Skip to main content

Intel Core i7-3960X Review: Sandy Bridge-E And X79 Express

World Of Warcraft In SLI

Core i7-3960X’s advantage was already apparent with a single card in World of Warcraft.

Poor scaling at 1680x1050 using SLI indicates that we’re processor-bound, and that this game could really use a faster CPU above all else (indeed, overclocked to 4.6 GHz, the -3960X yields nearly 150 FPS).

Because there’s little difference between no AA and 8x AA at 1920x1080, we can also be fairly confident in a processor bottleneck at that resolution, too. The Z68 and X58 platforms fall in behind, inhibited by slower CPUs.

Finally, at 2560x1600, we see the -3960X’s 8x AA score drop a bit relative to its performance without the feature. But look at everything else—from 1680x1050 to 2560x1600, the frame rates are pretty consistently even.

The same platform-oriented bottlenecks that kept GeForce GTX 580s from stretching any higher in two-way SLI keep a trio of cards from scaling, well, at all, really. WoW just isn’t one of those games that demands more than one really powerful GPU.

It does, however, put the extra performance enabled by Core i7-3960X to good use, as the game shows off a 20 FPS advantage over the next-closest finisher (Core i7-2600K) at all three resolutions.

Although this is a processor review and we’re most interested in how Sandy Bridge-E performs, it’s also important to take a closer look at gaming performance in more GPU-constrained titles to gauge whether the more potent CPU helps alleviate any overhead. With that in mind…

  • Maziar
    Wow,lots of details and benchies.Great review as always Chris !
    Reply
  • SpadeM
    So no SAS/Full Sata 3 ports but u do get PCIe 3 ... no Quicksync but u do get 2 more cores and the added cache ... no USB 3.0 but u get quad channel memory which in real life every day computing is a minimal gain at best. Feels an awful lot like a weak trade if you ask me. I'm basically asked to buy the P67 chipset with sprinkles on top. And for 1000$ it feels like it falls short. For heavy workloads it's cheaper and faster to make yourself 2 systems based on 1155 or bulldozer and render, fold, chew numbers that way. X79 should have launched with an ivy bridge based cpu inside and a better chipset to live to it's name.
    What we have today is simply a platform for bragging rights not a serious contender to the X38, X48, X58 family.
    Reply
  • nikorr
    Enjoyed the review Chris ! WoW.
    Reply
  • illfindu
    Not to take the review to much off topic but its worth bringing up because this review was so complete , as in covering a vast array of situations and programs. Its truly embarrassing for AMD that the FX-8XXX series is beaten not only bye chips with half the cores but half the cores that are a generation behind. In fact as of this moment the FX set is almost inspiring it its lack of any value at first glance at some of these marks one could say that AMD's most expensive chip at over 200$ is one of its slowest being beaten bye both the x4 and x6 phenoms.
    Reply
  • redsunrises
    Illfindu, you are beating a dead horse... Old news, lets move on (sorry, just tired of the same thing being said over and over, which will end in an amd fanboy fight). Great review though!
    Reply
  • ohim
    This article tells me 2 things , either our current software is a total piece of crap since it has absolutely no clue of multi core cpus, or the future without AMD is so grim that intel makes you pay 1000 bucks for a cpu that doesn`t perform really that fast ... but for sure the software industry needs to take a better look at those multicore optimisations.
    Reply
  • stonedatheist
    I think Intel would be raking in the dough if they left all 8 cores enabled for the 3960X. I doubt that a later revision will enable them. 8c/16t will probably hit the desktop with IB-E (can't wait) :)
    Reply
  • joytech22
    :| Well AMD is fighting a losing battle.. (In High-End CPU's, which I actually use for rendering etc..)
    I would LOVE to see them pick up their game and provide me with a worthy upgrade over my 4GHz i7 2600 (Non-K). I would swoop it up.

    Look, BD had 4 modules with two "cores" each, each module is equivalent to a Sandy Bridge core.
    They should just combine both of those cores or make them a single core, so we get 4 threads.

    Then create 4-6-8 core versions of those CPU's..
    Think about it.. the FX8150 is more of a 4-core CPU where the resources are halved pretty much so you get two threads per core, it would have been MUCH MUCH better if they just kept 4 strong cores.


    Not sure why either but I always seem to start an AMD related comment :\
    Reply
  • sudeshc
    great but too expensive....
    Reply
  • JeanLuc
    Hi Chris,

    The labels are wrong on the graphs on this page the last ones should read DDR2-2133 on the last two shouldn't it?

    JeanLuc
    Reply