I'm really disappointed there was no 4790K tested here. I realize a lot of people don't claim there's much more OC potential, but mine is currently running at 4.9 GHz at 75c stable with just a H100i.
AMD's best kind of got destroyed by everything.
why disappointed?.. 4770K@4.5ghz tested in the review = 4790K@4.5ghz its the same chip..
[Zing!]...we have a lot of past AMD fans and current Intel fans today looking for the next great thing, and hopefully that is Intel's new Core i7-3960X processor. I hate to tell you, while it is impressive, it is hardly a product many desktop users will be positioned to purchase. And honestly, it just left me kind of meh.
[Ouch!]But let me say this, while Intel has been beating the drum about this being the "Ultimate Desktop Processor for Gamers," I think that is a lot of horse shit. This Sandy Bridge E is not going to do much of anything for gamers if I am making the right guess based on what I have seen, possibly with one exception, and that is multi-GPU, multi-display gaming. And certainly we will investigate that. I have no reasons to believe Sandy Bridge E is going to do anything for a gamer that is already using a 2500K or 2600K that has been clocked up. Surely those two will save you some money and power as well. But I guess if you are looking for a new way to heat your computer room this winter, Sandy Bridge E should be on your short list. Maybe they will start selling these at Home Depot?
[Pow! Ooof!]I am not sure who is supposed to buy a 3960X. I really do not see it benefiting gamers. I do not see it being a boon to overclocking enthusiasts due to price, power usage, and subsequently heat output. I guess if I sat around all day ripping Blu-ray disks and encoding those for torrent sites, it would be awesome. Maybe that could be Intel's new 3960X motto, "Sandy Bridge E, maximizing BitTorrent ratios, one desktop at a time." Meh. Let's see what the K series brings before we totally turn our noses up at this beast of a processor...that none of us really need, or I think even want. I think we have enough cores for now. Get your noses back on the grindstone and give us stellar IPC gains or even better, 5GHz stock clocks.
[Zap! Whammo!]"At 4.1 GHz, peak power is +104W over the system power draw at stock, with another 40W at 4.3 GHz. This shows that Haswell-E can be a power hog from even small overclocks, and thus users must have cooling to match. If we add the 140W TDP and the +140W more from the overclock (it would most likely be more than this due to the change of efficiency in the PSU curve), then a mildly overclocked CPU is fast approaching 300W. One can imagine that a highly clocked 4.7 GHz sample would be nearer 400W, and thus users should purchase power supplies to match."
"Another issue with Haswell-E is the current draw of the CPU. ASUS is stating that the standard current draw for the CPU can reach 25 amps, meaning that the power supply must be capable of supplying at least 30 amps on the EPS12V cable."
Anandtech provides some troubling numbers for Haswell-E overclocking
I don't see where the money/power/heat delta between LGA2011-3 vs 1150 has changed all that much from LGA2011-0 vs 1155. SB-E gets slammed on this basis while Haswell-E gets the Gold. Have IPC or stock clocks improved so much between them?
No he made it clear that you need to stop whining.
As tempting as it is to want to own all that 8 core goodness, I can't help but feel a bit disappointed as to where CPU's are these days. Simply put, it comes down to a lack of good old competition to drive innovation. There's just been a series of baby steps for years now and it's getting boring, I really wish AMD could get back in the game in a serious way...
Now it has finally arrived and I have come down with a major case of Déjà vu. Kyle could barely contain his disappointment with Sandy Bridge-E in his review. As is often the case, [H]'s excellent analysis had a big impact on my purchasing decisions, even though at the time I was rather surprised at Kyle's harsh criticism of SB-E.
Reading this initial Haswell-E review, I cannot see what the big difference is from the launch of SB-E to warrant the Gold Award and such an about-face from Kyle. IPS has improved slightly, yes, but nothing remotely like the moves from Netburst --> Merom --> Nehalem (and to a lesser extent) --> LGA1155/1150. With a 140W TDP, this is another "Home Depot space heater" when OC'd. Anandtech provides some troubling numbers for Haswell-E overclocking:
I fear that the more that this phenomenon occurs, the greater the period of time between advancements will be (and quite likely the advancements will become more and more incremental as well).
Indeed. Many of the EXACT same arguments that were made against SB-E can easily be levelled against Haswell-E.
Or maybe it's more simple. Maybe SB-E and IB-E sold like crap compared to x58. Intel likes money.
Also, the rate of advancement with processor tech is slowing down. This isn't some conspiracy theory - we are hitting the limits of silicon. Each new advancement outside of core count requires more effort than the last - for those advancements to not cost consumers an arm and a leg, we need to wait until Intel finds a cheap way of implementing those changes in their mainstream products.
Those thinking that intel could release an unlocked 18 core today that would be stable at high clock speeds really have no idea whats going on.
