bit-tech.net

Intel i7 Ivy Bridge-E tested, 10% faster than Sandy Bridge-E

Intel i7 Ivy Bridge-E tested, 10% faster than Sandy Bridge-E

The Core i7-4960X is Intel's upcoming flagship LGA2011 chip.

Intel's upcoming flagship processor has been benchmarked, revealing it will provide around a 10 percent performance improvement over current generation products.

This may sound like a fairly modest improvement but it is about on the money compared to previous upgrade cycles.

Toppc, a member of Chinese overclocking forum Coolaler.com, performed the tests, pitting the upcoming Intel Core i7-4960X against the current cream of the crop, the Intel Core i7-3970X.

Toppc ran a comprehensive series of benchmarks, including SuperPi mod 1.6, CPU Mark '99, WPrime 1.63, Cinebench 11.5, 3DMark Vantage (CPU score), and 3DMark 06 (CPU score), with all showing between 5% and 10% performance improvement.

Discovered by TechReport, the post details the test equipment as consisting of an MSI X79A-GD45 Plus (with V17.1 BIOS) which uses the LGA2011 socket and Intel X79 Express chipset.

It is still possible that the results aren't genuine or that Intel has something else even more impressive up its sleeve, but for now it seems that if you're after a same-socket upgrade for your CPU, a 10% bump is all you'll get all other things being equal.

Scheduled to arrive in the second half of this year, the Ivy Bridge-E lineup is expected to boast up to 12 cores and 30MB of L3 cache, compared to the 8 cores and 20MB of Sandy Bridge E.

Intel i7 Ivy Bridge-E tested, 10% faster than Sandy Bridge-E
Click to enlarge
Intel i7 Ivy Bridge-E tested, 10% faster than Sandy Bridge-E
Click to enlarge

35 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Hustler 25th April 2013, 19:24 Quote
Welcome to Intel's world of zero Competition and only giving the public the bare minimum performance boost.

..Thanks AMD, thanks for the Bulldozer fiasco and giving Intel a free ride.
maverik-sg1 25th April 2013, 19:25 Quote
Maybe there's a potential increase in overclocking headroom?

Seems likely that those that could afford the old set-up will be able to afford whichever set-up offers fastest performance once more.....so at least it will match their tri-sli Titans :)
theshadow2001 25th April 2013, 19:33 Quote
If its only a 10% increase, where does this put the chip against a current 3770k on single core performance. Which I believe was faster on single threaded applications than the 3970k. I know the 2011 series is all about the cores, but for the kind of money these chips command you want the fastest single threaded performance as well.
Christopher N. Lew 25th April 2013, 19:55 Quote
Do we have any figures for power use?
Blackshark 25th April 2013, 20:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Welcome to Intel's world of zero Competition and only giving the public the bare minimum performance boost.

..Thanks AMD, thanks for the Bulldozer fiasco and giving Intel a free ride.

I think 'diminishing returns' is what Intel is coming up against. In the old days it was easy enough to drop in extra compute units, drop the FAB size and they were brilliant to come up with the Core and Core 2 designs. However at some point, as with the P4, its no use trying to squeeze more out of the hose.
Tangster 25th April 2013, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackshark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Welcome to Intel's world of zero Competition and only giving the public the bare minimum performance boost.

..Thanks AMD, thanks for the Bulldozer fiasco and giving Intel a free ride.

I think 'diminishing returns' is what Intel is coming up against. In the old days it was easy enough to drop in extra compute units, drop the FAB size and they were brilliant to come up with the Core and Core 2 designs. However at some point, as with the P4, its no use trying to squeeze more out of the hose.

Time for an architecture change then. At least Intel can afford the R&D cost.
dicobalt 25th April 2013, 20:58 Quote
That's nice, I'm still happy with my OC'd 2500K. I am interested in how the PS4 handles memory though, it would be nice for a PC to be able to do that. Maybe Intel should try something new like that.
Nexxo 25th April 2013, 21:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher N. Lew
Do we have any figures for power use?

Exactly. We've got plenty of performance. Lower power consumption is where it's at.
schmidtbag 25th April 2013, 22:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Welcome to Intel's world of zero Competition and only giving the public the bare minimum performance boost.

