Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) And X79 Platform Preview

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
You couldn't do a review without showing a little love @ Intel. The use of a RAM disk in specific benchmarks it is interesting. It shows the real power of Intel's IPC and memory bandwidth. Unfortunately it might also be misleading, because in a typical system the user is going to use a hard disk or an SSD.
 
SB-E is nice.. But
x79 is a let down.. Not many new features to justify an upgrade..

Overall.. Intel is right on track.. Intel just wants to get the Mainstream and enthusiast markets for its own..
 
The main problem is AMD!
Dammit@!
They are only making intel fatter and more slower, they dont provide intel with any competition!

But that said, Intel better lower the price of there six core cpu and make the a $1000 eight core Sandy Bridge E cpu i am sure they would get many customers and that the cpu would last at least eight years.
Come on, Eight core sandy bridge would is viable for $1000.
I would get one.

Coming from Intel fanboi!
 
[citation][nom]jprahman[/nom]To be honest, this review almost comes off like an attempt to chill any interest high-end enthusiasts might have for Bulldozer.[/citation]

AMD are doing a fine job of this all on their own and don't need any help. 😉
 
As a reminder, Thuban does poorly in F1 2010 until you disable two cores. If the game only works properly with a power-of-two architecture, what would disabling two cores on both Gulftown and SB-E achieve?
 
"As a reminder, Thuban does poorly in F1 2010 until you disable two cores. If the game only works properly with a power-of-two architecture, what would disabling two cores on both Gulftown and SB-E achieve?"

Nothing. This F1 2010 problem only affected 6-core AMD processors. I thought they fixed it in a patch, though?
 
If they did, it's a tad misleading to not report the improved scores here. Still, one benchmark matters not when you're being soundly spanked (even if the opposition has HT available, it won't always benefit from it).
 
Nice review Chris !!

Please cook up something good when the Zambezi NDA lifts ... I am keen to see how the memory controller and cache performs between SB-E / SB and Bulldozer (Zambezi).

I realise you can't say much but as soon as you get production silicon would you mind spending a bit of time with that aspect of the review?

AMD has been well behind in this aspect of their CPU designs so I am keen to see if they moved forward much ... along with the much touted AVX256 implementation.

Cheers !!
 
lets keep some things in mind: This is a preview, not a final review. There may be some features (USB3) that may show up at the final release. Also, we were not able to see what these chips can provide in supporting a graphics subsystem with 40 dedicated lanes of PCIe2. They also do not have a aftermarket cooler to see what OC options there are. And PCIe3 isn't going to come out until next year with IB chips, not sure where people got that confused. Besides, there are no GPUs coming out with PCIe3 support until mid next year anyways.

Aside from that this is exactly what we expected. From previous articles we know that faster RAM doesn't make a huge difference, so adding native 1600 support, and quad channel over duel channel wasn't going to do much with the exception of server and large database apps. They are basically SB chips with 6 cores, and support of server hardware like ECC memory. These are not gamer or consumer chips, these are for professionals who do big monster multitasking stuff, and get paid based on how fast those projects compile/complete (think pixar, and other large studios). For them it looks like this will be a huge 30% upgrade, which is more than enough justification to drop tens of thousands in new rendering equipment.

Only thing missing in the article are temps. There was a rumor that intel was having trouble keeping these chips within their thermal rating, and I was wondering if that was why it did not eek out ahead of the 2600k on some of the single thread apps when it should have. But I guess we will have to wait for a retail chip and board to get that information.
 
k i must be retarded or something, the performance bump is nice enough but why are you selling a chip aimed at the server/workstation market (for the majority) with multiplier unlocked..... anybody running a mission critical system wont be doing any kind of overclocking what so ever
 
I bet the A8 would even be competitive against the Phenom II and the Core i7.

You should have included the i3, the i5 and the PhII 965/970 and the A8 in there. I'm sure every one would've noticed something we all tell everyday: "USD$1000 scam processor".

Cheers!
 
[citation][nom]retardedMe[/nom]k i must be retarded or something, the performance bump is nice enough but why are you selling a chip aimed at the server/workstation market (for the majority) with multiplier unlocked..... anybody running a mission critical system wont be doing any kind of overclocking what so ever[/citation]
Maybe Intel wanted to satisfy the fetish of all enthusiast so that is why they want to add "Server overclocking".
Hey anything that makes a business happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom