Sandy Bridge-E Benchmarked: Intel Retains the Performance Crown
Intel's new Sandy Bridge-E chip reigns supreme—and we have the charts to prove it
True performance enthusiasts have had a very difficult choice this past year. Go for maximum core and thread count using an older core microarchitecture, or cheap out and get almost the same (or better) performance in most apps and games using the mainstream Sandy Bridge chip.
Ready to start building? Check out our step-by-step build instructions here!
That, in a nutshell, has been the enthusiasts’ dilemma ever since Intel introduced the Sandy Bridge chip in January 2011. Well those days are behind us now that Intel has finally, finally released its Sandy Bridge-E (for Enthusiast) chip. With one simple chip—the new 3.3GHz Core i7-3960X—Intel has neatly folded up all those worries and put them into a nice little blue box stamped with the Intel logo.
A TRUE ENTHUSIASTS' CPU
Boiled down to the simplest of terms, if the quad-core 3.4GHz Core i7-2600K (or its new sibling the 3.5GHz Core i7-2700K) was the best chip out there, the Core i7-3960X is now the bestest. That’s because the Core i7-3960X is simply a Core i7-2600K with two additional cores.
Actually, that’s not really accurate. As an enthusiast chip, there are no graphics cores in the Core i7-3960X. And while the Core i7-2600K is limited to just 16 PCIe 2.0 lanes, the Core i7-3960X sports 40. Even better, those 40 lanes of PCIe support are PCIe 3.0 compliant. Out the gate, however, Intel (or its lawyers, anyway) is reluctant to label them as PCIe 3.0 until it actually has enough PCIe 3.0 cards to test.

Intel's Sandy Bridge-E blends the best of both worlds: it has the core and thread count of a Core i7-990X Gulftown proc and the core performance of a Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge.
As to the cores, you already know about them. They’re Sandy Bridge cores and include AVX and AES-NI instruction-set goodness. Turbo Boost 2.0 on these models will take the top-end 3.3GHz Core i7-3960X to 3.9GHz. The cores are built using Intel’s 32nm process and, well, there are two more of them turned on.
Besides the added cores, enthusiasts will also be thrilled by the memory support: To keep those cores fed, Intel is using a new quad-channel memory controller. The memory controller seems significantly faster than previous iterations, too. While the tri-channel memory controller in the original LGA1366 didn’t blow our socks off (over a dual-channel configuration), the quad-channel controller in the Core i7-3960X has us stunned. In our tests, we found that it offered nearly 100 percent more memory bandwidth than the Core i7-990X’s triple-channel configuration.
PSSST, IT'S REALLY EIGHT CORES INSIDE
Intel isn’t making the Core i7-3960X just to satiate the appetites of speed freaks. The chip is mostly intended to be sold as a Xeon workstation CPU. So it shouldn’t surprise you that the Core i7-3960X is actually an eight-core chip. Yup, that’s right; looking at the block map of the chip, you can see that the new CPU has two sections blocked out where cores seven and eight go. Why leave them off? Intel officially says the decision was based on its desire to balance clock speeds, thermals, and power needs. We suspect that it’s really because Intel doesn’t need those two extra cores at this point. Not to telegraph too much, but AMD hasn’t posed much performance competition yet. By leaving cores off now, Intel can always introduce octo-core chips later if it needs to be more competitive. There could also truly be a thermal concern, as unsubstantiated rumors (are there any other kind?) initially told of Intel’s new chip pushing an unheard‑of 180‑watt thermal rating.
Yeah, we know what you’re thinking already, because we asked the same thing ourselves: Can you unlock those two other cores? Negative, Ghostrider. Intel has laser-cut those cores off in the die, so unless someone has the smallest‑possible soldering gun, we’d bet a box of adamantium claws that it’s impossible.
MEET THE NEW PLATFORM

Don't rub your eyes: There really are eight cores on that monstrous 32nm die. And no, you can't unlock the bottom two, except in your wildest dreams.
As is Intel’s modus operandi, the company has a new socket. While the switch from LGA1156 to LGA1155 certainly pissed off customers, the LGA1366 crowd can hardly complain. LGA1366 launched with the original Core i7-965 Extreme Edition way back in 2008. For Intel to even support a socket that long is almost unheard of. So, with Core i7-3960X, Intel is introducing its new LGA2011.
Why the extra pins? The additional pins in the socket are to support the quad-channel memory and the relocation of the PCIe lanes from the core-logic chipset to the CPU core (à la Sandy Bridge and Lynnfield). For the most part, enthusiasts will be tickled pink with the beastly new socket, the quad-channel memory, and PCIe 3.0. What they won’t be happy with is the SATA 6Gb/s situation. The new X79 chipset features a Serial Attached SCSI controller that can support up to 10 drives in SATA 6Gb/s, but at the 11th hour, the feature was switched off due to compatibility concerns. Instead, we’re left with an X79 peripheral controller hub that’s pretty much a weak-sauce retread of the P67 and Z68’s PCH: two SATA 6Gb/s and four SATA 3Gb/s ports. You can certainly argue that you don’t need more than two SATA 6Gb/s ports since they’re only useful for SSD drives, but we think it stinks, especially as we had been teased by thoughts of motherboards bursting with SATA 6Gb/s. We expect initial boards to be limited in SATA 6Gb/s ports due to the last-minute switch, but in a few months, board vendors will tack on additional ports using third-party controllers. If anything, the SATA 6Gb/s features on boards and how they’re implemented will separate the men from the boys in mobo land.
