Core i7-3970X Extreme Review: Can It Stomp An Eight-Core Xeon?

Benchmark Results: Productivity

Today marks the first time I’ve ever seen a single-processor system break under the one-minute threshold in our ABBYY FineReader 10 test. This application utilizes as many cores as you throw at it, allowing the Xeon E5-2687W to wrap up while AMD’s “eight-core” FX-8150 is still only halfway done.

Intel’s Core i7-3970X finishes in second, but is only three seconds faster than Core i7-3930K, which sells for less than $600.

Printing a PowerPoint document to PDF is another single-threaded workload. So, the higher IPC throughput of Intel’s Ivy Bridge architecture prevails. It’s only by the implementation of Turbo Boost that the Core i7-3970X accelerates to 4 GHz, beating Intel’s Core i7-3470, which is limited to 3.6 GHz.

In sharp contrast, our Visual Studio 2010 benchmark is very well threaded. It actually tends to take longer than any other test in our suite. On a Phenom II X4 980, for instance, compiling Google Chrome is an almost 40-minute process.

If you’re lucky enough to own a Xeon E5-2687W, however, the whole job finishes in just over 14 minutes. A Core i7-3970X makes you wait a couple of minutes longer, but once you step into the world of LGA 1155-based quad-core CPUs, performance really starts to drop off.

The latest version of the German chess program Fritz puts Intel’s Xeon E5 to good use, more than doubling the number of kilonodes/second AMD’s FX-8150 achieves.

Chris Angelini
Chris Angelini is an Editor Emeritus at Tom's Hardware US. He edits hardware reviews and covers high-profile CPU and GPU launches.
  • amuffin
    100mhz faster than the 3960X, not worth the extra premium.

    Same thing goes for the 3960X compared to the 3930K....not worth the extra 100mhz for $400....
    Reply
  • jaquith
    Boo on Intel for not enabling all 8-cores especially at that price!
    Reply
  • tumetsu
    I've recently started facepalming every time I see BF3 in CPU benchmarks. "Boy oh boy, this hasn't been confirmed like a hundred times already but the single player is decidedly graphics-bound, so here, have these charts with identical results anyway."
    Reply
  • dragonsqrrl
    jaquithBoo on Intel for not enabling all 8-cores especially at that price!They don't have much of a choice when it comes to the i7's. With the 32nm Sandy Bridge-E Intel has to make a choice between prioritizing clocks or core count within a 150W TDP, based on the target workload for a particular processor. For Xeon's the choice is easy, more cores. For desktop applications the choice isn't as clear, but I think most users would still benefit more from a higher clocked 6-core than a lower claocked 8-core. That's slowly changing though.

    Intel also doesn't want a situation where their LGA 1155 processors outperform their $1000 extreme edition in lightly threaded workloads, which is yet another reason to favor 6-core for now.

    I'd personally like to see an 8-core i7, even if it means lower clocks, but I don't think that'll happen until Ivy Bridge-E. At 22nm Intel probably won't have to make a choice, we'll get the best of both worlds.
    Reply
  • samuelspark
    So much money...
    Reply
  • nebun
    jaquithBoo on Intel for not enabling all 8-cores especially at that price!why would they....they don't need to do it at this time....amd's top cpu is still very slow when compared with even intels mid rannge cpus
    Reply
  • unknown9122
    Why do people still benchmark on itunes 10.4? 10.7 is out... as for the 8 cores as said above^, there is no need to have more than 6. Because if it had 8, then xeons would not sell to pros.
    Reply
  • BoredErica
    Why are we not manually overclocking this expensive CPU? Why do we do benchmarks against stock ig 2500k?
    Reply
  • A Bad Day
    You also forgot something when comparing against Xeon:

    Stability test.

    Run the i7 for one month under Prime95. It will crash. Run the Xeon for one month under Prime95. If it crashes, then you got a defective Xeon because they're not suppose to crash under 24/7 workload.
    Reply
  • anthonyorr
    nebunwhy would they....they don't need to do it at this time....amd's top cpu is still very slow when compared with even intels mid rannge cpus
    Why would you even include the 8350? It is 1/6th the price of this CPU. I couldn't imagine what a modern AMD desktop CPU would consist of at the $1000+ price range.
    Reply