
Lame is another single-threaded title that we know will reward the most efficient architecture running at the highest clock rate.
Ivy Bridge, enjoying subtle IPC-oriented improvements, scores a narrow victory when Turbo Boost kicks in.
Because Core i7-3960X and Core i7-2700K hit similar single-threaded clocks, they show similarly in our Lame test.
Without overclocking, the Core i7-3930K can’t quite keep up to Intel’s Core i5-2550K (after all, six cores isn’t an advantage in a test only capable of taxing one).

We see a very similar situation play out in iTunes. Some of the Sandy Bridge-based chips swap places, but they’re all very, very close together. Most notable is that the Core i7-3770K takes first yet again.

The performance you can expect from Ivy Bridge is fairly easily characterized in one of two ways: lightly-threaded apps that favor an efficient architecture tend to show the design in a positive light against competing architectures at the same clock rate, while more parallelized workloads favor Sandy Bridge-E, so long as it wields more cores.
You’ll notice I left the -3820 out of this review altogether. I cannot come up with any situation where the -3820 is a product I’d recommend, even in a world without Ivy Bridge. If you’re going to spend big on Sandy Bridge-E, go for a six-core model, at least. If not, Sandy Bridge, Z68, and dual-channel memory kits are a better buy.
MainConcept illustrates the reason why nicely. At stock clocks, there’s a nice, gradual progression from -3960X, -3930K, -3770K, and -2700K. The larger drop-off happens when you shift down to the -2550K and AMD’s offerings.

The exact same conclusion applies to HandBrake, a front-end for the x264 encoder. Intel’s six-core chips rock, though it’s easy to get good performance from the quad-core, Hyper-Threaded models when cash is more of a concern.
- Ivy Bridge: Was It Worth The Wait?
- The Ivy Bridge Core: I Think I Know You
- HD Graphics 4000: The Plus In Intel’s Tick+
- HD Graphics 4000: Performance In 3DMark 11 And Batman
- HD Graphics 4000: Performance In Skyrim And WoW
- HD Graphics 4000: Native Compute Support
- Quick Sync: A Secret Weapon, Refined
- Platform Compatibility: Are Motherboard Vendors Ready?
- Overclocking Ivy Bridge: Core i7-3770K Is A Mixed Bag
- Ivy Bridge Memory Scaling
- Test Setup And Benchmarks
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Benchmark Results: Sandra 2012 SP3
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 5.5
- Benchmark Results: Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: File Compression
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Batman: Arkham City
- Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Benchmark Results: World Of Warcraft: Cataclysm
- Power Consumption And Efficiency
- How Much Faster Is Core i7-3770K Than -2700K And i5-2550K?
- An Evolution That Makes Sense, But Doesn't Impress
I have a few things on my mind.
1.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
2.) imagine if Intel made an i7-2660K or something like the i5-2550K they have now.
3.) SB-E is not for gaming (too highly priced...) compared to i7 or i5 Sandy Bridge
4.) Ivy Bridge runs hot.......
5.) IB average 3.7% faster than i7 SB and only 16% over i5 SB = not worth it
6.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
(moderator edit..)
Looking forward to the further information coming out this week on Ivy Bridge, as I was initially planning on buying Ivy Bridge, but now I might turn to Sandy Bridge-E
Temps as expected are high on the IB, but better than early ES which is very good.
Those with their SB or SB-E (K/X) should be feeling good about now
Now, time to read the review.
I really wish they would introduce a gaming platform between their stupidly overpriced x79esque server platform and the integrated graphics chips they are pushing mainstream. 50% more transistors should be 30% or so more performance or a much smaller chip, but gamers get nothing out of Ivy Bridge.
They're using their process to get to places they'll need to get to in the future
I have a few things on my mind.
1.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
2.) imagine if Intel made an i7-2660K or something like the i5-2550K they have now.
3.) SB-E is not for gaming (too highly priced...) compared to i7 or i5 Sandy Bridge
4.) Ivy Bridge runs hot.......
5.) IB average 3.7% faster than i7 SB and only 16% over i5 SB = not worth it
6.) AMD - C'mon and get it together, you need to do better...
(moderator edit..)
To me it shows 2 main things. 1) that Ivy didn't improve on Sandy Bridge as much as Intel was hoping it would, and 2) just how far behind AMD actually is...
Yea yea I know most apps won't use 8 cores, but that's only because there was no 8 cores processors in past, not the other way around
I would have liked to see a bigger jump in performance. I'm still very satisfied with the i5 2500K system I built last year... This may actually be bad for Intel as they simply didn't innovate as much as I thought they would...
It's clear that while idling, there won't be much of a difference.
Too bad Tomshardware dropped the ball on that one.
Ivy bridge's prices are expected to be lower than the current SB prices, yes.
They have an expected pricing guide in the anandtech review.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5771/the-intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-review/2
I went with the 2500K too...but I kinda wish I'd gone with a 2700K...even if it is just for gaming. IB is beyond what I need right now...this month at least.
I was waiting reviews just to be sure.
don't regret yourself if you have a SB cpu!