Is Core i7-3960X An Efficiency Winner?
Because we just reviewed Core i7-3960X, most of the performance results in this article don’t come as a surprise. Intel’s latest desktop processor is a beast in that it delivers unmatched performance per clock with the added benefit of six cores. As a result of its architecture and scalable ring bus, the beefed-up Sandy Bridge-E enables an additional two cores on the desktop, and will soon facilitate up to two more on the Xeon E5 family. Although a quarter of its available shared L3 cache is disabled, access to 15 MB represents a substantial increase from Gulftown's 12 MB. And clock rates as high as 3.9 GHz with one or two cores active (by virtue of Turbo Boost) augment performance in less-optimized apps. Otherwise, the technology manages to push a 3.3 GHz base clock up to 3.6 GHz, even when the chip is fully-loaded.
All of this is made possible at lower idle power use compared to last generation's hexa-core flagship. And, armed with a modest Radeon HD 6850, system power use drops as low as 62 W. Even a high-end GeForce GTX 580 doesn't push the machine beyond 90 W. Considering that older systems often incur more than 120+ W of consumption, it's clear that Intel's Sandy Bridge design pushed beyond simply increasing performance.
However, peak system power consumption goes up quite a bit. This is attributable to the large, complex die and the fact that it's pushed hard by technologies like Turbo Boost to maximize performance in every conceivable workload. Because we used a capable closed-loop liquid cooling system, the processor's maximum speeds were maintained for longer intervals than on average air-cooled solutions. We're not looking at an affordable quad-core LGA 1155-based chip here; expensive cooling is the price enthusiasts have to pay for the extra performance.
Sandy Bridge-E is the undisputed performance winner, and, for the first time, I'd label this high-end configuration reasonable with regard to idle power use. However, two additional cores and the extra cache on a very large die impose greater power requirements under load than they add to the performance charts. As a result, Intel's mainstream Sandy Bridge processors end up outshining Sandy Bridge-E in every measure of efficiency. Unless you really need a hexa-core platform for its raw performance (power be damned), existing Core i5 and Core i7 chips able to drop into LGA 1155 are more sensible solutions.
For obvious reasons, efficiency does not scale linearly with core count, necessitating a revised answer to my initial question: Sandy Bridge-E delivers more efficiency than other six-core processors. However, it's hard to make that -E represent efficiency. If that's the metric you're looking to optimize, drop the -E suffix altogether, and save money now (on the hardware) and over time (on power) with Intel's year-old mainstream Sandy Bridge processors.
Related Stories :
- Sandy Bridge-E: Core i7-3960X Is Fast, But Is It Any More Efficient?
- Overclocking: Can Sandy Bridge-E Be Made More Efficient?
- Intel Core i7-3930K And Core i7-3820: Sandy Bridge-E, Cheaper
- Intel Core i7-3960X Review: Sandy Bridge-E And X79 Express
- Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) And X79 Platform Preview
- Efficiency Comparison: Sandy Bridge Vs. Intel And AMD CPUs
- Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 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
Aand yet more evidence that most people looking for a high-end processor will be perfectly fine with the i5-2500K or the 2600K
Aand yet more evidence that most people looking for a high-end processor will be perfectly fine with the i5-2500K or the 2600K
I guess it just depends on what you're doing. If you have a high end workstation and are using programs that are going to utilise all 12 threads, quad channel memory and 40 lanes of PCIe, and you need that processing power then it's probably not a bad investment. Whereas for most users the 2500K or the 2600K will do fine.
It's i7-3960x, not i7-9360x
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the 6850 a Barts card? Unless I am wrong but I own a 6850.
There is a small typo on Page 9
"Total power used drops again relative to Cor ei7-3960X's predecessor, the Core i7-980X (Gulftown)."
ROFL!!! Very well said!
Nice!
another informative, in-depth article about efficiency. great work guys!
3960x might very well be the $1k cpu that's worth the (over)price unlike the older 980x.
sb-e shows that both single threaded and multi threaded performance as well as efficient power use can be ahcieved by a 32nm, 6 core, 130 tdp cpu (but you gotta pay a lot for that).
when you bring price into the equation, quad core sb i5 and i7(95w tdp) are the best way to go (i wonder how an i7 2700k fare if it was tested alongside these cpus).
