Print
For our CyberLink Espresso 6.5 test, we take the same 1920x1080 MPEG2 file that we use in our Main Concept Reference test and convert it to an MPEG4 file suitable for viewing on an iPhone 4. CyberLink Espresso has the capability to be run on a GPU, the CPU or Intel's QuickSync technology that's only in the Sandy Bridge processors. The score is how long it takes to run in seconds. The Core i7-3960X is again the winner (tired of hearing that yet) but not by an overwhelming amount when compared to the Core i7-990X.Oddly, the FX-8150 is the slowest chip of the pack as it just barely trails the Phenom II X6.
As part of our test, we also shifted the workload from running on the CPU to the GeForce GTX 580 that we used in all of our test rigs. We figured since the work load was shifted to the GPU, the scores should all be the same but surprise surprise, the Core i7-3960X comes in significantly faster than the other chips here. We're really not sure why, but when talking to CyberLink about why we're seeing the performance spreads, we are. For kicks, we also ran it on the Core i7-2600K's integrated graphics chip using the QuickSync technology. These are specific hardware instructions that Intel has set aside for video transcoding and encoding. The result using QuickSync was interestingly faster than all of the CPUs save the Core i7-3960X and the GeForce GTX 580. So maybe integrated graphics doesn't suck anymore, does it?
For our gaming testing, we like to run our games at low resolutions and with features turned down so as not to bottleneck the CPU with the GPU. This would simulate what kind of performance you would get if you had a fantasy GPU that you somehow snatched out of the year 2015 to run in your machine today. With Far Cry 2 the Sandy Bridge E again runs away with it. We suspect the large cache and memory bandwidth help the Core i7-3960X zoom past all others here.
For our Handbrake test, we used a video file shot with a Canon EOS 5D Mk II at 30fps (the 24fps firmware wasn't available at the time) and tasked Handbrake with encoding it to H.264 using the high profile setting. Handbrake is a widely used free encoder that favors using the CPU for encoding due to the consistent quality over GPU encodes. The Core i7-3960X again leads the pack by an impressive healthy margin over the six-core Core i7-990X chip. The eight-core FX-8150 also holds up its head when compared to the Core i7-2600K chip. We say this despite the Core i7-2600K being a four-core chip with Hyper-Threading because of the pricing of the lower pricing of the FX-8150.
In looking for a benchmark that uses the new AVX instruction set in the Sandy Bridge and Sandy Bridge E cores, we came across the Intel Burn Test. Created by, ummm, AgentGOD at XtremeSystems.org, it's intended as a stress test but it uses AVX to perform linear algebra calculations. It's apparently based on Intel's own Linpack math library thus it's called the Intel Burn Test. As such, we ran it mostly to compare the Intel procs.
Looking at the chart, the Core i7-3960X demolishes the competition but the Core i7-2600K also does pretty well as it also has the AVX instruction set aboard. Despite it having six cores, the older Core i7-990X lacks AVX and is easily eclipsed by the Core i7-2600K part. We did say that we ran this to gauge the Intel parts, but the FX-8150 also happens to feature AVX instruction set support as well while the Phenom II X6 doesn't. Obviously, this is an Intel test but the overall performance of the FX-8150 does pretty well compared to the Core i7-990X and especially against its older sibling. AVX support in applications is in its infancy today, but as with all instruction sets, expect that to expand.
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.
