
We use two distinct Photoshop benchmarks, one of which fully taxes each processor’s x86 cores using well-threaded filters, and another that is OpenCL-optimized to leverage graphics resources. Don’t compare the black and red bars above—they’re only together to save space (and your scrolling finger).
Core i7-4960X pretty much ties the Sandy Bridge-E-based -3970X in our CPU-based metric. You'd assume that Ivy Bridge-E would have an advantage, right? It turns out that we also discovered that Core i7-3770K wasn't any faster than -2700K in this test more than a year ago. On the other hand, all of Intel’s six-core CPUs outmaneuver the company’s quad-core offerings.
The OpenCL-accelerated metric is less consistent, seeming to favor architecture over core count or clock rate. For instance, the Haswell-based Core i7-4770K places first, followed by the Ivy Bridge-based Core i7-3770K and -4960X. Four- and six-core Sandy Bridge-based processors group up in a third clump, while AMD’s CPUs fall pretty far back.

The architectural benefit of adopting Ivy Bridge helps Intel’s Core i7-4960X claim a first-place finish, though nobody’s going to upgrade from Sandy Bridge-E for a 5% speed-up. A more demanding render project might create a larger delta between CPUs, and we’re working on sourcing a real-world project to test this theory.

After Effects is a special case where adding cores doesn’t always help performance as the available memory per core shrinks. That’s why you see the Core i7-3970X and -3930K in the middle of the chart. Between its 16 GB of DDR3-1600 and the Ivy Bridge architecture, though, Intel’s Core i7-4960X manages to tie the first-place -4770K.
EDIT: Minor error:
Shouldn't that be Broadwell?
Lol now time to spend $1000 to save on my power bill.
The 6 cores ivyBridge-e "K" version is the real thing.
and I dont get it , how Tomshardwae fails to say about the SandyBridge-e not having PCIE 3.0 support , while the ivy-E has PCIe 3.0 support . this is a Big factor here.
The 6 cores ivyBridge-e "K" version is the real thing.
and I dont get it , how Tomshardwae fails to say about the SandyBridge-e not having PCIE 3.0 support , while the ivy-E has PCIe 3.0 support . this is a Big factor here.
they did say it. You didn't read the beginning of the review. Of course pci-e 3.0 is a gimmick and not a reason to buy a new 2011 mb and ib-e chip... and it will remain a marketing gimmick untill gpus can actually be bottlenecked by pci-e 2.0 x16... high end gpus barely bottleneck on pci-e 2.0 x8 atm... it will be a little while (another generation or 3) before gpus will NEED pci-e 3.0.
That's pretty much saying it did it unofficially.
Besides, you have to look hard to find something bottlenecked by PCIe2.0x8; even high-end GPUs won't run into bandwidth limitations.
you people think this is a Gaming only Machine?
try to buy PCIe 3.0 8x/4x Raid Card for example ... they are around starting at $300
LAN cards as well , and coming cards etc ..
and who knows ? maybe Titan 2X cards apper
And Many people Compalind about their SandyBridge-e not supporting PCIe 3.0 speed..
as for the lack of USB3.0 and few Sata3 ports , this is a 40 Lanes CPU , just buy that 4X PCIe usb 3.0 card and add it problem solved.
I'd like to see a situation in which you need 4GB/s each way SAS/SATA, but can't afford a Xeon based platform
LAN cards. At 500MB/s each way (for an PCIe2.0x1 card, plus you're more likely to use an x4 card). You got something with 10GbE?
Even a Titan 2x could run on PCIe2.0x16.
Most people don't like running many addin cards. Besides, where's the room given the expected use of this platform is multi-GPU systems?
you people think this is a Gaming only Machine?
try to buy PCIe 3.0 8x/4x Raid Card for example ... they are around starting at $300
LAN cards as well , and coming cards etc ..
and who knows ? maybe Titan 2X cards apper
And Many people Compalind about their SandyBridge-e not supporting PCIe 3.0 speed..
as for the lack of USB3.0 and few Sata3 ports , this is a 40 Lanes CPU , just buy that 4X PCIe usb 3.0 card and add it problem solved.
psh... there ARE pci-e 2.0 x16 boards with multiple card support you know. And pci-e 2.0x16 is identical speed to pci-e 3.0 x8... just as pci-e 3.0 x4 is equal to pci-e 2.0 x8... and as we pointed out, pci-e 2.0 x8 is about the upper limit for gpu to mb interface speed at the moment, and pci-e 2.0 x16 is well beyond any gpu to max out as of now.
There is one exception; the Haswell processors for laptops are much more efficient and provide huge increases in run time without losing any speed. But for desktops, Haswell appears to be a complete bust.
I'd be intrigued to see the sales figures for Intels high-end chips today compared to say eight years ago.
considering they're selling 6 cores for 1000, they wouldn't sell a 8 core for less then 1500 (probably 2k)... anyone expecting less is kidding themselves. this will remain true as long as AMD is uncompetitive.
You can pay $200 and get 90FPS or pay $800 to get 95-100FPS.
Intel's high-end chips are dead men walking really. More and more niche as time goes on.