Power Consumption
Sandy Bridge-E isn’t on the same tick-tock cadence as Intel’s desktop processors. We’re a few months away from the next “tick,” in the form of Ivy Bridge, and here we are evaluating the performance of a “tock”-derivative.
That’s not bad news by any stretch of the imagination. Intel nailed its 32 nm lithography node, giving the company a mature process on which to build this 2.27 billion-transistor, 434 square-millimeter processor. Gulftown, in comparison, is comprised of 1.17 billion transistors in a 248 mm2 die. Despite that disparity in size and composition, Intel manages to work Sandy Bridge-E into a 130 W TDP, just like the Core i7-990X.
| Processor | Idle System Power Consumption |
|---|---|
| Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) | 87 W |
| Intel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge) | 90 W |
| Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) | 90 W |
| AMD Phenom II X4 980 (Deneb) | 100 W |
| AMD FX-8150 (Zambezi) | 111 W |
| AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (Thuban) | 114 W |
| Intel Core i7-990X (Gulftown) | 127 W |
| Intel Core i7-920 (Bloomfield) | 130 W |
And yet, at idle, Core i7-3960X behaves a lot like a 95 W Sandy Bridge desktop processor, dropping down to less than 90 W of system power use measured after 10 minutes of sitting on the Windows desktop. In comparison, Bloomfield (Core i7-920) and Gulftown (Core i7-990X) are much more power-hungry at idle.
After measuring idle system power use, I ran and logged complete runs of PCMark 7 to track average power use in a more graphically-representative way. In order to keep the chart from getting too muddled, I only left Core i7-3960X, Core i7-990X, and FX-8150. You can see, though, in looking at the peaks and dips, that Sandy Bridge-E is using less power than either of its competitors.
Averaging system power use gives us this list:
| PCMark 7 System Power Consumption, Logged In Two-Second Intervals | |
|---|---|
| Processor | Average Power Across One Run |
| Intel Core i5-2500K (Sandy Bridge) | 153 W |
| Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) | 155 W |
| Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) | 172 W |
| AMD Phenom II X4 980 (Deneb) | 184 W |
| Intel Core i7-990X (Gulftown) | 189 W |
| AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (Thuban) | 191 W |
| AMD FX-8150 (Zambezi) | 191 W |
| Intel Core i7-920 (Bloomfield) | 193 W |
Core i7-3960X indeed uses less power, on average, than the 130 W Gulftown- and Bloomfield-based parts. It’s bested only by Intel’s 95 W Sandy Bridge processors. Even AMD’s older Phenom II X4 and X6 chips are more power-hungry (as is FX-8150).
| Prime95 x64 Small FFTs System Power Consumption | |
|---|---|
| Processor | Power Consumption After 5 Minutes |
| Intel Core i7-2600K (Sandy Bridge) | 175 W |
| AMD Phenom II X4 980 (Deneb) | 221 W |
| AMD Phenom II X6 1100T (Thuban) | 230 W |
| Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) | 253 W |
| Intel Core i7-990X (Gulftown) | 263 W |
| AMD FX-8150 (Zambezi) | 264 W |
Of course, PCMark 7 doesn’t push processors to their limit. For that, we turn to Prime95, which I didn’t run in our FX-8150 review, but include here with most of the platforms in that story re-tested.
Core i7-3960X on Intel’s DX79SI board cuts peak power consumption by 10 W compared to Core i7-990X on Asus’ Rampage III Formula, which itself uses 1 W less than AMD’s FX-8150 on Asus’ Crosshair V Formula.
Core i7-2600K is the only CPU able to facilitate a less-than-200 W system power number, dipping in at 46 W less than the second-place finisher, AMD’s Phenom II X4 980 Black Edition.
Surprised at the savings, especially compared to the smaller and less complex Gulftown design, I asked Intel to help explain how Sandy Bridge-E could possibly use less power. The response was that two cores in the 2.27-billion transistor die are completely fused off, and that a number of other power/speed path improvements were made to help cut the CPU’s draw.
Related Stories :
- Intel Core i7-3960X Review: Sandy Bridge-E And X79 Express
- Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) And X79 Platform Preview
- Intel Core i7-3930K And Core i7-3820: Sandy Bridge-E, Cheaper
- Sandy Bridge-E: Core i7-3960X Is Fast, But Is It Any More Efficient?
- Overclocking: Can Sandy Bridge-E Be Made More Efficient?
- Intel Xeon E5-2690 Sandy Bridge-EP Performance Revealed
- Intel Fixes VT-d Bug in Sandy Bridge-E CPUs
- Boutique Sandy Bridge-E PCs Priced From $6K to $13K
- Intel to Bundle Liquid Cooler with Sandy Bridge-E CPUs
- Sandy Bridge-E Coming November to a Store Near You
Wow,lots of details and benchies.Great review as always Chris !