..Thanks AMD, thanks for the Bulldozer fiasco and giving Intel a free ride.

It's a little short-sighted to be blaming AMD for this when it's not really their fault. Keep in mind their entire net income of last year was LESS than Intel's PROFIT. It's hard to pay for engineers when people would rather pay extra for a few additional FPS or some higher arbitrary number.


Anyways more on topic of the product itself, CPUs these days have more to worry about than just performance, power efficiency is a big deal now. Perhaps IB-E is considerably more power efficient than SB-E.
rollo 25th April 2013, 23:17 Quote
AMD dropping out of the high end has given intel its free ride, we would of seen a 6 core ivy for the cheaper range by now if AMD was competitive.
true_gamer 26th April 2013, 00:14 Quote
Things may change with AMD winning all the next gen consoles. With that amount of income could see them spending on more research and come out with a better architecture, which they may have a come back to rival Intel.

You got to question why/how AMD has won these contracts - Have they got something up their sleves?
RedFlames 26th April 2013, 00:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by true_gamer
You got to question why/how AMD has won these contracts - Have they got something up their sleves?

Things like this I always remember something a friend of mine once said -

Be better or be cheaper. Offer something the competition can't/doesn't or offer the same thing for less money... If you're both [better and cheaper], you're laughing... If you're neither, you're ****ed...

AMDs offering either offered something Intel's didn't [most likely the GPU element which Intel aren't great at], or was considerably cheaper...
Gradius 26th April 2013, 03:13 Quote
10% = nothing to me.

Make it 100% !
damien c 26th April 2013, 08:24 Quote
Will be interesting to see if Intel made the same mistake with these chip's as they did with the standard Ivy Bridge CPU's in terms of the thermal paste fiasco, causing most people who want low temp's with high speeds to void the warranty on the cpu, by de-lidding it.

If it's 10% faster but uses 20% less power then that's a win in my book, but I don't know yet if I will or would be willing to drop the cash on a IB-E cpu for 10% performance gain over my SB-E.
fluxtatic 26th April 2013, 08:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by true_gamer
Things may change with AMD winning all the next gen consoles. With that amount of income could see them spending on more research and come out with a better architecture, which they may have a come back to rival Intel.

You got to question why/how AMD has won these contracts - Have they got something up their sleves?

I stick with my original theory that it was partly that AMD was a one-stop for the console makers, CPU and GPU both from the same shop. I also have a suspicion that Intel and NVidia weren't all that interested - it's good publicity, but rumored to be comparatively low-profit. NVidia and Intel are both making money hand over fist, and enjoy solid positions in their markets. AMD is going broke and has a shaky position. It was reasonable to assume the next-gen consoles would be x86-based, and there aren't exactly a lot of other shops that can do that. Getting the GPU from the same house just keeps things easier (and likely cheaper on MS & Sony.)
Parge 26th April 2013, 09:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by true_gamer
Things may change with AMD winning all the next gen consoles. With that amount of income could see them spending on more research and come out with a better architecture, which they may have a come back to rival Intel.

You got to question why/how AMD has won these contracts - Have they got something up their sleves?

I wouldn't automatically assume that there is a lot of money in providing chips for the next gen consoles.
rollo 26th April 2013, 11:27 Quote
If the rumours are true AMD are providing the first batch of chips for each console around 2-3mil give or take,( its where all there tsmc space has gone hence not alot of new pc parts this year) then they are just given licence money after that. The licence money will be between 50-100mil per console per year so we are not talking huge sums.

Nvidia did not want to do it for this gen stating it was more hassle than it was worth. Intel have never offered themselves to a console manufacture or anybody for that matter so I'd say they were a none entity. IBM with power pc would be the other option.
andrew8200m 26th April 2013, 11:34 Quote
5.7% if the math is done correctly it seems...

Ouch.
true_gamer 26th April 2013, 16:20 Quote
Being fully supported by PCI-E 3.0 I wonder if there will be any increase in performance with multi card setups?

If all problems are fixed from that of the Skt1155 Ivy bridge - I'm sold! :)
schmidtbag 26th April 2013, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by true_gamer
Things may change with AMD winning all the next gen consoles. With that amount of income could see them spending on more research and come out with a better architecture, which they may have a come back to rival Intel.

