Quad-Channel Memory And PCI Express 3.0
Quad-Channel Memory Control
All three models sport the same quad-channel memory controller officially rated for data rates as high as 1600 MT/s. That’s up to 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, in theory.
Although we used Intel’s DX79SI motherboard for all of the performance benchmarking in this piece, the platform had a hard time scaling beyond DDR3-1600 using any of the quad-channel kits in our lab. So, I swapped into an Asus Rampage IV Extreme that arrived a little later, and used a set of G.Skill Ripjaws Z F3-17000CL9-4GBZH modules rated for DDR3-2133 to test scaling.
Jumping from DDR3-800 to -1066 to -1333 and then -1600 yields impressive throughput gains, reflected in some solid performance improvements (WinRAR) and other, less notable speed-ups (3ds Max).
For now, my recommendation is to grab the lowest-latency quad-channel DDR3-1600 kit for which you’re willing to pay. Thomas is already working on our first high-end memory round-up aimed specifically at X79, though, which promises to shed more light on the sensibility of the kits with gobs of headroom for overclocking.
PCI Express 3.0
Sandy Bridge-E’s memory capabilities are decidedly more relevant in the server space. However, the design’s PCI Express connectivity might appeal to power users with an affinity for multi-card graphics subsystems.
One of the most controversial points in my Sandy Bridge-E preview was the fact that PCI Express 3.0 was stated "not supported" by the manufacturer of my test platform. Multiple outside sources indicated that third-gen PCIe was planned, but wouldn’t be available, possibly until 2012.
It turns out that PCI Express 3.0 is, in fact, supported by Sandy Bridge-E (and the preview was updated to confirm 8 GT/s support the day after it went live). But because there weren’t (and still aren’t) any third-gen devices available yet, validating the feature was problematic. In fact, as you can see in the image below, Intel is still only officially guaranteeing that PCI Express 2.0 works, and probably will continue to do so until we see some hardware with a third-gen interface.
Nevertheless, Intel’s Core i7 datasheet confirms PCI Express 3.0 compliance, enabling up to 1 GB/s of bandwidth per lane, per direction.
Forty lanes of connectivity are built into all three Sandy Bridge-E-based processors, divisible into as many as 10 different ports. Most motherboard vendors will probably configure their platforms for three or four graphics cards, resulting in two x16 slots and one x8 slot, or one x16 link and a trio of x8 connectors.
Compared to Sandy Bridge and its 16 lanes of second-gen PCIe on each CPU, Sandy Bridge-E’s 40 lanes are downright decadent. But don’t expect that improvement alone to yield better gaming performance with multiple GPUs installed. After all, we’ve already proven that you can get exceptional performance from three graphics cards with a three-part series on the matter. At least until we’re able to test with PCI Express 3.0-capable devices, there’s no reason to demand the connectivity Sandy Bridge-E offers when an LGA 1155 platform equipped with Nvidia’s NF200 bridge isn’t even starved for throughput.
Where Sandy Bridge-E could positively impact gaming performance is with its enhanced processing power. Nvidia says the CPU’s speed-up is able to maximize scaling with three of its GeForce cards installed, and we’ll be testing that claim shortly. PCI Express isn’t credited with the improvement, though. The six Sandy Bridge cores and big L3 cache get that honour.
- Hardware,
- Intel,
- AMD,
- core-i7-3960x ,
- x79 ,
- sandy-bridge-e
Latest CPU News
- 24/05 – Nvidia to Push Tablet Prices to $199 With Kai Platform
- 23/05 – AMD Backing Out of CPU Speed Wars Against Intel
- 22/05 – AMD Hitting The Casino Floor With Embedded R-Series
- 22/05 – Does Your AMD FX Platform BSOD with Steam? Read This.
- 20/05 – Intel To Support Cheap Ultrabooks With Low-Cost Celerons
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
Wow, I am so underwhelmed. My 2600K is looking better and better ha, ha. Yea there is an average performance increase of 17% over my 2600K but this CPU costs $1000 - honestly I don't get the $700 difference other than it MAY support PCI-E 3.0 (we don't know for sure). For those that use Premier Pro and ABBYY Fine Reader and other specific programs like them, then yes there is a real tangible benefit.
For gamers there is virtually no real benefit worth $700. It is entertainingly funny that SLI performance doesn't change much between the 2600K and the 3960X. The only real benefit to gamers will again be PCIE 3.0 support IF the Sandy Bridge E chips will support this.
I guess I was expecting more oomph from this new flagship. A measly 17% average performance increase over my $292.00 2600K makes me think that I have the best CPU available for the money. When we see how the new Sandy Bridge E CPUs overclock this may change greatly because there is every indication that they will be amazing overclockers. That coupled with PCI-E 3.0 capability may provide some separation between the Gen 2 and Gen 3 E CPUs.
