Coolaler shows us just how pathetic the i7-4960X will be...

[Dimitriman]

The concept of "high end" is a bit misused here with these Ivy B-E line.. I would call it more of a bastardized Workstation for enthusiasts segment.
$1000 CPU on an extremely expensive platform doesn't make it high end to me as it is only marginally faster than the "mid range" 3770K parts.
I bet most would never be able to tell the difference between both systems if they were not told what was inside.

Such system makes sense if you are a rendering junkie or need some overclocking on your workstation. But right now this system is directed at Gamers and that's just nonsense.

[rk7p5]

Year after year intel releases the same old expensive platform, with barely anything new or interesting. The idea of buying into another rehashed skt 2011 just to get a better platform and two more cores(and crappy salvaged cpu's) doesn't sound very appealing to me.

How can there be any innovation in a field where no one's allowed to compete? Intel hides behind this x86 license bs and acts like they're special or something. Sure they're ahead of everyone when it comes to process tech but what if something
happens to intel? Who will step up and with what?

It's so frustrating seeing the same formula over and over. News flash, you can money and make interesting and innovative products!

[dartaz]

Don't forget that i7 4960X has also 20w lower TDP

[itznfb]

It's so frustrating seeing the same formula over and over. News flash, you can money and make interesting and innovative products!

They've gone from Pentium to Core to Core-2 to Core-i all in the last 8 years.... I wouldn't call that the same old formula.

[Hornet331]

Isnt 10% fairly typical at any model change? Thats not taking overclocks into account either.


:-)

Its pretty much the norm since the switch to C2, the only "leap" you had was from P4 to C2, but when you look at its direct predecessors P-M and Core (yonah) you nearly get the same 10% steps.

[lutjens]

They've gone from Pentium to Core to Core-2 to Core-i all in the last 8 years.... I wouldn't call that the same old formula.

Much of the impetus for the progress you mentioned was due to the direct threat of competition from AMD. If AMD wasn't around for the last decade, I'd bet that we'd still be at the Pentium 4 level of performance. Now that AMD is no longer a viable competitor, we are seeing the progress slow to a crawl, with Intel dominant, content and lazy, shipping mediocre products with an "Extreme" label on the box.

Don't forget that i7 4960X has also 20w lower TDP

TDP isn't the primary concern of users on this site (or many enthusiasts for that matter)...the folks here are very skilled and can devise a way to cool pretty much anything. What we want is a top performing, premium product with top notch performance and flexibility. I understand such a premium product would be priced at a considerable premium, and if the product is good, I'm fine with that.

[NEOAethyr]

From what I've seen, the 39xx cpu's have less mem bandwidth then the 3770k.
The 49xx cpu's aught to have more bandwidth then the 3770k.

But paying $1000 for a new cpu, no...
I'll try to go with the 4770k, unless they put out a $400-500 4930k or something.

And besides, wasn't this cpu actually supposed to have 12 cores?, and they apparently disabled half of it .

[Chrono Detector]

Well they are releasing 8+ core Xeon chips, but we all know that it is really expensive and its locked so thats not really a viable option....

I hope they will release a new chipset that replaces X79 that supports native USB 3.0 and more SATA 3.0 ports will interest me.

[owikh84]

Don't forget that i7 4960X has also 20w lower TDP

One year later i think Intel will release a 150w 4970X

[ilkkahy]

Now that AMD is no longer a viable competitor, we are seeing the progress slow to a crawl, with Intel dominant, content and lazy, shipping mediocre products with an "Extreme" label on the box.

But they are still fastest cpu products on this planet, right?

Intels approach is just right. They slow the pace as much as possible and try to get as high profits from their products as possible. PC sales are going down anyways so last thing they need is to make more products like Q6600 which doesnt need upgrading next 5-10 years.

[PatRaceTin]

Those ES VCore look high ????

[Andi64]

The concept of "high end" is a bit misused here with these Ivy B-E line.. I would call it more of a bastardized Workstation for enthusiasts segment.
$1000 CPU on an extremely expensive platform doesn't make it high end to me as it is only marginally faster than the "mid range" 3770K parts.
I bet most would never be able to tell the difference between both systems if they were not told what was inside.

Such system makes sense if you are a rendering junkie or need some overclocking on your workstation. But right now this system is directed at Gamers and that's just nonsense.

What?? I don't get it. The question is what was "extreme" about a QX6000, or a QX9000, or even the pathetic Pentium 4 EE.

