Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 69

Thread: Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition vs. i7-990X Extreme Edition Benches Revealed

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Istanbul,Turkey
    Posts
    50

    Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition vs. i7-990X Extreme Edition Benches Revealed

    Core i7-3960X Extreme Edition vs. i7-990X Extreme Edition










    Source: http://www.donanimhaber.com/tm.asp?m=50950237

    This time it seems very legit to me.
    • ABIT-IP35
    • C2Q Q6600@3.33Ghz@Swiftech Apogee GT
    • Palit GTX460 768mb@Swiftech MCW60@1000mhz-1.212v
    • Kingston 3gb 800mhz
    • Alphacool NexXxoS Xtreme III Rev.2 360mm
    • CM Stacker 830
    • Samsung 2233BW 22'' TFT
    • Creative X-Fi Xtrememusic
    • Gigaworks Progamer G500

  2. #2
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,584
    wow that is crazy


  3. #3
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    381
    Who the hell does those benchmarks at Intel? Cinebench (which uses the render engine from Cinema 4D) and Povray are both raytracing engines... Both the engine in cinebench and the one in povray are raytracing engines. Marketing guys always create these funny situations which reveal just how little they understand what they are writing there. That applies for any company.

    But a good increase, 12-13% extra performance for the same core count is pretty solid in my book . In rendering, which is my main interest when buying a CPU. Gaming seems even more, but that's not that interesting for me.
    Last edited by Florinmocanu; 07-22-2011 at 07:56 AM.

  4. #4
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    1,940
    700 pins more, a gigantic package, 25% more cache and one extra memory channel for a mere 15% performance increase?

    i wouldn't call this impressive at all...

    they should've sticked to 1366 - i bet that the end result would've been the same (+-2%)
    Core i7 2600k|HD 6950|8GB RipJawsX|2x 128gb Samsung SSD 830 Raid0|Asus Sabertooth P67
    Seasonic X-560|Corsair 650D|2x WD Red 3TB Raid1|WD Green 3TB|Asus Xonar Essence STX


    Core i3 2100|HD 7770|8GB RipJawsX|128gb Samsung SSD 830|Asrock Z77 Pro4-M
    Bequiet! E9 400W|Fractal Design Arc Mini|3x Hitachi 7k1000.C|Asus Xonar DX


    Dell Latitude E6410|Core i7 620m|8gb DDR3|WXGA+ Screen|Nvidia Quadro NVS3100
    256gb Samsung PB22-J|Intel Wireless 6300|Sierra Aircard MC8781|WD Scorpio Blue 1TB


    Harman Kardon HK1200|Vienna Acoustics Brandnew|AKG K240 Monitor 600ohm|Sony CDP 228ESD

  5. #5
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near Venice as they say
    Posts
    1,314
    Quote Originally Posted by generics_user View Post
    700 pins more, a gigantic package, 25% more cache and one extra memory channel for a mere 15% performance increase?

    i wouldn't call this impressive at all...

    they should've sticked to 1366 - i bet that the end result would've been the same (+-2%)
    Must agree here
    TRUE Lapped - Intel Core i7 2600k 4,7Ghz - ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen3 - Nvidia GTX 1080 FE - 16Gb Crucial 2133 Mhz CL9 1,51v - Crucial M4 256Gb - Crucial MX300 1050Gb - Corsair AX850 - Fractal Define R3


  6. #6
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,584
    i wonder what the differences are when its @ 3.46ghz


  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by Florinmocanu View Post
    Who the hell does those benchmarks at Intel? Cinebench (which uses the render engine from Cinema 4D) and Povray are both raytracing engines... Both the engine in cinebench and the one in povray are raytracing engines. Marketing guys always create these funny situations which reveal just how little they understand what they are writing there. That applies for any company.

    But a good increase, 12-13% extra performance for the same core count is pretty solid in my book . In rendering, which is my main interest when buying a CPU. Gaming seems even more, but that's not that interesting for me.
    pretty solid imo too, 3960X runs at a lower base clock (and probably turbo boosts 100MHz w/ all cores active) vs 990X's 3.6ghz under turbo...

    those babies probably OC better than gulfys too
    Last edited by -Sweeper_; 07-22-2011 at 08:08 AM.

