Read the full article at:
https://www.techspot.com/review/465-intel-sandy-bridge-e-core-i7-3960x/
Please leave your feedback here.
https://www.techspot.com/review/465-intel-sandy-bridge-e-core-i7-3960x/
Please leave your feedback here.
The same argument that highlighted the positives in Bulldozers launch apply here also.
If your main focus is content creation and productivity and you're in a time-is-money situation then the platform would stand you in good stead- it does more in most scenario's and never really does anything worse than the previous performance kings (2600K and 990X). I would definitely consider the 3930K for a less expensive (I'd be loath to use the word cheap) alternative (Xbit review of both SKU's)
amstech said:
The comments about people needing to upgrade from a 2600k for gaming is comical, considering for gaming the Sandy Bridge CPU's don't offer ANY improvement from the X58 CPU's. Running games is easy, even a Phenom II X4 keeps up.
These 6 core's are for multi-tasking, encoding, things like that.
dummybait said:
Good review, though i would have liked to see performance with BF3...
"The Excel, Photoshop and encoding gains over the Core i7-2600K were impressive, in the order of 20% or faster."
Yet it costs 300% more than an i7-2600K. Who are they targeting with this kind of processor? (serious question)
The comments about people needing to upgrade from a 2600k for gaming is comical
Professionals with that kind of workload and bench box boys. (serious answer)
For me, I'm hoping my 2600K is the new Q6600. Hoping to run it for as long as possible
I'd expect IB to be somewhere in between SB and SB-E. Probably faster in gaming assuming IB gets a slight speed increase over 2700K, would still be slower than SB-E in productivity/content creation apps. There's no substitute for cores in the latter.Well Chef, do ya suppose this is a preview in the range of mainstream IB chips? (power consumption aside that is?)
Larger cache won't impact on many games at "standard" resolutions/single GPU. SB's smaller L3 isn't being fully utilised as it is, so you could in effect say that with most games not fully utilising 4C/8T (at 100% usage) the 3960X and 3930K are at a disadvantage to the 2600K/2700K as they run slightly slower (3.3/3.2G and 3.8/3.9G w/turbo versus 3.4G and 3.8G w/turbo for 2600K). Sandy Bridge 4-core also seems slightly better favoured in memory performance.I'm a little surprised to see it suffer when it came to gaming (Crysis 2 aside). I'd have thought it would have at least matched the i7 2600K, if not been a little ahead like most of the other benchmark results due to the higher cache and additional cores/threads.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought the i5 2500k had the best value. Little to no performance decreases at $100 less.Guest said:
Wow, I've had the 2600k for almost a year now and it still making every other option look silly.
Best value processor I've ever seen.
Save the $700, buy a 2600k and put it towards a blazing SSD, you'll see much more bang for your buck.