MEET THE SANDY BRIDGE-E FAMILY
For the LGA2011 platform, Intel is introducing three new chips: The top-end Core 7-3960X at $990—yup, that’s $9 cheaper than the existing Core i7-990X chip (gee thanks, Intel!) that this Extreme chip is meant to replace. Intel is also introducing two other chips. The mid-tier 3.2GHz Core i7-3930K will sell for $555. Besides the lower stock clock, the chip will shed some of the L3 cache, for a total of 12MB. For the budget enthusiast, Intel has plans to release a quad-core, Hyper-Threaded Sandy Bridge-E with 10MB of L3 cache early next year. Prices of the Core i7-3820 haven’t been released, but we’re pretty sure it’ll slot in at about $300. The part is “partially unlocked,” meaning it will have limited overclocking features, and is likely intended as a way to get entry-level enthusiasts in the X79 game.
The good news for enthusiasts is that Intel has no plans to step away from offering blistering‑fast chips with cutting-edge technology, despite all the focus on tablets and smartphones these days. Hallelujah.
| Intel Core i7-2600K | Intel Core i7-990X | Intel Core i7-3960X | AMD Phenom II X6 1100T | AMD FX-8150 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clock | 3.4GHz | 3.46GHz | 3.3GHz | 3.3GHz | 3.6GHz |
| Turbo Clock (Max) | 3.8GHz | 3.7GHz | 3.9GHz | 3.7GHz | 3.9GHz (4.2GHz) |
| TDP | 95 watts | 130 watts | 130 watts | 125 watts | 125 watts |
| Cores / Threads | 4 /8 | 6 / 12 | 6 / 12 | 6 | 8 |
| Volume Pricing | $317 | $999 | $990 | $205 | $245 |
| Process | 32nm | 32nm | 32nm | 45nm | 32nm |
| Total L2 Cache | 1MB | 1.5MB | 1.5MB | 3MB | 8MB |
| Total L3 Cache | 8MB | 12MB | 15MB | 6MB | 8MB |
| Die Size | 216mm2 | 240mm2 | 435mm2 | 346mm2 | 315mm2 |
| Transistor Count | 995 million | 1.17 billion | 2.27 billion | 904 million | 2 billion |
| Socket | LGA1155 | LGA1366 | LGA2011 | Socket AM3 | Socket AM3+ |
| Memory Controller | Dual Channel DDR3/1333 | Tri-Channel DDR3/1066 | Quad-Channel DDR3/1600 | Dual Channel DDR3/1333 | Dual Channel DDR3/1866 |
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
Travatron
November 15, 2011 at 8:49am
I haven't seen any news on this, but since it's being pushed as a server board, will it support dual-CPU configs?
I wonder how it folds?!
![]()
d3v
November 15, 2011 at 4:01am
I think you guys forgot a conclusion. The article just ends at the last benchmark.
![]()
Kinetic
November 14, 2011 at 8:37pm
Honestly I'd be happy with just 2600k performance and two 16x PCIE lanes to work with. Having just spent about $2200 last year on my current build total, I don't plan on switching mobos and buying a thousand dollar chip anytime soon, but I'm very interested in seeing how that RAM setup performs.
![]()
warptek2010
November 14, 2011 at 4:44pm
$900+ for what,... bragging rights?? And that is just the cpu of course. Expect anywhere from $350 to $450 more for quad memory and new lga2011 motherboard. Then might as well upgrade to that 80+ bronze/gold 850 watt psu for around $100 more cause you're gonna need that much juice if not more. Thanks but no thanks. I'll stick to AMD platform and that ain't hating at all, it's just plain common sense.
![]()
steven4570
November 14, 2011 at 7:03pm
thats how it is with EVERY new piece of technology. unless youre building a server or high end rendering dont buy it, that simple. and iF you have high end rig anyway you should already have an 80+ psu anyway
![]()
warptek2010
November 14, 2011 at 9:46pm
True enough. True enough. I do have an 80+ but it's a 750 watter. Don't need anything more at this point.
![]()
aferrara50
November 14, 2011 at 4:20pm
Looks like it's time to order that 3960X as soon as the Rampage IV Extreme comes in stock on newegg.
