Sandy Bridge-E: Core i7-3960X Is Fast, But Is It Any More Efficient?

Features
By , published

Ironically, when it comes to performance, Intel’s Core i7-3960X is the real Bulldozer. Since its power consumption levels are lower than the Gulftown-based Core i7, it should also deliver amazing performance per watt as well. Is that really the case?

Benchmark Results: Combined Efficiency Run

We found that the combined run time is quickest on Intel's Core i7-3960X, which is a result of its great performance in single- and multi-threaded apps.

Average power consumption during the entire efficiency run, including single-threaded and multi-threaded applications, is similar to what Intel's Core i7-980X, based on Gulftown, achieves. But let’s see how much power was actually used, given that the flagship Sandy Bridge-E-derived processor is a lot faster.

Efficiency increases quite a bit over the previous-gen 32 nm hexa-core chip, which clearly shows that Sandy Bridge-E can deliver more performance at similar or less power consumption under load. This translates into quicker processing times, allowing a system based on this CPU to drop back to idle faster. And because the architecture requires significantly less power at idle, you get power savings at increased performance.

More about cpus

Intel hedges its bet for High-NA EUV with the 14A process node — an alternate Low-NA technique has identical yield and design rules

Russia's Baikal has produced 85,000 of its CPUs since 2012, aims for more

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang scores his first base salary increase since 2015
See more latest
57 Comments Comment from the forums
  • fstrthnu
    Aand yet more evidence that most people looking for a high-end processor will be perfectly fine with the i5-2500K or the 2600K
    Reply
  • sam_fisher
    fstrthnuAand 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.
    Reply
  • benikens
    Ironically, when it comes to performance, Intel’s Core i7-9360X is the real Bulldozer. Since its power consumption levels are lower than the Gulftown-based Core i7, it should also deliver amazing performance per watt as well. Is that really the case?

    It's i7-3960x, not i7-9360x
    Reply
  • pwnorbpwnd
    Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the 6850 a Barts card? Unless I am wrong but I own a 6850.
    Reply
  • one-shot
    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)."
    Reply
  • Shape
    Ironically, when it comes to performance, Intel’s Core i7-9360X is the real Bulldozer.


    ROFL!!! Very well said!

    Nice!
    Reply
  • de5_Roy
    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).
    Reply
  • agnickolov
    And I was so hoping Visual C++ had made it into the regular benchmark set. Sadly, it's missing here...
    Reply
  • giovanni86
    Looking forward to seeing what type of Air/liquid cooled Overclocks can be achieved with these newly released processors.
    Reply
  • I wanna know how it performs on DAW apps. I hope it will be included in future benchmarks.
    Reply