  8. #8
    Xtreme Guru
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    4,332
    Yea concidering how the clocks were compared the results are quite interesting. But more interesting would be to see how it overclocks concidering the die shrink.
    Intel? Core i5-4670K @ 4.3 GHz | ASRock Extreme6 Z87 | G.Skill Sniper 2x8GB @ DDR4-1866 CL9 | Gigabyte GTX 970 OC Windforce 3x | Super Flower Titanium 1000W | ViewSonic VX2268wm 120Hz LCD | Phanteks PH-TC14PE | Logitech MX-518 | Win 7 x64 Professional | Samsung 850 EVO & 840 Pro SSDs

    If all people would share opinions in an objective manner, the world would be a friendlier place

  9. #9
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by generics_user View Post
    700 pins more, a gigantic package, 25% more cache and one extra memory channel for a mere 15% performance increase?

    i wouldn't call this impressive at all...

    they should've sticked to 1366 - i bet that the end result would've been the same (+-2%)
    You don't expect linear performance increase from more cache and additional mem channel in apps which are less sensitive to mem bandwidth, do you? At least up to 65% perf. increase in specfp_rate is somewhat more impressive then mere "up to 35%" perf. increase which AMD now claims for Interlagos.

  10. #10
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    381
    Stop derailing threads kl0012, there is no need for this

  11. #11
    Xtreme 3D Team
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    8,482
    Quote Originally Posted by Hondacity View Post
    i wonder what the differences are when its @ 3.46ghz
    About 4% more.
    Quote Originally Posted by generics_user View Post
    700 pins more, a gigantic package, 25% more cache and one extra memory channel for a mere 15% performance increase?

    i wouldn't call this impressive at all...

    they should've sticked to 1366 - i bet that the end result would've been the same (+-2%)
    I must agree...and just think about what the platform price will be...motherboard with extra channels, premium features I would guess $300-500+ for those extreme motherboards like the UD7 to UD9...CPU's from $800 to $1200...3930K might be in $400 range, I'm not sure.

    The whole platform price vs performance gain doesn't make any sense.
    Last edited by BeepBeep2; 07-22-2011 at 09:28 AM.
    Smile

  12. #12
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    145.21.4.???
    Posts
    318
    I just wondering those non-server-use processor are necessary to run specINT/FP, btw those tests are memory bandwidth sensitive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hondacity View Post
    i wonder what the differences are when its @ 3.46ghz
    You may take turbo into account, 3960X have up to 3.9GHz turbo frequency while 990x have only 3.7GHz.

    official 990x spec: http://ark.intel.com/products/52585
    Last edited by undone; 07-22-2011 at 09:24 AM.

  13. #13
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    614
    Didn't Intel say something like 30 or 40% increase with IB? With 3D gates right?
    Modded Cosmos. | Maximus II Formula. Bios 1307| 2x2 Mushkin XP ASCENT 8500 | Q9550-E0- 4.10 + TRUE | Visiontek HD4870X2 | LN32A550 1920x1080 | X-FI Extreme Gamer | Z5300E | G15v.1 | G7 | MX518 | Corsair HX1000 | X25-MG2 80G | 5xHDD
    ____________________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    most people dont care about opencl, physix, folding at home and direct compute... they want cool explosions and things blowing up and boobs jumping around realistically... .

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by undone View Post
    I just wondering those non-server-use processor are necessary to run specINT/FP, btw those tests are memory bandwidth sensitive.



    You may take turbo into account, 3960X have up to 3.9GHz turbo frequency while 990x have only 3.7GHz.

    official 990x spec: http://ark.intel.com/products/52585
    thats with 1 active core and all of those tests are multi-threaded

  15. #15
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBeep2 View Post
    I must agree...and just think about what the platform price will be...motherboard with extra channels, premium features I would guess $300-500+ for those extreme motherboards like the UD7 to UD9...CPU's from $800 to $1200...3930K might be in $400 range, I'm not sure.
    The whole platform price vs performance gain doesn't make any sense.
    And do we know the whole platform price? And why should we assume that an additional mem channel would cost $100? Well, may be in the beginning x79 motherboards will costs more then x58 variants (as usual for a new hardware), but I guess soon enough we will see something much cheaper from Asrock and Co.

  16. #16
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Etihtsarom View Post
    Didn't Intel say something like 30 or 40% increase with IB? With 3D gates right?
    This is not IB. And no, Intel didn't say that.

  17. #17
    I am Xtreme FlanK3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Czech republic
    Posts
    6,796
    Looks like about 10.3b in Cinebench R11.5, great performance (1.13x better than 990x).
    ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
    CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread

  18. #18
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    447
    I hope by seeing benchmarks, these are close to being launched.