You got to question why/how AMD has won these contracts - Have they got something up their sleves?

No offense to you but it really surprises me about the amount of ignorance of software development people have on these forums. To a certain degree, it doesn't matter how good the hardware is as long as the code is optimized for the platform. When you have millions of units of the exact same platform, you don't need to worry about developing for variations of the product, because there aren't any. AMD doesn't need any tricks up their sleeves - their current architecture is fine. If games are designed specifically for that architecture, they'll run great. I'm sure once those consoles get released, we'll see a lot of PC games running better on AMD hardware than in Intel. AMD was likely chosen over anyone else because PPC probably lacks too many instructions that x86 PCs take for granted (therefore making performance worse on PCs) and Intel is too expensive for a system that doesn't need top of the line hardware. Other architectures like SPARC, ARM, and MIPS are just simply stupid to use for modern gaming consoles. As for video, it seems no matter what the product is, Nvidia isn't very cooperative with other companies; they prefer to do things their way. While Nvidia could possibly have better ideas, AMD is a doormat and will just do what they're asked if it means getting a big customer.
Spreadie 26th April 2013, 16:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tangster
Time for an architecture change then. At least Intel can afford the R&D cost.

Intel can probably afford to take two years off to devote to a new architecture and still be competitive. Unless AMD get their act together, I think we've seen the end of quantum leaps in CPU performance. However, as already mentioned, power consumption is where it's at.
true_gamer 26th April 2013, 17:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidtbag
Quote:
Originally Posted by true_gamer
Things may change with AMD winning all the next gen consoles. With that amount of income could see them spending on more research and come out with a better architecture, which they may have a come back to rival Intel.

You got to question why/how AMD has won these contracts - Have they got something up their sleves?

No offense to you but it really surprises me about the amount of ignorance of software development people have on these forums. To a certain degree, it doesn't matter how good the hardware is as long as the code is optimized for the platform. When you have millions of units of the exact same platform, you don't need to worry about developing for variations of the product, because there aren't any. AMD doesn't need any tricks up their sleeves - their current architecture is fine. If games are designed specifically for that architecture, they'll run great. I'm sure once those consoles get released, we'll see a lot of PC games running better on AMD hardware than in Intel. AMD was likely chosen over anyone else because PPC probably lacks too many instructions that x86 PCs take for granted (therefore making performance worse on PCs) and Intel is too expensive for a system that doesn't need top of the line hardware. Other architectures like SPARC, ARM, and MIPS are just simply stupid to use for modern gaming consoles. As for video, it seems no matter what the product is, Nvidia isn't very cooperative with other companies; they prefer to do things their way. While Nvidia could possibly have better ideas, AMD is a doormat and will just do what they're asked if it means getting a big customer.

I see what your saying - But you only have to look at current games that are designed with AMD Evolved, and yet some of the games seem to run better on Intel and nVidia.

I'm sure if the tables were turned, that everyone will have an AMD CPU like back in the old days... - But it's like they have given up and have chosen to sit second best, and aim at the lower end of the market, leaving Intel and nVidia to bring out stupidly high priced hardware. £900 for a Titan is a joke for a single GPU card, which will probably last less than 12 months before 7XX Series is released. (3x GTX 660Ti 3GB cards will eat the Titan up and still leave you change...)
rollo 26th April 2013, 17:28 Quote
In the few games where tri SLI works as its ment to, elsewhere its a hassle most would not put up with. Too many new release games have issues with tri SLI as you found out yourself till they patched them. I still say when I had just one Gpu it give a better overall experience don't really understand why.

AMD making console parts has pretty much given intel and nvidia a year to push prices without risk of a counter product.

Intel will never be at risk ever again of an AMD product catching them in CPUs AMD just do not have the financial budget to get the R&D required to catch up. I'd imagine if intel did not release a new CPU for 2 years there high end would still be fine vs AMDs products that's the sort if gap they have.

AMD backed games have usually ran better on intel and nvidia hardware which is always fun to see.
AMD are a very good value proposition in the market but that's not really where you want to be if you want to survive.
true_gamer 26th April 2013, 19:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
In the few games where tri SLI works as its ment to, elsewhere its a hassle most would not put up with. Too many new release games have issues with tri SLI as you found out yourself till they patched them. I still say when I had just one Gpu it give a better overall experience don't really understand why.