And I was so hoping Visual C++ had made it into the regular benchmark set. Sadly, it's missing here...
Looking forward to seeing what type of Air/liquid cooled Overclocks can be achieved with these newly released processors.
I wanna know how it performs on DAW apps. I hope it will be included in future benchmarks.
Excellent review but has anyone else noticed of good looking the LGA 2011 Platform setup is? I really like to see it.
Great article! I loved that mobo with 4 dimms at each side of the processor.
I am still very pleased with my i5 2500 after reading this article. Sandy Bridge-E's efficiency might be impressive for a high end CPU ... but it still cannot beat the practicality of the Standard Sandy Bridge.
I can't wait until Ivy Bridge!
by no means am i replacing my 2600k @ 5ghz w/ HT ON and GSkill 2200Mhz Cas7 anytime soon.
Aand yet more evidence that most people looking for a high-end processor will be perfectly fine with the i5-2500K or the 2600K
Agreed, 2500k is still the sweet spot in the triple trade-off performance/power/cost. This is what I will choose if i needed a replacement, considering the applications I run.
I guess it just depends on what you're doing. If you have a high end workstation and are using programs that are going to utilise all 12 threads, quad channel memory and 40 lanes of PCIe, and you need that processing power then it's probably not a bad investment. Whereas for most users the 2500K or the 2600K will do fine.
Right, but if i have a truly highly parallel application, then, a server with several interconnected nodes offers more bang for the buck. I would consider 4 nodes based on 2500k that probably are cheaper than a single 3960X and offer me much more computing power. It all depends on your appliccation.
But clearly the 3960X is for a niche market, either because it really fits your needs or the "bragging rights" niche market.
Agreed, 2500k is still the sweet spot in the triple trade-off performance/power/cost. This is what I will choose if i needed a replacement, considering the applications I run.Right, but if i have a truly highly parallel application, then, a server with several interconnected nodes offers more bang for the buck. I would consider 4 nodes based on 2500k that probably are cheaper than a single 3960X and offer me much more computing power. It all depends on your appliccation.But clearly the 3960X is for a niche market, either because it really fits your needs or the "bragging rights" niche market.
The i7-3930K is pretty decent for the price, though. At the same clocks as the 3960X it's the same speed, and all reviews featuring both have it achieving the same overclocks, sometimes at lower voltage. Unless it's for bragging rights or epeen the 3930K is clearly a better choice since the extra cache seems to be useless for desktops and it isn't even better binned.
The more benchmarks I read the happier I am with my i7 2600
It is right behind the new big boy, and only cost $250 at my local computer hardware store compared to $1000 to get a few extra seconds off.
What will be really interesting to see is what happens with the IB release. Last time the mainstream SB could meet or beat the old high end chips, for 1/3 the price. I wonder if the IB release will do the same thing, or if Intel will downplay the performance so as not to piss off their high-end buyers again.
The more benchmarks I read the happier I am with my i7 2600 It is right behind the new big boy, and only cost $250 at my local computer hardware store compared to $1000 to get a few extra seconds off.What will be really interesting to see is what happens with the IB release. Last time the mainstream SB could meet or beat the old high end chips, for 1/3 the price. I wonder if the IB release will do the same thing, or if Intel will downplay the performance so as not to piss off their high-end buyers again.
Ivy Bridge is a die shrink that is based mostly on lowering power consumption and getting higher IGP performance. CPU performance improvements will be few: according to Anandtech 4-6% higher IPC than Sandy Bridge, and since Intel is focusing on power consumption clock speeds won't be much higher than SB, so about a 5% improvement there too. About 10% more CPU performance max, so don't expect too much. Sandy Bridge-E will still be significantly faster in multi-threaded.
Based on the results for some of the multi-threaded tests, it appears as if the turbo boost on SB-E is getting modulated more often than the turbo boost on 2600K. It would be very interesting to see a multi-threaded test in which turbo boost was turned off, and the clocks of both were set at the same rate, e.g. 3.6 or 3.9 GHz, whatever the cooler will bear. Also supporting this idea is that several of the configurations appear to max out at right around 200-210 watts peak power. So if the thermal limiter threshold is kicking in for SB-E to keep it within its power budget, that could explain the "better, but not way better" performance between SB-E and 2600K. Would such a test be feasible, Toms?