There is simply no processor good enough on LGA1155, or even the soon to be launched LGA1150, nor anything AMD can do, that could match an i7 3930K. That's what is an "extreme" platform, and it cost U$S500. i7 49x0 won't be any better because there is no competition to any 6c/12t Intel can offer. Period.

Could they be better? Sure. Much better. But Intel is competing against itself. It's a "broken" die? Sure. That doesn't make it less extreme, when there is nothing better.

Nothing can touch a 5Ghz 3930K, nothing in any other 1-socket platform can touch it. Not AMD, not even Intels own mid-range.

I hope they overclock well. That's all I care. And I really doubt they will have any temperature issues cause of bad IHS contact.

[c22]

What?? I don't get it. The question is what was "extreme" about a QX6000, or a QX9000, or even the pathetic Pentium 4 EE.

There is simply no processor good enough on LGA1155, or even the soon to be launched LGA1150, nor anything AMD can do, that could match an i7 3930K. That's what is an "extreme" platform, and it cost U$S500. i7 49x0 won't be any better because there is no competition to any 6c/12t Intel can offer. Period.

Could they be better? Sure. Much better. But Intel is competing against itself. It's a "broken" die? Sure. That doesn't make it less extreme, when there is nothing better.

Nothing can touch a 5Ghz 3930K, nothing in any other 1-socket platform can touch it. Not AMD, not even Intels own mid-range.

I hope they overclock well. That's all I care. And I really doubt they will have any temperature issues cause of bad IHS contact.

^ that.

If it's the best platform you can get right now - it is extreme, no matter what you say. And I quite don't really get what is all this discussion about. Someone gets butthurt? Thank AMD that they can't even compete with Intel ~300$ CPUs.

Besides Intel knows what to do better than we are. Even tho i7-3930K is "SB" and has lower frequency than i7-3770K which is "IB", it still is better on average in games.



Thus IB-E will be for sure on average faster than HSW in games too and, I might just gladly remind you, IB-E will blow everything away in terms of rendering/movie editing and stuff.

I don't and won't say I wouldn't like to see an eight core overclockable chip - I hope to get it if it's released. But right now it's AMD who actually gives up and Intel doesn't care anymore if there's no competition.

[TRANCEFORMER]

[rk7p5]

What?? I don't get it. The question is what was "extreme" about a QX6000, or a QX9000, or even the pathetic Pentium 4 EE.

There is simply no processor good enough on LGA1155, or even the soon to be launched LGA1150, nor anything AMD can do, that could match an i7 3930K. That's what is an "extreme" platform, and it cost U$S500. i7 49x0 won't be any better because there is no competition to any 6c/12t Intel can offer. Period.

Could they be better? Sure. Much better. But Intel is competing against itself. It's a "broken" die? Sure. That doesn't make it less extreme, when there is nothing better.

Nothing can touch a 5Ghz 3930K, nothing in any other 1-socket platform can touch it. Not AMD, not even Intels own mid-range.

I hope they overclock well. That's all I care. And I really doubt they will have any temperature issues cause of bad IHS contact.

Intel's mainstream platform is also severely gimped. Also Amd is slowly coming back with better performance, and they compete fairly well in multi threaded apps.

Just because something is good enough for you, doesn't mean everyone is happy.

[biohead]

Being someone who moved to a 3930k/P9X79 platform from a mere 1055T just a few days ago, I thank you for your positive reinforcement (now if only these things didn't get so hot as to require WC/AIO from 4.2 upwards :/)

What?? I don't get it. The question is what was "extreme" about a QX6000, or a QX9000, or even the pathetic Pentium 4 EE.

There is simply no processor good enough on LGA1155, or even the soon to be launched LGA1150, nor anything AMD can do, that could match an i7 3930K. That's what is an "extreme" platform, and it cost U$S500. i7 49x0 won't be any better because there is no competition to any 6c/12t Intel can offer. Period.

Could they be better? Sure. Much better. But Intel is competing against itself. It's a "broken" die? Sure. That doesn't make it less extreme, when there is nothing better.

Nothing can touch a 5Ghz 3930K, nothing in any other 1-socket platform can touch it. Not AMD, not even Intels own mid-range.

I hope they overclock well. That's all I care. And I really doubt they will have any temperature issues cause of bad IHS contact.

[Andi64]

^ that.

If it's the best platform you can get right now - it is extreme, no matter what you say. And I quite don't really get what is all this discussion about. Someone gets butthurt? Thank AMD that they can't even compete with Intel ~300$ CPUs.

Besides Intel knows what to do better than we are. Even tho i7-3930K is "SB" and has lower frequency than i7-3770K which is "IB", it still is better on average in games.



