Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Intel Core i7 4960X Ivy Bridge Extreme Edition

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,465

    Default Intel Core i7 4960X Ivy Bridge Extreme Edition

    Phoronix: Intel Core i7 4960X Ivy Bridge Extreme Edition

    At the beginning of September Intel launched the Intel Core i7 4960X processor as the long-awaited upgrade for their LGA-2011 platform. The Core i7 4960X is not Haswell-based but an Ivy Bridge Extreme Edition processor for maintaining socket compatibility and being derived from the Ivy Bridge Xeon. Over the Sandy Bridge Extreme processors, the Ivy Bridge upgrade brings 22nm processors to the socket and the top-end i7 4970X EE model is running at 3.6GHz with 4.0GHz Turbo, 15MB L3 cache, and has a 130 Watt TDP. There's been plenty of Windows benchmarks out there already for the Core i7 4960X EE while coming out today is our full Linux review with plenty of Ivy Bridge Extreme benchmarks on Ubuntu.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=19181

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    202

    Default

    How about the fact that the AMD FX 8350 was in many cases either competitive or not far behind, and costs only $200? You do come across a bit biased.

    It was also interesting to note that one test was very Intel biased and another very AMD biased. Does that mean wrong optimisation flags were used?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    40

    Default

    I also found the most interesting fact about these benchmarks the competetiveness of the AMD chip. AMD maybe isn't as far behind as I thought in the past few years. Especially considering their coreboot support and recent questionable "features" that intel added to their chips, AMD might become an alternative again ...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    92

    Default Wooooo

    Makes me feel good that I own this chip. Even though it's horribly overpriced.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyborg16 View Post
    How about the fact that the AMD FX 8350 was in many cases either competitive or not far behind, and costs only $200? You do come across a bit biased.

    It was also interesting to note that one test was very Intel biased and another very AMD biased. Does that mean wrong optimisation flags were used?
    The article was focused on a $1000 intel CPU, so obviously there was attention drawn to it - if it weren't for those couple of tests where AMD actually came out on top, including it wouldn't have even been relevant (then again, neither were i3 or i5 CPUs).

    But yes, considering the FX-8350 is architecturally worse than the 4950X in almost every way imaginable, I'd say it did an outstanding job. Seriously, Steamroller might be all AMD needs to fix those few facepalm-worthy tests where i3 came out above AMD.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    92

    Default 8350

    I actually have an 8350 in my home server. I like all the cores (threads) for running VM's and what-not. It's not a bad chip, especially for the cost. I've also had the motherboard for a few years now since around I got my previous desktop system. I didn't have to upgrade the board in my AMD system, but I had to upgrade my desktop board going from an i980x to an i7 4960x. With my home server, I can still send some money AMD's way since we do need the competition in the CPU space (will AMD ever get back on track..?), and the AMD open source GPU support is nice (just wish there was more manpower thrown into that so I can eventually switch from nvidia on my desktop).

    We do see a lot of nice performance from the 8350 in these benchmarks, but that's because of these benchmarks are highly threaded. Once you get into gaming, the 8350 is left well behind while the 4770 and the 4960x are pretty close. The 4770 tends to win in games that don't make too much of threading, and the 4960x wins when the games do. It seems for gaming (at least in windows), the 4960x is very slightly the better chip overall compared to the 4770 for gaming (if you don't look at performance per dollar that is).

    But overall, I'd say Ivy Bridge E and Haswell's performance are pretty mediocre compared to the recent previous intel generations. Without a competitive AMD, performance with Intel has become pretty incremental.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hiryu View Post
    We do see a lot of nice performance from the 8350 in these benchmarks, but that's because of these benchmarks are highly threaded. Once you get into gaming, the 8350 is left well behind while the 4770 and the 4960x are pretty close. The 4770 tends to win in games that don't make too much of threading, and the 4960x wins when the games do. It seems for gaming (at least in windows), the 4960x is very slightly the better chip overall compared to the 4770 for gaming (if you don't look at performance per dollar that is).
    I'm not too sure about that. Assuming your GPU and drivers are adequate, any modern quad core at at least 3GHz can play most games just fine these days. Sure a 4770 would play most games better than a 8350 but the difference is only a few FPS, as games are barely CPU bound anymore. AMD's modules are what's killing them the most - that's why I think Steamroller will be much more competitive. This is also why I'm somewhat surprised Valve hasn't chose AMD for their steam consoles - AMD is fine for games. Not the best, but definitely sufficient.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mazumoto View Post
    I also found the most interesting fact about these benchmarks the competetiveness of the AMD chip. AMD maybe isn't as far behind as I thought in the past few years. Especially considering their coreboot support and recent questionable "features" that intel added to their chips, AMD might become an alternative again ...
    I was surprised as well. I pretty much wrote off AMD as dead but they did well. They'll probably do very bad on power consumption though, right?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    4,752

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nils_ View Post
    I was surprised as well. I pretty much wrote off AMD as dead but they did well. They'll probably do very bad on power consumption though, right?
    The 8350 has a TDP of 125W, this $1k cpu has a TDP of 130W.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    The 8350 has a TDP of 125W, this $1k cpu has a TDP of 130W.
    Doesn't TDP mean something different in AMD vs. Intel land? In any case, it's probably best to actually measure it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •