
Optimizations for threading in ABBYY’s optical character recognition application set all three hexa-core processors apart from the rest of the field. Within that elite group, the Core i7-4960X edges out its predecessor by just two seconds. We’re talking about low single-digit percent differences.

As you might expect, once you subject Ivy Bridge-E to a single-threaded workload, it falls behind Haswell, which boasts greater IPC throughput. Instead, Core i7-4960X is on-par with Core i7-3770K—both based on the Ivy Bridge architecture.

Our Google Chrome compile workload, on the other hand, does exploit whatever compute resources it can, and so the Core i7-4960X edges out its predecessor by a hair. The quad-core -4770K finishes several minutes after IVB-E.

Fritz isn’t really a productivity app (unless you consider playing chess productive), but we’re putting it here anyway. The results from each processor are reflected in kilonodes per second. A node is a position on the chessboard. So, in the case of Core i7-4960X, Fritz evaluates nearly 20,000 thousand nodes per second, or 20 million. If you give the engine enough time to “think”, you’re going to get a pretty competitive computer opponent. Hope you brought your A-game.
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.