Core i7-3970X Extreme Review: Can It Stomp An Eight-Core Xeon?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

ojas

Distinguished
Feb 25, 2011
2,924
0
20,810
15
[citation][nom]jn77[/nom]I am still using my Q6600, but its getting replaced with a laptop in a month. If the price of these extreme processors were $500 each and had 8 cores each, I would rebuild the desktop with a dual socket motherboard and 2 of these processors for 16 cores + 16 Hyperthreading and 64gb ram for 4K video editing and heavy photoshop work.Untill then, I wait.[/citation]
you trolling or what?

If you really had those kinds of needs, why on earth would you have a Q6600, or buy a laptop as a replacement?
 
G

Guest

Guest
I'd like to see a comparison with some other Xeons to see at which clock speed does the 2 extra cores not matter. Sure - the fastest 8 core Xeon beats the fastest i7... but what about E5-2650 - which is amost the same price as the i7.
 
[citation][nom]JonnyO2[/nom]I'd like to see a comparison with some other Xeons to see at which clock speed does the 2 extra cores not matter. Sure - the fastest 8 core Xeon beats the fastest i7... but what about E5-2650 - which is amost the same price as the i7.[/citation]

I think that that is an excellent question... If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say that the i7-39xx CPUs would beat the E5-2650. 2GHz is just going to low IMO. Even in top theoretical performance comparison (multiplying core count by frequency), the i7-3970X is far ahead (at base frequencies, 21 against 16) and we all know that except for some exceptions most software doesn't scale perfectly across multiple cores, so even the i7-3930K would win at stock against the E5-2650 in (probably) everything that you throw at them.

For the Xeon to still win in threaded work, it's frequency would need to be less than about 25-30% lower than the i7's frequency. In perfectly scaling software, 2.6GHz or 2.7GHz is probably about where an eight-core Xeon would meet the i7-3970X at 3.5GHz (of course, those frequency numbers are ignoring Turbo's impact on things, but still). It'd probably take a Xeon E5-2670 to be a rough match for the i7-3930K in work that can use all threads with proper scaling.
 

SuperVeloce

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2011
154
0
18,690
1
[citation][nom]jn77[/nom]I am still using my Q6600, but its getting replaced with a laptop in a month. If the price of these extreme processors were $500 each and had 8 cores each, I would rebuild the desktop with a dual socket motherboard and 2 of these processors for 16 cores + 16 Hyperthreading and 64gb ram for 4K video editing and heavy photoshop work.Untill then, I wait.[/citation]
Two of these i7? you are trolling, sir, for sure. One of the reasons E5 cost twice as much is a fully working QPI connection. And you need that for multi-CPU system
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
What I wanted was an Ivy-Bridge-E, not another Sandy Bridge based chip.

Well, at this point looks like Haswell will populate my next build anyway.
 
Toms I am getting really tired of not seeing an over the top overclock on a 2600K and 2500K 4.6Ghz -5.ghz to compare with these monster chips.

We want to know and you have the equipment and the chops to pull it off.

You need to add this to every cpu showdown.
 

maverick knight

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2011
156
0
18,710
9
ctt82 :

Ok time to completion of entire THG bench suit:3970X- 91.5 s8350-116s91.5/116=0.788 or 22% faster time to completion than 8350. Twenty two percent.3770K similarly is 12% faster than 8350Prices on newegg right now:3960X-1029$ (no 3970x yet but price will be the same)3770K-320$8350-220$From perf./$ POV, 8350 just owns all of these uber intel chips. 3970x is 22% faster than 8350 and costs 4.7x more (boards will inflate the difference even more). 3770K fares a bit better but still worse than 8350 from perf./$: 12% faster according to THG while costing 45% more. For those who care about their wallet it's a no-brainer actually. And "power efficiency" numbers from this article are a bit skewed since nobody will run their CPUs at 100% load all the time. 90% of the time the machine is in idle state where all of the systems draw practically the same power. The actual full/half load periods of time are not nearly enough to bridge the $$$ savings between 8350 and the rest since it would take YEARS to make up for it,in the case of 3970x,decade probably(it draws similar power and costs almost 5x more).


All this analysis of yours states is that you pay for what you get. For faster chips you pay more. Do not cloud the fact that AMD offerings are underwhelming (even when compared with its own 6 core chip). Its like comparing a BRZ to a Corvette.