Not really. Haswell-E makes sense for content creaters and enthusiasts. SB-E made sense for no one, as gamers already had an x58 or SB system, and content creators/enthusiasts had little reason to transition from x58 systems.
Sure, but the fact of the matter is that an unlocked 18-core at high clock speeds exceeds the conventional TDP envelope. Enthusiast systems and high-end workstations typically have the headroom in their power supplies, VRMs and other components to permit and accomodate a processor operating outside of this conventional envelope. It's done all the time with your typical overclocked enthusiast system. An unlocked 18-core permits use of the processor inside that conventional TDP envelope, while permitting those with the hardware and expertise to operate outside of that envelope the ability to do so.
SB-E was being directly compared to SB 2600K in the review, with SB-E having two more cores than a 2600K and being lambasted for it as hot and unnecessary. HW-E has a further two cores (now four more than the mainstream 4770K) and is praised for it. Given that the mainstream chips for Haswell-E are still 6-core, most people have no reason to transition from either a SB-E or Ivy-E system unless they need the 8-core, which many people have mentioned, is more than the average enthusiast needs.
Correct, let me clarify high clockspeed - anything over ~3.8ghz. The heat output and voltage requirements at that clockspeed would be immense, so immense that it puts it out of reach of even 99% of the enthusiast community based on technical issues if the price itself doesnt do the job. A product that specific makes no sense for Intel to create or support.
Matter of fact, when have we had unlocked server processors with higher core-count than the HEDT option? I don't recall any. So assuming that higher core counts will clock well, even with appropriate cooling, is a very very bold assumption with nothing to back it up.
Another reason we arn't seeing unlocked server processors any longer is because it can delay server upgrade cycles unexpectedly. Why upgrade the server CPU to one 20% faster if we can OC our current processors by 20% for free, assuming cooling etc can handle it? I know if I was a server admin, I'd recommend the latter and ask for a raise for saving my company money. All depends on electricity costs i suppose, but the short term savings would be immense, potentially large enough to warrant skipping a processor generation.
Anyone who had a x58 6-core system for content creation had little reason to upgrade to SB-E.
Anyone who had a SB gaming system had no reason to upgrade to SB-E.
SB-E was a processor line designed for literally no one and it was sold as an Enthusiast product. This is why HardOCP justifiably slammed SB-E - it was not exciting as an enthusiast product and no one would see a large advantage by upgrading to the platform.
Additionally, SB-E was releasing right when IB was releasing ,giving even less of a reason for people to go with the SB-E platform. That generational overlap problem is not happening here.
It's not a parallel comparison between the SB-E release and Haswell-E release. We have a core-count increase over the previous 3 generations. This is raw power for content creators, not a minor IPC bump like we've gotten over the past few years.
Sure, people who only play games still have no reason to get excited over this chip. Who cares, it's not meant for your average gamer. We've known for years now that this is how intel plans to do things - mainstream, IPC focused chips for mainstream gamers, then 6mo-1year later we get the bigger die option of the same architecture for content creators and enthusiasts.
An enthusiast does not talk in terms of "need", either. It's more about "want". And we want more power, noticably more power than the last generation. Haswell-E delivers that for me as an Enthusiast and content creator.
And I'm still having a hard time trying to find a 1650 or 1660.
Broadwell will probably be the only justifiable upgrade option for current high spec'd X79 owners.
Why won't Intel just release an overclockable 8C/16T non Xeon, Haswell for X79?
and thats why you cant compare a [H] review with Toms.. the E5-2678W its higher clocked than the 5960X so 3.2ghz vs 3.8ghz,under heavy load.. that remember me why i never liked the Toms review..
However, if I was looking to build a new, will last me a few years system, this would be a contender.
to give you an idea of what performance could you expect in firestrike from a 5960X at stock clocks it score 17000 points.. and overclocked to 4.5ghz 21000 points...
Ok.. I played with my ram some and i'm at 1600Mhz now and cpu is almost 4.2Ghz without turbo and it scored ( Physics Score14434 )
I know some of the others are running there Xeons faster then mine and could get closer then me as I;m just trying to see the upgrade in gaming for a x58 user.
for a X58 (with 6c/12t, because quad core+HT even sandy its a upgrade) the gaming upgrade will be noticeable even with a 4690K in 95% of the games, i think only crysis 3 may be comparable in gaming performance to any actual chip and even i think a 4790K at 4.5ghz can be a good upgrade over 1366 6c/12t for gaming.. so a 5960X for gaming its completely worthless.
anyway 3dmark its far away to be a good indicative of CPU performance in games....
you may want to compare your 6c/12t to a 4930K at stock speed.. and see how it perform vs a 4790K at stock speed this may give you an idea:
anyway check This page which its very recent to check several gaming test across a wide variety of intel and AMD chips..
Any comment contrary to what the majority are saying can be termed "whining", especially when it concerns a product just given a Gold award.