Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Power Consumption, Ivy Bridge-E’s Big Surprise

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

Alright, so, overall I have to admit that those benchmarks were pretty boring. I sort of thought that might turn out to be the case when I heard that Ivy Bridge-E would be roughly the same six-core configuration, updated with a lightly-tuned architecture.

But, like all of the other processor reviews I work on, I made it a point to log power consumption as our scripted suite ran. I didn’t expect the results to be particularly noteworthy—after all, Intel is saying that Core i7-4960X has the same 130 W TDP as the Core i7-3930K.

In the chart above, data points are recorded every two seconds, and the end of the run is truncated to fit as much information as possible in the space available. Regardless of where each CPU seems to finish the complete suite, 30 minutes of idle time are tacked onto the end before our script automatically shuts the systems down. As a result, the average and total efficiency measurements include a long period of time where absolutely nothing is happening.

Without question, Core i7-4960X is more power-friendly than the 150 W Core i7-3970X, seen in green. But even the Core i7-3930K (in yellow) appears to register higher energy use during our suite.

To get a better idea of what the line graph really means, we average each processor’s results from the time we start the test until our log shows zero power use.

The system averages for each setup fall almost exactly where they should. The 77 and 84 W Ivy Bridge and Haswell CPUs drive the machines averaging the least power consumption. The 95 W Core i7-2700K and 100 W A10-5800K place third and fourth. Intel’s 130 W Core i7-3930K and -4960X take the next two spots, followed by AMD’s 125 W FX-8350 (which should probably be in front of the LGA 2011-based parts). Finally, Core i7-3970X lands in the back, swinging its sweaty 150 W TDP around.

Of course, the -3970X uses that big power budget to get things done faster. Let’s multiply the time it takes to cruise through our suite by average power use to give us efficiency in Wh.

Crazy, right? We already know that the Core i7-3970X is fast. But it needs so much power to get there that the Sandy Bridge-E processor isn’t very efficient in the process. Only AMD’s FX-8350 and A10-5800K use more energy getting through our benchmark suite.

The average consumption numbers showed us that Intel’s Core i7-3930K uses a lot less power than the flagship model, but is so much slower as a result of its cut-back shared L3 cache and lower frequency that it, too, ends up less efficient than Ivy Bridge-E. Even the Core i7-2700K shows up behind the Core i7-4960X.

It’d be almost impossible for the six-core -4960X to outperform Intel’s latest quad-core parts decisively enough to beat them in an efficiency race. But despite the single-threaded apps and half-hour idle period added to our log, Ivy Bridge-E does remarkably well.

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.