Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Sandy Bridge Core i7 3960X Benchmarked Against Today's Six-Core / 12 Thread AMD/Intel CPUs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Sandy Bridge Core i7 3960X Benchmarked Against Today's Six-Core / 12 Thread AMD/Intel CPUs

    Phoronix: The Sandy Bridge Core i7 3960X Benchmarked Against Today's Six-Core / 12 Thread AMD/Intel CPUs

    Complementing our recent AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Linux benchmarking, with recently having out the Intel Core i7 3960X Sandy Bridge Extreme Edition, here are benchmarks showing that previous $999 USD six-core / twelve-thread processor compared to today's Ryzen 5 3600X (and previous-generation Ryzen 5 2600X) as well as the Core i7 8700K.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=28238

  • #2
    Wow, didn't realize the improvement was that big. Could you please re-test with the processors at the same clock?
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

    Comment


    • #3
      My poor 2680's... it's all I can afford

      Comment


      • #4
        So architectural improvements make a huge difference it would seem. It's not just pure core count that makes all the difference or even a little bit of clock speed difference. either.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by darkbasic View Post
          Wow, didn't realize the improvement was that big. Could you please re-test with the processors at the same clock?
          Unfortunately not. Already packed up the 3960X system again for another year and the 3600X moved on to other tests.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #6
            I guess my six core 980X is barely worth running any more. Heh.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Zan Lynx View Post
              I guess my six core 980X is barely worth running any more. Heh.
              It depends on your tasks, if they are not using or cannot meaningful profit from AVX2/AVX, then it is still fine as in many games. I've used a Xeon X5675 @ 4.2 Ghz for gaming on Windows still until this summer. As the security mitigations take more of a performance hit on these older architectures, I'd suggest to disable all of these for a gaming box.
              Last edited by ms178; 09-14-2019, 07:31 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have seen comparisons that look like this before. It is what happens when someone benchmarks Bulldozer. Time has washed away the differences between the processors of that period. If 'Bulldozer sucks', then 'Sandy Bridge sucks' too.

                What this particular chart does not list is the relative prices of the 8700K and 3600X (or for that matter, the 3600). In a word: 'ouch'.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ms178 View Post

                  It depends on your tasks, if they are not using or cannot meaningful profit from AVX/AVX, then it is still fine as in many games. I've used a Xeon X5675 @ 4.2 Ghz for gaming on Windows still until this summer. As the security mitigations take more of a performance hit on these older architectures, I'd suggest to disable all of these for a gaming box.
                  That. The x5687's in my current setup are just fine for most needs though it's obvious that I'm CPU limited in regards to modern gaming (2017+ games). I'll probably upgrade next year or sooner if I can find some good deals on corporate Zen workstation lots on eBay.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Wow, that i7-3960X (released Q1'11) is pathetically slow for 6c/12t.

                    I ran a couple tests out of curiosity on my 4c/4t Haswell i5-4670K (released Q2'13), and got a ctx-clock score of 142, which beats all the processors in this test. (3600X was 167, 2600X was 180, i7-8700K was 913, and i7-3960X was 1103)

                    This is exactly why I and many others enable mitigations=off. You're leaving way too much performance on the table otherwise, especially for desktops. I think these processors are still very capable. It's also why I bother compiling the kernel with -march=haswell, -O3, 1000hz timer, preemptive kernel (low-latency), etc etc. I think it matters.

                    Btw: I ran the ctx-clock benchmark with the recent Intel FSGSBASE patches from yesterday and it received the same score as without the patches. Both got a score of 142. Figured this was a more relevant test to see how the patches affected context switching, but I'll leave the benchmarking to the pros. For now, I'm leaving the patches enabled as it seems stable so far.

                    EDIT: Also ran the ctx-clock on my 2010 MacBook Pro running linux and got a score of 162. This i5-520M beat out the Ryzen 3600X!
                    Last edited by perpetually high; 09-14-2019, 12:01 AM.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X