So no SAS/Full Sata 3 ports but u do get PCIe 3 ... no Quicksync but u do get 2 more cores and the added cache ... no USB 3.0 but u get quad channel memory which in real life every day computing is a minimal gain at best. Feels an awful lot like a weak trade if you ask me. I'm basically asked to buy the P67 chipset with sprinkles on top. And for 1000$ it feels like it falls short. For heavy workloads it's cheaper and faster to make yourself 2 systems based on 1155 or bulldozer and render, fold, chew numbers that way. X79 should have launched with an ivy bridge based cpu inside and a better chipset to live to it's name.
What we have today is simply a platform for bragging rights not a serious contender to the X38, X48, X58 family.
Enjoyed the review Chris ! WoW.
Not to take the review to much off topic but its worth bringing up because this review was so complete , as in covering a vast array of situations and programs. Its truly embarrassing for AMD that the FX-8XXX series is beaten not only bye chips with half the cores but half the cores that are a generation behind. In fact as of this moment the FX set is almost inspiring it its lack of any value at first glance at some of these marks one could say that AMD's most expensive chip at over 200$ is one of its slowest being beaten bye both the x4 and x6 phenoms.
Illfindu, you are beating a dead horse... Old news, lets move on (sorry, just tired of the same thing being said over and over, which will end in an amd fanboy fight). Great review though!
This article tells me 2 things , either our current software is a total piece of crap since it has absolutely no clue of multi core cpus, or the future without AMD is so grim that intel makes you pay 1000 bucks for a cpu that doesn`t perform really that fast ... but for sure the software industry needs to take a better look at those multicore optimisations.
I think Intel would be raking in the dough if they left all 8 cores enabled for the 3960X. I doubt that a later revision will enable them. 8c/16t will probably hit the desktop with IB-E (can't wait)
:| Well AMD is fighting a losing battle.. (In High-End CPU's, which I actually use for rendering etc..)
I would LOVE to see them pick up their game and provide me with a worthy upgrade over my 4GHz i7 2600 (Non-K). I would swoop it up.
Look, BD had 4 modules with two "cores" each, each module is equivalent to a Sandy Bridge core.
They should just combine both of those cores or make them a single core, so we get 4 threads.
Then create 4-6-8 core versions of those CPU's..
Think about it.. the FX8150 is more of a 4-core CPU where the resources are halved pretty much so you get two threads per core, it would have been MUCH MUCH better if they just kept 4 strong cores.
Not sure why either but I always seem to start an AMD related comment :\
great but too expensive....
Hi Chris,
The labels are wrong on the graphs on this page the last ones should read DDR2-2133 on the last two shouldn't it?
JeanLuc
The 3930k certainly appears to be the chip to watch for out of this bunch. The 3820 is basically a 2600k/2700k on a more expensive platform, and the 3960x needed to be the full 8c/16t version of the processor to sell for $1000. (If you are dropping that much A dual socket EVGA SR2 setup still makes more since)
The only use for the 3820 really seems to be a cheap placeholder processor if you need a new PC now, but want to wait for a likely full 8c/16t version to come out around the time Ivy Bridge is released. The 3930k should prove to be a very good high end gaming/ mid range workstation part though for people who invest close to $1k in graphics cards.
So, are we getting any overclocked measurements in the near future?
The funny thing is that cores don't scale well. They do, but it's far from ideal as the percentages from the 2600K show (and the FX-8150 but that's a different story).
But the takeaway:
-If you're playing games the i5-2500K is the best purchase you can make and it's enough for Tri-580 SLI. Only WoW shows any difference, but most games ignore it.
-X79 is Intel being just plain lazy. No matter how you slice it- the X79 should have been called X67 and left like that. It's also a wildcat platform that will only support at most 6 CPUs that aren't terribly crippled.
-A Phenom II 955BE (or unlocked 960T, or a 1090T/1100T) is still a fine CPU to have unless you're gaming with dual graphics cards or doing time-intensive tasks.
Irrevocably thorough review Chris. Excellent work, as usual. Oh, and I and do want a 3960X. Don't need it. Can't justify it. Just want it.
Hi Chris,The labels are wrong on the graphs on this page the last ones should read DDR2-2133 on the last two shouldn't it?JeanLuc
Yessir! Working on it now!
If this is coming out now, when is Ivy Bridge scheduled to come out
hmmm, nice review, Chris! Can you do some overclocking review on these chips?
everyone saying its too expensive, no sh%t!!! Top end cpus have and will always be expensive. Lets go back to 2006 - amd FX-62 - over $1000 at launch. and back to 1999 - AMD athlon 700mhz - near $900 http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardw [...] thlon_700/ . pentium III http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] prices.asp $700+. Has everyone lost their memory???
any chances to unlock the disabled core?
everyone saying its too expensive, no sh%t!!! Top end cpus have and will always be expensive. Lets go back to 2006 - amd FX-62 - over $1000 at launch. and back to 1999 - AMD athlon 700mhz - near $900 http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardw [...] thlon_700/ . pentium III http://www.firingsquad.com/hardwar [...] prices.asp $700+. Has everyone lost their memory???
Yes. Its expensive. In other news the Earth orbits the Sun. I wish I had enough $$$ that the costs of this CPU was inconsequential to me.