Thus IB-E will be for sure on average faster than HSW in games too and, I might just gladly remind you, IB-E will blow everything away in terms of rendering/movie editing and stuff.

I don't and won't say I wouldn't like to see an eight core overclockable chip - I hope to get it if it's released. But right now it's AMD who actually gives up and Intel doesn't care anymore if there's no competition.

I would LOVE to see an i7 8c/16t 20MB with unlocked multiplier. That would -maybe- mean cheaper 6c/12t processors. But if that doesn't happen it's because they don't need to release such processor to be the performance king (also the efficiency king, and performance over die area, and so on...)

[Piledriver]

Much of the impetus for the progress you mentioned was due to the direct threat of competition from AMD. If AMD wasn't around for the last decade, I'd bet that we'd still be at the Pentium 4 level of performance. Now that AMD is no longer a viable competitor, we are seeing the progress slow to a crawl, with Intel dominant, content and lazy, shipping mediocre products with an "Extreme" label on the box.

And you know what's funny, it's the same persons that think they are "elite" and buys always Intel and Nvidia no matter how much better AMD is, and even get nauseate at the mention of the word AMD, that now are upset at Intel's slow progress.

[rk7p5]

Intel's progress is not slow, they purposely cut features and leave things out just to make a little extra money. They could make make a overclockable i3 model but no they decide lets force everyone who wants to oc to spend an extra $100.

There's lots more examples and they get away with it because no one else is allowed to compete. Nvidia does the same bs all in the name of greed. Buying intel or nvidia is just making the best of a bad situation.

There's a difference between making money and being greedy.

[PedantOne]

I was thinking the same thing.....

yeah, but we expected finally 8-Core in desktop lineup

[behrouz]

for AMD's Steamroller , at least , how much Percent should improve over SB ? 15% (overall) ?

[rk7p5]

for AMD's Steamroller , at least , how much Percent should improve over SB ? 15% (overall) ?

Umm haswell is around 20% over sandy, so i doubt that SteamRoller is gonna be that fast. Don't get me wrong i would love for that to happen, i would build a new Amd rig asap.

[crash5s]

But they are still fastest cpu products on this planet, right?

Intels approach is just right. They slow the pace as much as possible and try to get as high profits from their products as possible. PC sales are going down anyways so last thing they need is to make more products like Q6600 which doesnt need upgrading next 5-10 years.

No they aren't the fastest. There is still stuff like IBM POWER and other stuff once you get outside of the x86 playpen.

Intel's issue is that for the longest time laptops have been eating away at desktops. Desktops were for people stuck in the 1990's, DIY nerd types, and a rare few CAD/CAM people that needed big ass work stations. And now tablets are making laptops for people stuck in 2000-2010 era and eating their lunch. The market for power consumption be damned performance is all that matters is gone. It's more important to lower power consumption and heat for the mobile segment of the chip than crank out barn burner workstation parts. Even on the server side we're at the point where power consumption and performance per watt is vastly more important than raw performance in most cases. And in the cases where it doesn't matter nobody is using x86, it's all different CPUs or GPU computing.

High end x86 just looks more and more as out of date and place as a typer writer, and about as useful for the average consumer. It makes far more sense for intel to devote their efforts on mobile performance than trying to crank out the one desktop chip to rule them all.

[nossy23]

Umm haswell is around 20% over sandy, so i doubt that SteamRoller is gonna be that fast. Don't get me wrong i would love for that to happen, i would build a new Amd rig asap.

Keep on dreaming. There is no way it will be 20% on average, it will be way lower. Maybe in some selected benchmarks.

[lutjens]

And you know what's funny, it's the same persons that think they are "elite" and buys always Intel and Nvidia no matter how much better AMD is, and even get nauseate at the mention of the word AMD, that now are upset at Intel's slow progress.

Personally, I buy what's fastest. There are some people who want the fastest products and products that are fully featured, and aren't afraid to spend more for them. If a product adds significant value in the form of features, I have no problem paying top dollar for it, but I refuse to spend top dollar on a defective chip that's been intentionally crippled, or one that adds very little to what was achieved by its predecessor. AMD's CPUs, at the moment, aren't competitive in performance and the wide gulf between their CPUs and those produced by Intel isn't likely to narrow significantly anytime soon. I look at what Intel is currently producing and what they could be producing and I'm extremely irritated that Intel refuses to offer a fully featured product that offers all cores, dual processor operation and is unlocked, in the same vein as the QX9775 was.