*ignores the whole athlon2 line*
*ignores the e2140/60 darlings*
*ignores the previous gen i3s*
Last edited:
Since when was $200-220 for a 2500K not considered affordable?
You realize that when the Phenom II X4s came out most of them cost above $200 also, right?
I've been ready to buy this thing for over 5 months now.
I lol'd
I'll be pleasantly surprised if BD can put up a good showing against a 2600K, much less a 990X
Thats practically like saying the same thing, aside from thread intensive projects, the 2600K and 990x perform very similarly, sometimes the 2600K wins.
2500K and 2600K are very competitive against 990X in most benchmarks. I agree with you there.
But they key thing to note here is that BD was designed with heavy multitasking in mind (even at the expense of single core IPC, I might add). In heavily multithreaded apps, 2600K cannot compete with 990X.
That's what I was referring to. BD may be able to keep up with a 2600K in multithreaded apps, but I highly doubt it will be competitive with a 990X there.
In not so heavily multithreaded apps, my prediction is that BD will not be competitive even against a 2600K.
I think you're being too pessimistic. If AMD can achieve 20% higher IPC in comparison to K10.5 then it should match or beat slightly the 990X in multi-threaded apps. It would still be a good 15% behind Sandy Bridge in IPC, though. That means it would lose in most games by a small amount since most only use three or four cores and it would lose by 15% in audio encoding. In everything heavily multi-threaded, though, if it can match the 990X then it should be 20-25% faster.
Food for thought.
Let's wait and see. AMD hasn't even released any real benchmarks of Bulldozer and it is way past the originally scheduled June release date. In contrast, solid Sandy Bridge benchmarks were released 4 months before the official release. So, I'm not holding my breath for BD to be some miraculous super-CPU with all of the recent delays and problems that have happened. If it turns out to be a great performer once it's released, great. But I'm not counting on it.
Otherwise, really, what's the point? If it's only 10% higher IPC it would be slower than Gulftown in multi-threaded apps and only around 10% faster than Sandy Bridge, while losing severely in gaming and audio encoding.
Well, it would still be much cheaper than Gulftown, so it may not have to beat it in order to still be a good selling chip.
BD may be able to keep up with a 2600K in multithreaded apps, but I highly doubt it will be competitive with a 990X there.
I would reconsider if I were you,
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287
If Phenom II X6 1100T can beat Core i7 2600K in a lot of Multithreaded applications, then a 4-Module 8 Core Bulldozer with more than 50% more transistors than 4-core SandyBridge, a new micro architecture and 2 more Integer Cores than Phenom II X6 will trash that puny(transistor count and multithread performance) Core i7 2600K.
Just a food for thought
I would reconsider if I were you,
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/203?vs=287
If Phenom II X6 1100T can beat Core i7 2600K in a lot of Multithreaded applications, then a 4-Module 8 Core Bulldozer with more than 50% more transistors than 4-core SandyBridge, a new micro architecture and 2 more Integer Cores than Phenom II X6 will trash that puny(transistor count and multithread performance) Core i7 2600K.
Just a food for thought
You might want to look at those benchmarks again. Or get some new reading glasses. Or both.
Hint: some of those graphs say "lower is better" next to them.
What you just showed in that link is the 2600K winning in every single one of those benchmarks while drawing 30W less at load.
Quoted for future reference... namely, when it's released. We'll see how well this holds up. I'll quote this post and post my numbers once released. You have my word on that.
Intel Core i7 3960X vs Core i7 990X Benchmarks
http://www.donanimhaber.com/islemci...lemcisi-Core-i73960Xin-ilk-test-sonuclari.htm
http://vr-zone.com/articles/intel-core-i7-3960x-vs-core-i7-990x-benchmarks-leaked/13062.html
http://www.fudzilla.com/processors/item/23517-core-i7-3960x-is-about-47-faster-than-core-i7-990x
Not really surprising at all. Sandy Bridge has 15% higher IPC; therefore, it's 15% faster overall than Nehalem.
Intel claiming much higher performance when due to AVX instructions is true. I find their claims of higher performance coming from higher memory bandwidth due to the additional memory channel to be absolute BS. It makes less than a 1% difference when comparing Bloomfield to Lynnfield. Bandwidth is definitely not an issue.
You people really do dismiss memory bandwith, cache size, PCI-E lanes, and all the other goodies that add up in overall performance. It's a bit myopic to always focus on IPC and ignore the rest of what Intel is doing.
You can bet I'll be posting a slew of benchmarks once I get a 3960X. Too bad nVidia's next gen cards won't be available until next year. I'll have to put up with my old 3-way GTX 580s.
I'd like to see a comparison between a 2500K and 2600K at the same clock speed with HT turned off.
People dismiss memory bandwidth because it doesn't serve any purpose in most cases. Quad-channel DDR3 1600 provides a theoretical 51,200 Mb/s bandwidth. That just isn't something that serves any real purpose on current CPUs in most cases. It won't result in a "5% or so" performance increase in most applications because it simply won't result in ANY performance increase in most applications.
You people really do dismiss memory bandwith, cache size, PCI-E lanes, and all the other goodies that add up in overall performance. It's a bit myopic to always focus on IPC and ignore the rest of what Intel is doing.
You can bet I'll be posting a slew of benchmarks once I get a 3960X. Too bad nVidia's next gen cards won't be available until next year. I'll have to put up with my old 3-way GTX 580s.