Is it really that suprising though since they are the same cores? Nobody really expected much more than a marginal increase core for core, the difference in the platform comes with addition of those two extra cores (in the hexcore chips obviously) that are not available in the standard sandybridge package.
And, don't compare with the top end six core but the 3930 which offers far better value for money for those extra cores, extra cache and the platform advantage of 4 channel memory with a cheap 32GB option or more expensive 64GB option - again, something that is not available to the cheaper sandybridge platform.
Nobody knows what performance increase Ivybridge will bring, it may be great but will still be limited to four cores in the standard platform, hopefully Ivybridge-E wont take longer than this time next year and will offer at least a six core option if not eight core to the desktop if Intel don't decide to kill the two extra cores as they have done with the desktop sandybridge-e
Is the main selling point for this over the gulftown the improved energy efficiency?
The Visual Studio benchmark looks suspicious to me: A 6 core only showing a few percentages improvement vs a quadcore? What is the unit of time of that test, minutes or seconds? Compilation should be perfectly scalable (with the correct tools).
OK first of all, great article. Really enjoyed reading about the new processors. I was a bit miffed there wasn't a Cinebench score as Cinema4D is what I live in. I'll add those scores here for anyone interested.
Straight i7-3960X = 10.55
Overclocked = 12.31
Anyone into 3D and Cinema in particular will be looking at those figures and drooling. Is it worth the cash considering everything you need to buy if you render at home? not really. You can get close to a 10 score with an overclocked i7-2600k and the massive expense of a 3960 could see you building two or three 2600k boxes to get scores of close to 20 and 30 respectively. Of course that's only going to be meaningful to animation heads using separate machines to render different frames in an animation, but as that's really all they need, more cores, more gigahertz's, Intels latest offerings aren't priced right to attract them.
Looking at the cheaper chip, it still doesn't really make sense to go for it in a graphics workstation. You will get far more performance and value from just building the cheapest second 2600k box you can. A big shame really as it feels like we are doomed to a certain level of computing in one computer for at least the next two years with small percentage bumps along the way unless you're willing to go way out there on the money tree.
Intel are a bunch of meanie heads putting the prices of these so far out of reach of us peons.
Take heart, Ivy Bridge is coming out int 2012 and hopefully it will be the real-meal deal. I am somewhat stunned that my 2600K has such staying power. Except for the new PCI-E 3.0, I don't see much reason for upgrading my CPU.
Still, that being said, when you take a look at the performance increases on some specific programs they can be dramatic - some are as much as 50% faster than the 2600K. There is some real improvement in many areas with the 3960X.
Take heart, Ivy Bridge is coming out int 2012 and hopefully it will be the real-meal deal. I am somewhat stunned that my 2600K has such staying power. Except for the new PCI-E 3.0, I don't see much reason for upgrading my CPU.Still, that being said, when you take a look at the performance increases on some specific programs they can be dramatic - some are as much as 50% faster than the 2600K. There is some real improvement in many areas with the 3960X.
@flong I agree the top end chip especially is a beast. For the kind of work I do it would be a huge benefit but as I'm only a hobbyist at this, these prices can't be paid for by saying a next big budget job will pay for the new hardware as any real business could.
Also I think as even the Toms article points out, with the perspective change on the 2600k initially looking a bit of a miss up against the almost as good 2500k. Looking at it today the 2600k clearly shines when placed in line with these new chips. So it's less about the 2600k holding its own and more about Intel refusing to let us all at the good stuff in new hardware, instead concentrating on super high profit margins they can get from business.
I'm assuming the enthusiast and really anyone falling in the can only afford a 2600k market is quite small compared to where these 3960X's are being targeted so at least until that sector gets chips that are much faster again than the 3960X's, I don't really see Intel giving us anything significantly better for at least the next two years. Whatever launches next year can't really be as fast as a 3960X and priced just above a 2600k or it would invalidate the pricing structure they already have in place. So really how can you expect anything more than a few percent bump?
With AMD floundering around like sad fishes out of water, Intel just have no reason to really push the value.
"This news just in" Fire brigade saved the day at a local IT business today, the fire initially started when staff decided to cook their fried breakfasts on the AMD Bulldozer server cases instead of ordering out. Fireman Sam who was at the scene is urging others not to cook on AMD products but suggests heating sandwiches in bulldozer hot swappable drive bays is OK"
I think that Ivy Bridge is supposed be a step up from Sandy Bridge E, but I am really tired right now ha, ha.
I really don't why anyone is even the least bit surprised with the small performance increase of Intel's new extreme CPU.
People everywhere have always paid dearly for that last little bit of performance and it really doesn't matter whether we are talking about tennis rackets, fishing poles or technology!
The last 10% will always cost exponentially more than the first 90% .