Nice job Cpt. Obvious.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Someone once asked Carroll Shelby what kind of gas mileage the 900 horsepower Mustang would get. He said, "Who gives a s***". So why all the hoopla over efficiency in high end processors??? Who gives a s***???
 

army_ant7

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
629
0
18,980
0
@mgilbert
Apparently that guy didn't care about the environment and gas prices. (Maybe back then they were less of issues.)
But that aside, less efficiency can add to the cost of ownership, and as some have mentioned (if not here, on other threads) how electricity prices are pretty high in some places compared to others.
Not to mention companies that may have multiple machines working concurrently (thus the effect of their efficiency being multiplied). :)

I for one believe that no matter how little you waste, if you can avoid it without going too much out of your way, why not? People should really try not being so carefree and wasteful. It would make the world a better place (in some aspects). :)
 

hakesterman

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2008
563
0
18,980
0
Non of them are worth it. I have an AMD processor i bought 2 years ago that runs all the latest games at 60 FPS @ 1080P Flawlessly and i paid two hundred dollars less than an I7. I7's are overkill and over priced for gameing.
 

jkflipflop98

Distinguished
Feb 3, 2006
1,825
271
20,170
3
[citation][nom]blazorthon[/nom]Same chips still. Binning doesn't change what they're made of. Similar to how the Tahitis in the 7970 GHz Edition are better binned than those in the regular 7970, but they're still the same chips.[/citation]

Wrong. They're totally different production lines.
 

army_ant7

Distinguished
May 31, 2009
629
0
18,980
0
I'll have to point this out to you (and I'm saying this in a kind way, so please don't take me the wrong way. :)).
Equipped with eight cores and 20 MB of shared L3 cache, the Xeon is what Sandy Bridge-E really could be if Intel didn't disable parts of it. But because more of the die’s resources are enabled on the Xeon, generating heat, Intel has to be more conservative about its clock rates.
(This is found on the first page under the pic of the die.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Where are the tests for Audio production software such as Cubase and Cakewalk Sonar? Not everybody uses computers for graphicsand, games and iTunes. Can somebody test the Sonar X2? Thanks.
 

eddieroolz

Splendid
The way I see it, if one is spending $1000 on a CPU to serve as a content production platform, it's just better off to spent another $1000 for the Xeon E5 which has guaranteed stability and dual-processor power.
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1
Personally, I think it would have been more interesting to see the i7-3820 than the i7-3930K.

IMHO, the argument to spend the bucks on the 39X0K or the $eon is slim - unless money is no object or other factors are behind the choice - such as not being able to live without 16 cores in a box that costs $3,800 just for the CPUs. When I view these chips from my limited viewpoint, one of value, it seems like the high cost of these chips really only buys bragging rights and not much else.

Also, I have to remark about the references in the text to the 8150 - as if it was expected that the 8150 would remotely compare to the E Intel offerings. Heck, I highly doubt that an 8150 could keep pace with an i7-3820 - a much better comparison by cost. IMHO, credibility is higher when their is nothing to say and nothing is said. Who cares if the $eon doubles the performance of a chip that is 1/6 its cost. In terms of value as I see it, the 8150 is the better choice since the 8150 does half the work of the $eon at 1/6 the cost. Was the "value" of the 8150 the focus of those comments or was bashing a dead horse just for the hell of it the focus?

Then again, on a similar track, I think it would be interesting to see a pro graphics card thrown into the mix when a consumer level card is reviewed - but does that violate Tom's agreements with manufacturers as in not pointing out that the cheaper product is actually the better value?
 

wiyosaya

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2006
915
1
18,990
1

Agreed!!! I guess you are being voted down because no one likes to admit the obvious.
 

ronch79

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2010
181
0
18,680
0
Happy with my FX-8350. Not the fastest, but for the money, it slots neatly between the i5-3570K and i7-3770K in terms of overall performance. Sometimes, it's not just about pure performance. Sometimes, there's the 'wow factor'. I'm talking about eight cores at 4.0GHz in a unique metal box that makes it look and feel more special.
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
[citation][nom]wiyosaya[/nom]Agreed!!! I guess you are being voted down because no one likes to admit the obvious.[/citation]Or maybe it's because the article is about beating Xeon rather than beating 8350?

Edit: My apologies for actually reading the article's title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY