[COOLALER] Intel Core i7 3930K Benchmarked -- Marginally faster than Gulftown

[dma0991]

I don't really understand what is all the fuss with people spending their money buying what they like. I mean what does it do to me in a negative way when a person dumps $1000 on a processor? It's not my money, why bother unless that $1000 is coming out of my pocket. Everyone spends their money in one form or another to feed their hobby, some buy fast cars, fast bikes, bigger houses and the list goes on and on.

I have no qualms with hardware enthusiasts who buys stuff of which they do know how to put it to good use. It is not the same as a rich kid buying a top end LGA2011 with quad SLI just because he has the money and not the experience nor the motivation to actually put it to good use except playing Minecraft.

TLDR, if you're a hardware enthusiast what better way to spend all that hard earned money?

 

[HendrixFan]

That argument doesn't really work. You still have to pay a lot more upfront. You could easily buy a $600 chip and then sell it for $500 and you'll be getting more increments in performance in that price range.

Paying a premium for something "bleeding edge", especially when in reality it's not (see my comparison between the 3930K and the 3960X), is something only a moron does. How else can you explain a moron buying a Core i7 990X over a Core i7 980 when they both OC the same, deliver the exact same performance, yet one costs $400 less? You mean to be telling me the unneeded unlocked multiplier and "Extreme Edition" moniker are worth $400 extra? Unless you're using one of these for work, spending $1000 on them is simply stupid.

No, if someone buys a $1000 CPU and moves it for $700 they have really only paid $300 for it. In the meantime, they have gotten much better performance than they would have if they just simply paid $300 for a CPU at the start. Like I said, it is much more akin to leasing than buying when they are doing this constantly. You say they shouldn't be spending $1000 on it, but the truth is they really aren't. So it nullifies your argument.

As far as the difference between the 3930k and 3960x, we haven't seen either of them so it really isn't fair to say what they can or can't do. Historically, the higher end parts are binned better and you have a much better chance of getting a better overclock. From what I have seen, the 990x chips do a better job of overclocking on average than the 980 (no x). It would make sense for that to be the case since the better chips will be binned for the higher priced segment. Overclocking in general is luck of the draw, but the odds do get better as you pay more. You lose the price to performance gains that you would see getting a good overclock on a cheaper chip, but again, I think people here who buy the higher end parts understand that is the case.

Bear in mind that I have an i7 920 that I have had for over two years now, nearly two and a half years. I won't upgrade until I see at least a 50% improvement in speed. Those are my typical guidelines but I do understand that other people have a different approach. As long as it is an educated decision, it really isn't wrong. It is simply a choice.

 

[Phynaz]

What I can't stand is moronic enthusiasts that spend $1000 on CPUs simply because they're "Extreme Edition", even if they're gonna over-clock them to their max.

Have you ever asked yourself why you care how somebody you have never met spends their money?

 

[HendrixFan]

I think the distinction you are missing is that you are looking at things in price to performance terms while those who want to buy the chips are only concerned with performance. Price is clearly not an issue to these buyers, they can obviously afford a premium to get the best performance.

 

[Idontcare]

I was talking about enthusiasts and hobbyists. If you read earlier, I said if your work depends on it, it can be a good choice. What I can't stand is moronic enthusiasts that spend $1000 on CPUs simply because they're "Extreme Edition", even if they're gonna over-clock them to their max. Case in point: some moron buying it for e-peen because he'll get 1% more performance out of a 3960X at 4.8GHz instead of a 3930K at the same clock speed.

Perhaps I should rephrase what I said earlier because it's been taken out of context: "I don't see why any rational enthusiast/hobbyist would spend $1000 on CPUs or graphics cards". If your work depends on it, then I don't think it's wrong.

That's a fair opinion. We all judge people, you are just letting your judgement be known publicly on this particular topic. I can respect that even if I don't necessarily share your opinion. :thumbsup:

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

No, if someone buys a $1000 CPU and moves it for $700 they have really only paid $300 for it. In the meantime, they have gotten much better performance than they would have if they just simply paid $300 for a CPU at the start. Like I said, it is much more akin to leasing than buying when they are doing this constantly. You say they shouldn't be spending $1000 on it, but the truth is they really aren't. So it nullifies your argument.

As far as the difference between the 3930k and 3960x, we haven't seen either of them so it really isn't fair to say what they can or can't do. Historically, the higher end parts are binned better and you have a much better chance of getting a better overclock. From what I have seen, the 990x chips do a better job of overclocking on average than the 980 (no x). It would make sense for that to be the case since the better chips will be binned for the higher priced segment. Overclocking in general is luck of the draw, but the odds do get better as you pay more. You lose the price to performance gains that you would see getting a good overclock on a cheaper chip, but again, I think people here who buy the higher end parts understand that is the case.

Bear in mind that I have an i7 920 that I have had for over two years now, nearly two and a half years. I won't upgrade until I see at least a 50% improvement in speed. Those are my typical guidelines but I do understand that other people have a different approach. As long as it is an educated decision, it really isn't wrong. It is simply a choice.

You could make the same argument for buying a CPU for $600 and selling it for $500. You would've only "paid $100" for it. You still had to pay for the first one upfront. Also, like I said: Core i7 3960X vs 3930K is gonna be maximum 1% performance difference at the same clocks. Arguments can be made about how "it's still not here" and what not, but the facts we have are already enough to know this. Sandy Bridge isn't cache starved at all, so those extra 3MB L3 cache are just there for perceptional performance differences. If you want more confirmation of what I'm saying, look at the review on Xbit comparing the Pentium G620 vs Celeron G530. Even though it has 50% less cache, the Celeron was only 4-5% slower overall. The clock speed difference between them was also 4%, so there you go. You can also take a look at the Core i5 and a Core i7 with HT disabled.

Also, as far as binning goes, almost all of the differences in OCing with Intel come from when you get the CPU. Early batches almost always overclock less (see Core i7 980X and early Core i7 970). If you have a Core i7 980 or 990X, you're probably gonna get 4.2GHz average and with a small voltage bump and 4.5-4.6GHz on high voltage. Again, the $1000 chips are just a blatant rip off for enthusiasts that fall for it.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I think the distinction you are missing is that you are looking at things in price to performance terms while those who want to buy the chips are only concerned with performance. Price is clearly not an issue to these buyers, they can obviously afford a premium to get the best performance.

But they're not getting tangibly higher performance; that's the point I'm making. If you're gonna OC, you're paying $400 more for the same thing!

 

[Edrick]

Paying a premium for something "bleeding edge", especially when in reality it's not (see my comparison between the 3930K and the 3960X), is something only a moron does.

If the world worked the way you think it should, then companies like Porche and Rolex would be out of business. According to you, why buy a Porche since a Kia will get you from point A to point B just the same? Why buy a Rolex when a Casio keeps time the same, if not better?

So the same people you refer to as "morons", may think of you as a "kid without a job who lives in his parents basement" just because you like to buy lower end equipment. Goes to show that passing judgement based on spending habits is not always correct.

How people spend their money is their business.

 

[Edrick]

You mean to be telling me the unneeded unlocked multiplier and "Extreme Edition" moniker are worth $400 extra? Unless you're using one of these for work, spending $1000 on them is simply stupid.

I would bet everything I own on the fact that if you won the lottery, you would buy that $1000 CPU in a second.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

If the world worked the way you think it should, then companies like Porche and Rolex would be out of business. According to you, why buy a Porche since a Kia will get you from point A to point B just the same? Why buy a Rolex when a Casio keeps time the same, if not better?

So the same people you refer to as "morons", may think of you as a "kid without a job who lives in his parents basement" just because you like to buy lower end equipment. Goes to show that passing judgement based on spending habits is not always correct.

How people spend their money is their business.

LOL, what? That correlates in absolutely no way to what I'm stating. So now you're saying that an Extreme Edition moniker is the same as getting something that is tangibly higher quality, like you would from a Porsche instead of a Kia? You're not getting higher quality in a CPU; it's a piece of silicon.

Let me make it easier for you: I have two items. Each the same brand, each does the same thing, and each is made out of the same material, but one of them has a "Special Edition" moniker on it, even though it's the same thing. Where's this higher quality there?

If you're gonna overclock there's effectively zero difference between a $1000 Intel chip and the one just below at $600. If you're an enthusiast, you're gonna want to overclock, would you not?

And yes, it's their money, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize them for how they spend it, especially if they're getting the same thing for a higher price.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I would bet everything I own on the fact that if you won the lottery, you would buy that $1000 CPU in a second.

Why? I would be getting the same thing if I'm OCing.

 

[john3850]

I believe every oc should at one time in there hobby own a extreme edition chip.
For first time owners of K chips were able to get great oc with minium cpu knowledge.
Spending a extra $400 on a ee is like $1.10 more a day for a year.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I believe every oc should at one time in there hobby own a extreme edition chip.
For first time owners of K chips were able to get great oc with minium cpu knowledge.
Spending a extra $400 on a ee is like $1.10 more a day for a year.

You're not gonna get two free cores by OCing, hence why I'm not extending my argument to the $300 chips. Again, the extra cache will mean a lower- than-1% difference at the same clock speed. If you're OCing, it's the same thing, $400 less.

 

[HendrixFan]

Also, as far as binning goes, almost all of the differences in OCing with Intel come from when you get the CPU. Early batches almost always overclock less (see Core i7 980X and early Core i7 970). If you have a Core i7 980 or 990X, you're probably gonna get 4.2GHz average and with a small voltage bump and 4.5-4.6GHz on high voltage. Again, the $1000 chips are just a blatant rip off for enthusiasts that fall for it.

I'm sure the enthusiasts that jumped on the 980x early on went to the 990x after it came out if they had a more modest overclocker on their hands (the 4.2 range). Someone who struck gold probably would still be sitting on the chip if they had a great overclocker, though they may have bought a 990x to try out and see which was better before putting the "loser" on the market. The current 980 (no x) probably do overclock better than the original 980x, but how many of those enthusiasts do you think have been holding onto the same chip during that time? As a new batch arrives with better headroom/less heat/a new edition/whatever, that is when those enthusiasts upgrade.