![]()
ocnier
November 14, 2011 at 1:38pm
Bizarre though that the 2600k is still by far the leader when price to performance delta is considered. It's almost like intel is eating its young. They've got to have plans for a cheaper 3960k or 3950k chipset in the works. $1K to $500 is unreachable or unconsiderable for mass market, so my question with this chip is "what is the end game". AMD isn't the answer they don't have a consumer chip priced above $500, so who are they competing with? I don't understand intel's approach. It's in their best interest push motherboards with this chipset and socket, but at this price point I don't see the marketing strategy much less moving boards out the door for this socket. Couple this with recession economy and this is a non-starter.....
![]()
weagle05
November 14, 2011 at 12:30pm
Were they at risk of losing the performance crown to themselves?
![]()
yu119995
November 14, 2011 at 12:14pm
Awesome. I can't wait to drop another $150 more on an Intel mobo/cpu combintation over its AMD counterpart to have almost almost no noticeable performance gains in either gaming or normal, every other day tasks. I think I'll take that surplus and upgrade my GPU. Heck I might even invest in more memory while I'm at it. Thanks for further reinforcing my decision to buy into the AMD platform Intel. Brutal.
![]()
steven4570
November 14, 2011 at 2:16pm
its a a highend part really meant for videos editing and other cpu taxing jobs. if you are building 1000 dollar up system there is no reason to not go intel. if you do normal gaming and other day to day tasks, most cpus are not being taking full advatage of anyway. admire the performance progression of cpus and intel and stop hating
![]()
limitbreaker
November 14, 2011 at 6:10pm
i agree with you but if gaming isnt a concern why not just go for a xeon or opteron?
![]()
steven4570
November 14, 2011 at 7:03pm
xeons and opterons are built for server type setups. Theyre gennerally more exspensive then theyre regular parts due to support for registered RAM and dual cpu support. AMD is fine for budget set ups or if you have a very specific budget and AMD gets you more for your money. If your building a high end set up theres not reason to not go intel. AMD used to out preform intel in the highest end parts, but ever since the core 2s come out AMD has been far behind, they just cant seem to catch up. If amd offered better performance for the same price, id say see you intel but i just dont see that happening.
![]()
limitbreaker
November 15, 2011 at 1:10am
all true but if you're gonna pay 1000$ for a cpu then maybe it's an option. of course i've never even seen benchmark comparisons of a server cpu to a desktop cpu, i'd be curious to learn which would win in various multitreaded tests comparing 6 fast cores to 16 slow cores (or even 32 with two cpu)
![]()
Baer
November 14, 2011 at 12:08pm
So much to read today. This as well as the reviews on the new Rampage IV. My next fantasy rig already has two componnents, a Rampage IV and a 3960X. The problem is that fantisy rig parts lists usually turn into parts on order lists within a few months. I am looking forward to CES to see all this stuff live :-)
![]()
AETAaAS
November 14, 2011 at 11:33am
Again Intel leads both on the benchmark numbers and on the price tags. Given how much Intel is asking, it is unlikely that normal punters will be buying these, so I suspect that the 2 additional cores will be 'unlocked' later on to stand in as the next gen chip or act as a super high end model and Intel will be raking in the money for a while longer without having to do any additional homework. :p
![]()
praack
November 14, 2011 at 12:34pm
when bulldozer failed to pull me into upgrading my machines from thier current config- I started looking for the first time at Intel
But time and time again the cost went insane - of i was a richer man - or willing to sell my place so I did not have a mortgage maybe I would have money to build intel.
but everyday guy's can't afford the premiun price - and new motherboard each upgrade entails
I like this one though- you also get to upgrade your memory along with your motherboard and processor- since they were using 3 sticks before and not intel went quadchannel -.....
![]()
steven4570
November 14, 2011 at 7:16pm
im curious, whats your budget? and what do you mean the cost was insane? how much more did a similar intel system cost? because sandy bridge and current amd chips both use dual channel ddr3 so the only thing that would effect the cost is motherboard and actual cpu
![]()
yu119995
November 15, 2011 at 7:59am
That's exactly it. Intel CPU/mobo prices are still way more than their AMD counterparts. I'd rather take a 955 PII with a decent mobo and use the surplus to upgrade my GPU and/or max out my RAM.
![]()
steven4570
November 15, 2011 at 8:56am
the most ive ever seen see the difference was 200bucks, i just dont find it that much more since on systems like that intel just destroys amd in almost all tests
![]()
steven4570
November 15, 2011 at 8:56am
the most ive ever seen see the difference was 200bucks, i just dont find it that much more since on systems like that intel just destroys amd in almost all tests
![]()
win7fanboi
November 14, 2011 at 11:26am
Does LGA2011 have native usb 3? If not, even with impressive benchmarks results I don't think intel is giving a compelling reason to upgrade from a P67 or a Z68 chipset. Or am I missing something?
Looking at the benchmarks i7-2600K is pretty close to i7-3960K in some and I am curious to see how i7-3930K stacks up. Considering I got a bargain for 2600K I am not too bummed.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.
















