, different stability per a designated vCore. I also have seen enough data to know both MOBO and Cooling aide signification enough.
    0
  • Anonymous
    What cooler was used?
    0
  • bin1127
    I like how it shows a minor increase in power use allows for a big gain in productivity; and then it tapers off.

    Do motherboards allow overclock profiles in the bios so you don't have to manually input new figures to 'turn on/off' overclocking?
    0
  • triny
    The 2500k is top dog
    6 cores? no one needs them
    over 1000$ ? craziness
    -3