Go Back   Hardware Canucks > HARDWARE > CPU's and Motherboards

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:22 AM
MAC's Avatar
MAC MAC is offline
Associate Review Editor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 969
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grampa View Post
Anybody know if lga 2011 will be around for more than 2 years?
I think so, and I think we are going to see 22nm eight-core Ivy Bridge variants sometime down the line.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:35 AM
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
  #13 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 03:53 AM
MAC's Avatar
MAC MAC is offline
Associate Review Editor
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 969
Default

Regrettably, fanboy rage has clouded your vision when discussing this topic, so I'm not going to address your points, I'm simply too tired right now.

What I said was exceptionally clear, so I'm just going to let someone else dismantle your weak and hole-filled arguments, if they so choose.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 04:25 AM
Your_friendly_gamer's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 661

My System Specs

Default WOW

Thank you MAC for such a sick review! I am gonna start saving up! Thank you again!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 04:36 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: midland, ontario
Posts: 519
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAC View Post
Regrettably, fanboy rage has clouded your vision when discussing this topic, so I'm not going to address your points, I'm simply too tired right now.

What I said was exceptionally clear, so I'm just going to let someone else dismantle your weak and hole-filled arguments, if they so choose.
The ONLY fanboyism here is you & your claims in your statement ... sorry for my "consumer" fanboyisms .. but my point is just as valid as ur claimed arguments. You going to disagree with about 5 other sites reviews sayin that its not something special ?

Also goes 1 further when you can't take some critisism about something you state & then pull the "fanboy" card when someone points something out ... Like how hard is it for you to show me physical data proving your 1:1 claim on power consumption to multi thread preformance that it scales "linear" ?

Again thank you for your efford in your review, never question what you have said in your reviews, this is something you insinuate outside of it that I have yet to see any other site say that it is such & can be seen as a positive of the chip.

My only thing is that i wish you had a higher end videocard to use for your testing, which maybe sky or whomever else could help you secure for future reviews.

have a great day as much as my posting may have started it out not as such.

Last edited by terrybear; November 14, 2011 at 04:51 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 06:02 AM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,611
Default

Maybe I'm tired too...but why would anyone ever think about comparing this to Bulldozer?

Bulldozer failed due to a combination of two things: actual IPC failing to live up to AMD's marketing claims and performance per watt that's by far the worst we've seen in the last 4 years. It wasn't geared towards the high end but consumed the power of an enthusiast grade product.

The SB-E chips on the other hand were never really ballyhooed all that much by Intel but nonetheless it still tops the charts in most cases. This is about a PLATFORM: dual x16 PCI-E 3.0 slots, possibility of native triple card configs, massively multithreaded performance, etc. For enthusiasts, you simply can't compare this to the standard Sandy Bridge since it was never meant to compete against it. Rather, 1366 and Gulftown are this chip's progenitors and in that situation, SB-E wins hands down.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 06:52 AM
Eldonko's Avatar
Hardware Canucks Reviewer
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Calgary, AB
Posts: 5,445
Default

Nice job MAC, hell of a review.
__________________
Donkeys kill more people annually than plane crashes or shark attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 07:51 AM
Soultribunal's Avatar
Moderator
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 8,062

My System Specs

Default

Actually Terry, if you notice your first post on here you set the tone and attitude with its posting.

Being reasonable and rational without the terminology you used would probably have netted you much better responses.

Just a thought.


Good Review MAC, I think I'll be keeping my 1366 for another year, then grab one of these with that sexy Intel MB to build me another multi GPU setup. I love the lanes on this.

-ST
__________________




"We know not why he calls for us, only that when he does we must answer" - DMP 2009

"Dear Iceberg, I am sorry to hear about global warming. Karma is a bitch. Signed - Titanic"

I would rather believe and find god doesn't exist than to not believe and find that he does.

www.realhardwarereviews.com
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 08:10 AM
chrisk's Avatar
Folding Captain
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: GTA, Ontario
Posts: 7,401

My System Specs

Default

Terry you are comparing a '4 cylinder 160hp Hyundai eating 15L/100kms' (BD), to a 'Ferrari giving you 400hp' and similar gas milage.

Then, you say that the Ferrari fails because the gas milage and price are out of whack.

I would never buy the Ferrari, and I would never buy this chip. Some Intel Fanbois thought they might get the Ferrari with great mileage, but those folks are rare, and it was clear a few months ago that SB-E was not going to be the home run that SB was.
__________________
Fold for team #54196
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old November 14, 2011, 08:10 AM
stoanee's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Lacombe Alberta
Posts: 3,248

My System Specs

Default

Bring on Xeons + SR3..................

Nice review bytheway.....
__________________
heatware
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intel Sandy Bridge Core i5-2500K & Core i7-2600K Processors Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 52 November 6, 2011 08:21 AM
Intel Core i7-3960X (Sandy Bridge-E) And X79 Platform Preview @ Tom's terrybear Reviews & Articles from the Web 21 September 14, 2011 07:09 AM
Intel Z68 Review - The Sandy Bridge Platform Expands; Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 19 May 13, 2011 06:00 PM
ASUS P8P67 PRO Sandy Bridge Motherboard Review Comment Thread SKYMTL CPU's and Motherboards 28 March 25, 2011 03:21 PM