    I'm pretty sure that rumor about it being delayed to 2012 is 100% BS. I posted in another thread where Otenilli said Romley was on time, which should be the desktop parts should be on time as well.
    Iron Lung 3.0 | Intel Core i7 6800k @ 4ghz | 32gb G.SKILL RIPJAW V DDR4-3200 @16-16-16-36 | ASUS ROG STRIX X99 GAMING + ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1070 STRIX GAMING | Samsung 960 Pro 512GB + Samsung 840 EVO + 4TB HDD | 55" Samsung KS8000 + 30" Dell u3011 via Displayport - @ 6400x2160

  19. #19
    I am Xtreme
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Austria
    Posts
    5,485
    ble still can't belive it that the call it i7-3xxx... y marketing strikes again... What they call IB then.. 4xxx and s2011 IB 5xxx.. god damit...

  20. #20
    Wanna look under my kilt?
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Glasgow-ish U.K.
    Posts
    4,509
    Given that SB is ~ 10% more efficient than Gulftown, clock to clock, in single-threaded apps, this makes the new chips a hexcore version of SB.

    So far, i'm not all that impressed TBH

    All we can hope is that the silicon is more consistent and scales with cold
    Quote Originally Posted by T_M View Post
    Not sure i totally follow anything you said, but regardless of that you helped me come up with a very good idea....
    Quote Originally Posted by soundood View Post
    you sigged that?

    why?
    ______

    Sometimes, it's not your time. Sometimes, you have to make it your time. Sometimes, it can ONLY be your time.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    447
    They can call it "GIANT SHINY NEW CHIP 2011" and I still wouldn't care as long as it performs as its supposed to. You're getting bent out of shape over a model number you thought would be used for a product that is unreleased and so far out...

    Some decent benches were just shown and you're complaining about model #s? I dont get it? But I guess if you're really looking for something to complain/bash Intel for, there ya go.

    I cant believe that's even an issue..wow
    Last edited by Tenknics; 07-22-2011 at 10:38 AM.
    Iron Lung 3.0 | Intel Core i7 6800k @ 4ghz | 32gb G.SKILL RIPJAW V DDR4-3200 @16-16-16-36 | ASUS ROG STRIX X99 GAMING + ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1070 STRIX GAMING | Samsung 960 Pro 512GB + Samsung 840 EVO + 4TB HDD | 55" Samsung KS8000 + 30" Dell u3011 via Displayport - @ 6400x2160

  22. #22
    Xtreme Addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenknics View Post
    I hope by seeing benchmarks, these are close to being launched.

    I'm pretty sure that rumor about it being delayed to 2012 is 100% BS. I posted in another thread where Otenilli said Romley was on time, which should be the desktop parts should be on time as well.
    Actually, vr-zone has already denied its own rumor about "SB-E being delayed". Now they claim that SB-E is not delayed but will skip some features (no PCI-e 3.0 and less SATA 6Gb/s ports), which I guess BS too.
    Last edited by kl0012; 07-22-2011 at 10:52 AM.

  23. #23
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Ohio State
    Posts
    139
    Not bad but I want to see a platform price/performance scale as well. And of course some benching but on ambient and subzero.

  24. #24
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    ROMANIA
    Posts
    687
    Didn't Intel say something like 30 or 40% increase with IB? With 3D gates right?
    Intel said 20% performance increase for SB.
    30-40% more power efficient and may be die size performance increase to 30-40%.
    All in all a IB quad will be much better choice for money.
    SB-E is specially designed for workstations and servers.
    With quad channel memory and big cache it will rock in these.
    Still if the 6 core 12mb cache will be at 600$ it will be an interesting choice.
    Last edited by xdan; 07-22-2011 at 10:55 AM.
    i5 2500K@ 4.5Ghz
    Asrock P67 PRO3


    P55 PRO & i5 750
    http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=966385
    239 BCKL validation on cold air
    http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=966536
    Almost 5hgz , air.

  25. #25
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    447
    Quote Originally Posted by kl0012 View Post
    Actually, vr-zone has already denied its own rumor about "SB-E being delayed". Now they claim that SB-E is not delayed but will skip some features (no PCI-e 3.0 and less SATA 6Gb/s ports), which I guess BS too.
    Cool beans. I also read that they'd be cutting some features out of the platform to make it out on time this year. The biggest one I read was the PCI-E 3.0 direct link to CPU for dedicated storage/raid? And yea a few less SATA 6 ports. I also read theyd launch it and try to add it on later...Unless its just physically disabled, I dont get how they can add that later..Unless you replace your motherboard..
    Iron Lung 3.0 | Intel Core i7 6800k @ 4ghz | 32gb G.SKILL RIPJAW V DDR4-3200 @16-16-16-36 | ASUS ROG STRIX X99 GAMING + ASUS ROG GeForce GTX 1070 STRIX GAMING | Samsung 960 Pro 512GB + Samsung 840 EVO + 4TB HDD | 55" Samsung KS8000 + 30" Dell u3011 via Displayport - @ 6400x2160

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •