dule1701e,
The overall system rating of 1629.3 in Passmark Performance Test 8 demonstrates there is a definite performance issue with your system- or it may be anomalous based on test parameter weighting .
And the mystery is which is wonky. The score for every parameter > CPU, memory, and disk are superb. If you go to Passmark > Manage Baselines > Advanced Search, enter "i7-3970K" for CPU and ASUS P9X79 PRO for motherboard and the search will yield 13 results. Of these results, 12 are valid and the lowest score is anomalous as the disk score of 796 with that CPU and motherboard is hardly possible even with a creaky mech'l drive. The ratings range from 4712 to 6439 > dramatically higher than your 1639. My elderly dual Xeon 4-core manages 1859 with a CPU score of 8528 to your system' (13422) , Mem =729 (2755) , Disk = 929 (2539). (My disk score of 929 is a Western Digital RE4 mech'l which is the reason I discount the system with a 729 score)
This odd, low rating leads me to believe that the system performance is actually extremely good except for what must be very poor graphics performance. I didn't see in the report you posted any graphics scores, and I'm wondering what those scores were? There is a lot of weighting on these scores as the graphics performance as a key measure for the system performance. While you test showed that your system has an extremely high capability in CPU parameters utilized for METLAB simulation, and memory and disk scores were extremely good > you would need a dual Xeon 6 or 8 core to improve them.
However, the system in the search reveals all have graphics cards at the very high end and in the 13 systems, there are only 4 cards > GTX 670, 680 (3), 690 (8), and Quadro 6000, producing 2D scores = 800 > 998 and 3D = 1371 > 6200. If you had one of these cards, your system rating should be more in the 5000 range.
Again, your system may be doing what it's supposed to be doing extremely well, but is simply making a low score based on graphics weighting in the test.
My suggestion is to run identical MATLAB simulations on both systems and if MATLAB has a task timer, compare the overall timing. If the new i3-3970K is not dramatically faster then I could only conclude that the simulation is in some way benefitting from CUDA coprocessor acceleration. Then I would borrow a CUDA based GTX or Quadro card and if the Passmark rating improves substantially, you might consider a Tesla C2075 > which has a 1X DVI video output or K20 CUDA coprocessor to in effect unlock the processing power. If those devices are out of budget ($3,300), you could buy a GTX 670 to have video outut and add a pair of used C2050's with 448 CUDA cores for about $300 each. Again, that strategy would only be valuable if your simulation software can use the CUDA coprocessing. If that's the case, you may benefit from simply adding 3X GTX 670 (SLI) for 4,032 Cores. I have very little understanding of MATLAB except that it addresses weakly typed objects in arrays in a very fluid way that (I may be mistaken, but believe) demands / relies on single and double precision for performance, and I would think that if your running particle or gas simulations that could be even more important. In that case, a Xeon > ECC RAM > Quadro (if CUDA-based) system would be best. But, still, your system does so very well in floating point, integer and other critical CPU functions.
I apologize for rambling on, but the results for what should be an extremely high performance system is possibly based on the hardware having a performance orientation different to that of the software- of which I know practically nothing.
I would be very interested to know what you discover on this matter.
Cheers,
BambiBoom
[ Dell Precision T5400 > 2X Xeon X5460 quad core @3.16GHz > 16 GB ECC > Quadro. FX 4800 (1.5GB) > WD RE4 / Segt Brcda 500GB > Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit > AutoCad, Revit, Solidworks 2010, Sketchup Pro, Corel Technical Designer, Adobe. CS4 MC, WordP Office, MS Office ]