Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Is Ivy Bridge-E An Enthusiast’s Salvation?

Intel Core i7-4960X Preview: Ivy Bridge-E, Benchmarked
By

Does Intel’s Core i7-4960X, specifically, get me all revved up about upgrading? Well, no. Not really. But then again, those thousand-dollar CPUs rarely do. What about the Core i7-4930K replacing Intel’s -3930K for $550? That’d be a tough sell for all of the same reasons. Mainly, it doesn’t push performance high enough to warrant a big price tag. Any interest in a Core i7-4820K? I’d be more inclined to bet on a -4770K/Z87 platform, if only for the newer chipset’s extra functionality.

As far back as April of last year we knew that Core i7-3770K was somewhere between zero and seven percent faster than Core i7-2700K, depending on the workload. Is it really a surprise that Ivy Bridge-E would only be a few percent faster than Sandy Bridge-E? At least on the performance end, Core i7-4960X is close to what we might have expected.

Still, it would be cool to see Intel configure Core i7s with 10 or 12 cores, like some of the planned Ivy Bridge-EP models. Instead, it looks like we’ll be waiting for Haswell-E to see the first eight-core enthusiast-oriented processors. As a result, Intel is really limiting the appeal of Ivy Bridge-E to power users building or buying brand new PCs. The bummer there is the two-year-old platform with two SATA 6Gb/s ports and no native USB 3.0. That’s hardly going to get an enthusiast worked up when Z87 is so much more fully featured. If you already own a Core i7-3960X or -3930K, you’re simply not going to sink another big chunk into single-digit percent gains.

Should Ivy Bridge-E fail to encourage upgrades or new system builds, I know who’s going to absolutely love this new architecture: the server and workstation segments. For what little gets added to performance, Ivy Bridge-E does some crazy-awesome things to power and efficiency. When you multiply out the gains across a rack, you’re looking at a lot less power, a lot less heat, and a lot less cooling.

Consider this a parting shot: Core i7-4960X is faster than Core i7-3970X and simultaneously about 30% more efficient. In the world of Xeon E5-2x00 v2 processors, that’s going to be killer. Want some proof? Go check out Intel's 12-Core Xeon With 30 MB Of L3: The New Mac Pro's CPU?

Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the UK Article comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

Display all 13 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
  • 1 Hide
    MajinCry , 17 July 2013 10:44
    I wonder how the AMD proccies will perform in the synthetic benchmark when the CPUID has been masked with an intel CPUID. Wouldn't surprise me if the 8350 went neck and neck with the top i7.
  • 0 Hide
    mi1ez , 17 July 2013 12:23
    Wow. That was quite a disclaimer!
  • 0 Hide
    sam_p_lay , 17 July 2013 12:57
    Can the 5 watt saving really compensate for the huge cost of the upgrade? It would take a long time to pay that off.

    Quote:
    In fact, starting with our Haswell preview, the company started a policy of excluding us from certain discussions.


    Way to look mature and professional Intel. Make some real performance advances and you'll get more positive reviews.
  • 0 Hide
    JPNpower , 17 July 2013 15:04
    Maybe silicon is nearing the limit.
  • 1 Hide
    MajinCry , 17 July 2013 15:36
    @ Whoever thumbed my first comment down:

    I do suggest you do some homework. This would be a good start.
  • 0 Hide
    sam_p_lay , 17 July 2013 16:12
    Quote:
    @ Whoever thumbed my first comment down:

    I do suggest you do some homework. This would be a good start.


    Thanks for posting - really interesting read! I wonder how many developers are using the patched compiler... and I wonder if big developers like Gearbox get any encouragement from Intel to not use the patched compiler. Obviously it's beneficial for any developer if their software can reach a wider audience. I've neutralised the thumbs down on your first post by the way with a thumbs up :-)
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 18 July 2013 13:12
    Quote:
    @ Whoever thumbed my first comment down:

    I do suggest you do some homework. This would be a good start.


    Yeh, the Intel compiler continues to be a big issue... AMD CPUs will continue to be very popular for Linux users...
  • 0 Hide
    sam_p_lay , 18 July 2013 14:14
    Can the Intel compiler not be used to compile Linux binaries?
  • 0 Hide
    darksun9210 , 18 July 2013 14:53
    from a gaming point of view, i'm starting to wonder what i'd get out of an upgrade.
    last night I DOWN clocked my old C2Q9650 to 2Ghz (1333fsb, 6x multiplier) from it's overclock of 4Ghz. speedstepping takes that down further to a reported 1.3Ghz.
    power, heat, noise, are all much reduced.
    in yet skyrim, farcry3, yadda yadda are all fine?
    i've not actually run the numbers regarding frame rate, but 20% cpu useage on all cores, and 97% GPU useage on a GTX670. i think i see my bottleneck. and it doesn't seem to be the CPU.... i guess from my point of view, my CPU upgrade days are over?
  • 0 Hide
    MajinCry , 18 July 2013 15:04
    @darksun9210

    I'm not too sure about that. The next generation of games will be optimized for eight threads due to the relatively weak AMD CPU in the XBOX1 and PS4. But hey, it could be that all you really need is a quad core made in the past few years.

    We'll see.
  • 0 Hide
    bobwya , 18 July 2013 22:24
    Quote:
    Can the Intel compiler not be used to compile Linux binaries?


    The GNU compiler is slightly better value... :pt1cable: 

    Intel Linux Compiler Comparison chart
  • 0 Hide
    sam_p_lay , 18 July 2013 22:52
    Haha wow. I assumed a compiler would be a free tool.
  • 0 Hide
    mironso , 5 September 2013 11:34
    Well, after reading this, seeing charts, this couple of seconds does not urge me to switch from i7-3970X to i7-4770K. Call me stupid, but I want more to be ready to make a switch.