Page 1:Core i7-3970X Extreme: Six Cores And Up To 4 GHz
Page 2:Test Setup And Software
Page 3:Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
Page 4:Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
Page 5:Benchmark Results: Sandra 2013
Page 6:Benchmark Results: Content Creation
Page 7:Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 6
Page 8:Benchmark Results: Productivity
Page 9:Benchmark Results: Compression Apps
Page 10:Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
Page 11:Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
Page 12:Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
Page 13:Benchmark Results: World of Warcraft: Mists Of Pandaria
Page 14:Power Consumption And Efficiency
Page 15:Core i7-3970X: Faster, But Less Efficient At The Same Price
Power Consumption And Efficiency
Logging power consumption during the entire benchmark run gives us a window into the behavior of each processor and platform.
We’ll start by looking at the Core i7-3970X’s green line. A 150 W TDP should have been enough for us to know that high power consumption would be measurable. Indeed, the -3970X spikes up to use the most power under load.
What about the eight-core Xeon E5, which is also a 150 W processor? Despite that rating, its consumption is far below the new Core i7s, and in fact looks to be even more conservative than FX-8350’s power use.
Although the Core i7-3960X is only just slightly slower than the -3970X, the yellow line is quite a bit lower on our chart. And of course, the Core i7-3770K is downright miserly.
Averaging those power numbers out reveals that Intel’s Core i7-3970X fares worst. And although the Xeon E5 bears the same 150 W rating, it ends up using even less power than the 130 W Core i7-3960X.
Calculating efficiency requires that we know two things, though. First, we need the consumption figures above. Then, we need some measure of performance.
We capture this data by logging our scripted benchmark suite in two-second intervals. Multiplying out the number of resulting samples by two, dividing by 60 (minutes), and dividing by 60 again (hours) tells us how long each processor takes to wrap up testing.
Eight cores reign, it appears, though the Core i7-3970X and -3960X aren’t far behind. Opting for a Core i7-3770K gets you significantly lower average power use; however, it also takes 10 minutes longer than the -3970X to complete testing.
We’ll leave the FX-8350 alone in all of this. Its high power consumption and last-place performance are countered only by a $220 price tag.
Not surprisingly, Intel’s 77 W Core i7-3770K is the most efficient choice. More interesting is the fact that the 150 W Xeon combines brutal speed with lower-than-expected consumption to finish second in our efficiency metric.
Core i7-3970X isn’t able to add enough performance to make up for dramatically higher power use, and this reflects in its loss to the -3960X.
Then there’s the FX-8350, which, again, combines modest performance and high average power use, hurting its efficiency story.
- Core i7-3970X Extreme: Six Cores And Up To 4 GHz
- Test Setup And Software
- Benchmark Results: PCMark 7
- Benchmark Results: 3DMark 11
- Benchmark Results: Sandra 2013
- Benchmark Results: Content Creation
- Benchmark Results: Adobe CS 6
- Benchmark Results: Productivity
- Benchmark Results: Compression Apps
- Benchmark Results: Media Encoding
- Benchmark Results: Battlefield 3
- Benchmark Results: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
- Benchmark Results: World of Warcraft: Mists Of Pandaria
- Power Consumption And Efficiency
- Core i7-3970X: Faster, But Less Efficient At The Same Price