If you are saying that someone who bought a 980x at release and has held it for a year and a half now without upgrading isn't getting the best performance, I agree. I doubt many of the $1000 CPU enthusiasts have been sitting on a 980x for 18 months though.

 

[masterbm]

Have to get anandtech to review it when sample becomes avaible.

 

[james1701]

I have a good 980X, but I have no plans on upgrading this round. It can clock almost as good as Aiogo's 990X in the same volt range, so there is really no need. I do need to upgrade my cooling from an H50, but I will not be getting a new cpu, that is for sure.

 

[RussianSensation]

I don't really see why anyone with a rational mind would spend $1000 on graphics cards or CPUs.

1) 14-18 year old kids living with their parents usually aren't rational or responsible with their $
2) Grown up adults who make good $ won't even blink at $1000 on GPUs/CPUs when a purse for their wife is probably $2k+ and their car is 6 figures.
3) If buying a $1000 CPU makes someone happy, so be it. In fact, one can argue that $1,000 CPU just created more profits for Intel, and therefore more tax revenue, more shareholder returns, and in turn more shareholder wealth (shareholders may then spend that $$ too, reinvest it and create more value, etc.). I can't easily afford or justify a $1000 CPU, but if I made $1000 / day, I would buy it.
4) The other majority of LGA2011 buyers will be small businesses/workstation users who need 6 cores 12T + to make a living.

If you find a $1000 CPU too expensive (I do), it's a good bet it wasn't designed for you. A market does exist it seems for 1-2% of users who want this. That's pretty rational. Let those 1-2% of buyers pay for Intel's R&D so we "poor" guys get our $200-300 CPUs with even more features and faster performance.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

only morans buy $1000 CPUs

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

1) 14-18 year old kids living with their parents usually aren't rational or responsible with their $
2) Grown up adults who make good $ won't even blink at $1000 on GPUs/CPUs when a purse for their wife is probably $2k+ and their car is 6 figures.
3) The other majority of LGA2011 buyers will be small businesses/workstation users who need 6 cores 12T + to make a living.

If you find a $1000 CPU too expensive (I do), it's a good bet it wasn't designed for you. A market does exist it seems for 1-2% of users who want this. That's pretty rational. Let those 1-2% of buyers pay for Intel's R&D so we "poor" guys get our $200-300 CPUs with even more features and faster performance.

This is like paying 65% more for a Porsche 911 simply because it says "Special Edition" and has 2 more HP. That's what you're paying for with the EE chips instead of the one just below it.

If you're an enthusiast, you'll probably overclock them, and if you do it you'll end up with the same performance. That's why for some enthusiasts I can see the point of the $600 chips, but I just can't get my head around the $1000 chips.

If you're in an enterprise you probably can't overclock, so then getting the $1000 chip makes sense for its higher stock performance.

 

[exar333]

This is like paying 65% more for a Porsche 911 simply because it says "Special Edition" and has 2 more HP. That's what you're paying for with the EE chips instead of the one just below it.

If you're an enthusiast, you'll probably overclock them, and if you do it you'll end up with the same performance. That's why for some enthusiasts I can see the point of the $600 chips, but I just can't get my head around the $1000 chips.

If you're in an enterprise you probably can't overclock, so then getting the $1000 chip makes sense for its higher stock performance.

Think about this, about 15 years ago many 'mainstream' CPUs were very expensive. I grabbed a look from PIIs, and after a 'price cut' the 333mhz model was $722, 300mhz was $525, and $375 for the lowly 266mhz.

That was in 1998, when that $722 was probably worth $1000+ of today's dollars. Sure times have changed and such, but it's not like $1000 is a HUGE amount.

A whole computer was between $1000-1500 not too long ago, now you can build one for 1/3 of that.

 

[john3850]

The only way to know if a EE chip is worth it is to have owned one.
What is wrong with buying the best chip made if you want it.

 

[pantsaregood]

The only way to know if a EE chip is worth it is to have owned one.

"the only way to know getting hit by a car hurts is to jump in traffic"

The i7-990X is 66% more expensive than the i7-980, yet only performs 4% faster at stock speeds. The i7-990X and i7-980, being built from the same stepping, both overclock to the same levels. The end result for any enthusiast? Paying a 66% higher price for a product that performs identically.

 

[john3850]

I spent close to to price of a EE by buyiny 3 different P3s.
Next amd came wasted another 1000. on 3 chips.
On the c2d 3 more chips looking for the best.
One EE sure would have been a much better solution.

 

[john3850]

"the only way to know getting hit by a car hurts is to jump in traffic" cool

The i7-990X is 66% more expensive than the i7-980, yet only performs 4% faster at stock speeds. The i7-990X and i7-980, being built from the same stepping, both overclock to the same levels. The end result for any enthusiast? Paying a 66% higher price for a product that performs identically.

The i7-980 was released to late into the game 11/3 or so.
I believe most ee are not released on the first launch which suks

 

[Grooveriding]

Considering this is my next CPU, it had better run at 4.5ghz without too much fuss. That is all I need to be happy with it.