View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:35 AM
terrybear terrybear is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: midland, ontario
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAC View Post
I don't really see why people have an issue with the power consumption.

For most people, an i7-2600K/2700K is perfect, overkill even.

However, other people want better performance, and Intel accomplished that with SB-E. It provides a nearly perfectly linear 1% increase in power consumption for every 1% increase in multi-threading performance. It doesn't get any better than that when using the exact same microarchitecture.

And anyone who is complaining about the i7-3960X's price tag is clearly myopic or retarded, since you can buy a chip that is clocked 2.5% lower for 78% less money, it's called the i7-3930K.

Extreme Edition CPU's are a luxury option, like a Rolls-Royce, and no one is forcing you to buy one when you're in the market for a BMW.
Sorry but to sugest that someone is going to pay for the lesser known part thats not known for price point nor is even available yet .. WITH a partialy locked multi is just as retarded as what your insinuating.

Furthermore i don't know where you get this 1:1 linear power/preformance figure from.

I'll quote tom's posted chart of preformance vs x current cpu's on the market:

- Across 16 different threaded and single-threaded applications, not counting games, Core i7-3960X is about 12% faster than Core i7-990X.

-However, compared to the Core i7-3960X, which is 212% more expensive, and only able to offer an average 17% performance improvement, the -2600K looks like a real winner.

- Impressively, Core i7-3960X delivers a 28% average performance improvement over the i5-2500K—but at a 358% higher price (not including the pricier platform to go with it).

-Unfortunately, pricing that remains way above AMD’s initial estimation means you pay 253% more for the Core i7-3960X, which averages 32% better results across our [COLOR=blue !important][COLOR=blue !important]benchmark [COLOR=blue !important]suite[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. Compare that to Core i5-2500K, a processor that fares better in both performance and pricing metrics.

Those charts & the basis of my points is here: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...e,3071-20.html

Sorry but even vs the 2600K a 17% preformance diffrence, 75 more watts on full load does not make it as you claim.
Reply With Quote