AMD making console parts has pretty much given intel and nvidia a year to push prices without risk of a counter product.

Intel will never be at risk ever again of an AMD product catching them in CPUs AMD just do not have the financial budget to get the R&D required to catch up. I'd imagine if intel did not release a new CPU for 2 years there high end would still be fine vs AMDs products that's the sort if gap they have.

AMD backed games have usually ran better on intel and nvidia hardware which is always fun to see.
AMD are a very good value proposition in the market but that's not really where you want to be if you want to survive.

I haven't had any issues relating to Tri SLI. Every game that has come out that nvidia have had the latest game code from the game developer, has ran flawlessly (Many others who run Tri SLI will back me up on that claim.)

Tombraider 2013 is the only exception - But as we all know, that was down to the game developer giving nvidia a old game code to work with in very limited time to release. Also as you have said - The game also needed a patch.

Quad SLI is where I had problems, but could be related to a lot of different things other than just drivers and lack of game support.
ObsCure 27th April 2013, 21:23 Quote
Meh.. Still rocking a q6600 @ 3.0ghz, and a 5870.
Elton 27th April 2013, 21:50 Quote
It's a matter of diminishing returns though.

Lithography becomes infinitely more complex with smaller nodes and with that comes much more expensive RnD costs and Die defects.

To say that AMD dropped the ball when Intel always had the financial advantage (hence why they could recover from the P4 and AMD couldn't from bulldozer (similar situations ironically...) ) is rather disingenuous.

My thoughts, 10% isn't bad given that it's probably at a lower power envelope. And given the SB-> IB change of about 10% it isn't surprising. What is however is it's horrifically late release time.
fdbh96 27th April 2013, 22:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by damien c
Will be interesting to see if Intel made the same mistake with these chip's as they did with the standard Ivy Bridge CPU's in terms of the thermal paste fiasco, causing most people who want low temp's with high speeds to void the warranty on the cpu, by de-lidding it.

If it's 10% faster but uses 20% less power then that's a win in my book, but I don't know yet if I will or would be willing to drop the cash on a IB-E cpu for 10% performance gain over my SB-E.

Im pretty sure that wasn't a mistake as such. It probably saved them a load of money and they were still faster than AMD. For intel, theres no reason for them to be loads faster than AMD, just enough so that the tests are conclusive. Then, theres the added bonus of the chips running cooler, and drawing less power.
CrapBag 27th April 2013, 22:50 Quote
10% faster, lol like anyones going to notice in everyday use.
fdbh96 27th April 2013, 23:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrapBag
10% faster, lol like anyones going to notice in everyday use.

I suppose if you were doing rendering of some kind and it was going to take 120mins, 24 mins less is a fair amount.
CrapBag 27th April 2013, 23:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I suppose if you were doing rendering of some kind and it was going to take 120mins, 24 mins less is a fair amount.


Yup that scenario would definitely show up the advantages but how many people are going to do that.

I'm running a 2500k and nothing that's been released has encouraged me to change, especially intels last hot running offerings.
G0UDG 27th April 2013, 23:35 Quote
I'm running a 980x and am sorely tempted to upgrade as the main use for my pc is high end video rendering and editing so I will see an advantage in the upgrade
Nexxo 28th April 2013, 10:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I suppose if you were doing rendering of some kind and it was going to take 120mins, 24 mins less is a fair amount.

Isn't that 20%? ;)
rollo 28th April 2013, 11:30 Quote
Yes it is. People who buy these high end chips all have a usage for them. I own the 3960k version and use it for high end photo video work. And doing cryptic work. But that system also has a high end quadro 6k in it so the CPU is not even the most expensive bit of that PC.

My game PC is still an old i7950.
fdbh96 28th April 2013, 12:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Isn't that 20%? ;)

Just making sure everyones paying attention... :D
MjFrosty 30th April 2013, 13:19 Quote
I think this will only really appeal to folk who already own an X79 setup. I can understand why people wouldn't look twice at this as an upgrade otherwise.

Also the 2011 SB-E has 6 cores, not 8?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums