Benchmark Results: Compression Apps
Corel’s recent introduction of WinZip 17 fixes much of what plagued the application’s performance in the past. Finally, it’s able to fully utilize all available processing cores. Moreover, OpenCL support accelerates the compression of files larger than 8 MB. Unfortunately, as it stands, our 1.35 GB test folder includes very few files that large, so turning OpenCL on doesn’t have much of an impact.
The Xeon finishes in first place, confirming that WinZip is now able to completely utilize the resources available to it. Intel’s new Core i7-3970X places second, followed by its predecessor, the -3960X.
Perhaps we’ve been unfairly critical of WinRAR in the past, downplaying the extent to which it’s able to utilize available cores. The fact that we again see Intel’s Xeon E5 finish first, followed by three Sandy Bridge-E-based Core i7s, illustrates that this application does scale beyond four cores.
7-Zip does as well. Even the Xeon E5’s two extra cores clearly make a really big difference. The two-core advantage that a 3.5 GHz Core i7-3970X holds over the Core i7-3770K is equally significant, despite the Ivy Bridge architecture’s superior efficiency.
We remain big fans of the Core i7-3570K for its value. But, at least in this metric, you’ll wait almost a minute more for 1.35 GB to compress on a system with that CPU compared to Intel’s newest Core i7.
Related Stories :
- 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?
- Intel Core i7-3960X Review: Sandy Bridge-E And X79 Express
- Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) And X79 Platform Preview
- Unofficial Benchmarks Show Intel Core i7-4960X Ivy Bridge-E Performing 10% Faster Than i7-3970X
- 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
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....
Boo on Intel for not enabling all 8-cores especially at that price!
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."
Boo 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.
So much money...
Boo 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
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.
Why are we not manually overclocking this expensive CPU? Why do we do benchmarks against stock ig 2500k?
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.
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
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.
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.
Or set the TDP to 195W and add a warning stating that Intel's stock coolers won't be sufficient for the thermal load.
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.
The i7 isn't supposed to crash under 24/7 workloads any more than a Xeon is. The footnote to this statement however has everything to do with thermal envelopes. The primary reason why Intel charges $1000 more for a Xeon is because Xeons can operate stably at higher temperatures. This is very, very important because cooling costs lots and lots of money when you need to cool hundreds of server racks and rendering farms all year round and there can't be any downtime. Ever. Because lost time equals lost money. They say every minute of downtime means a million dollars lost, so you pay extra to ensure a sudden heat wave doesn't wipe out your business. (Though some companies could certainly use better flood protection as to not rape their customers for lost profits, but I digress.)
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.
lol....here is the answer...a lsow cpu, lol
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.
Not correct
Your talking about a processor (i7) vs a platform (Xeon, since the Xeon's usually require ECC memory, server boards, usually server OS etc) -- 99.999% of the time crashes/issues are NOT processor related.
Crashes are usually from things like non JEDEC standard spec ram, poorly written SSD firmware, bad drivers and so on - not a processors fault.
(Though some companies could certainly use better flood protection as to not rape their customers for lost profits, but I digress.)
I recall seeing a picture of a tiny server room flooded with raw sewage from a busted pipe. The management of the small business attempted to ignore the laws of physics and told the IT that there will be no shutdowns.
I'm pretty sure there was a smell of magic smoke accompanying the sewage odor shortly afterwards.
Great article.
"Complete Tom's Hardware Suite" Chart... ugh I hate being color blind, must concentrate harder.
The 3DMark 11 benchmark was a "Performance" run I'm guessing. Couldn't find that anywhere.
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.
If the i7 fails, then it's no less faulty than the Xeon. They're the same chips, just with different feature sets.
nah. xeons are binned for lower power consumption and lower heat output compared to the i7 counterparts
nah. xeons are binned for lower power consumption and lower heat output compared to the i7 counterparts
Same chips still. Binning doesn't change what they're made of. Similar to how the Tahitis in the 7970 GHz Edition are better binned than those in the regular 7970, but they're still the same chips.