
Poor scaling in WinRAR yields unimpressive results. Most of the Intel processors clump up, clearly not affected by core count, clock rate, or architecture.

Better-optimized for multi-core processors, the three six-core CPUs stand out in our 7-Zip benchmark, the -4960X barely leading the pack.

Our WinZip chart includes several results, since we first test using the CPU cores, and then follow that up by enabling OpenCL acceleration to offload some of the work. Of course, we know from talks with Corel that the GPU only kicks in on files larger than 8 MB. Because our 1.3 GB archive is a mix of different sizes and types, only some of this benchmark is aided by turning on OpenCL.
The longest bar, in black, represents maximum compression, also performed on the CPU. That’s the one we’re sorting by, and the Core i7-4960X takes a first-place finish. The less-taxing processor-based test, in red, is won by Intel’s Haswell-based Core i7-4770K and followed by Core i7-4960X. OpenCL acceleration throws the numbers off slightly, favoring Haswell first, Ivy Bridge second, and Ivy Bridge-E third, though Intel’s processors all fall within a fairly tight margin.
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.