Intel Releases Core i7-3820

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

It could have better multithreaded performance. Reviews were showing it behind slightly on single threaded loads.

No, because they use the same architecture. Any difference comes from them being reviewed at stock clock speeds. Remember that at stock the 3820 is clocked 6% higher than the 2600K.

Clock-for-clock there's nothing between them, but unfortunately you do have the drawback of the 3820 typically needing more voltage than the 2600K/2700K to achieve the same overclocked frequency.

 

[Smoblikat]

No, because they use the same architecture. Any difference comes from them being reviewed at stock clock speeds. Remember that at stock the 3820 is clocked 6% higher than the 2600K.

Clock-for-clock there's nothing between them, but unfortunately you do have the drawback of the 3820 typically needing more voltage than the 2600K/2700K to achieve the same overclocked frequency.

Can you post some proof?

 

[rgallant]

just saying
-still waiting on retail reviews
-all benches on unknown es samples ,
- beta bios ? ,not sure how much mb makers put into a 3820 M0 stepping [for ocing]that won't be released to the public.

-as far as the pci-e lanes is concerned: given most x58 people kept their platforms for 3 yrs[or still have them] and are not still running 2008-2009 gpu's to day . having 40 lanes[pci-3.0 vs to [sb] 16 pci-2.0[ which can be down to 4x 2.0]. do we know the bandwidth required for 2014-2015 gpu's ? [double every year ?] so 4-6 x the 580's today.
-ib [with pci-e 3.0] is the real chip to compare the 3820 to not sb.

 

[Edrick]

Quad-channel memory is obviously 2x more expensive than dual-channel, too.

Do you even bother to look things up before you post these false statments?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Can you post some proof?

There's tons of it everywhere. Look at reviews that mention overclocking.

1.48V for 4.62GHz, which is what TechSpot were able to achieve.

1.425V for 4.63GHz, which is what PCPerspective got.

Tom's Hardware got it to 4.62GHz at 1.432V, but according to them it was somewhat unstable even at that voltage.

Anandtech got it at 4.63GHz at 1.425V.

Keep in mind that you need to use the Turbo Boost multiplier to hit these frequencies. Almost all the reviewers got it to 4.62-4.63GHz all cores/4.75GHz Turbo.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Do you even bother to look things up before you post these false statments?

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231314

G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz 1.5V= $47

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231315

G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz 1.5V=$90

Do you even bother to looks things up before you post these false statments (sic)?






Oooooh, now I see it. My bad. It's not 100% more, it's 91% more. I guess you're right; this changes everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Puppies04]

Doesn't surprise me in the slightest that they require a bit more juice. Infact if they required less voltage I would be wondering how intel managed to get a quad channel memory contoller and 10mb of lv3 cache to run on less juice than a 2600k

 

[Hauk]

Probably a better comparision Axel:

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (4 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 - $57.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231325

4 sticks *should* cost more than two sticks of the same capacity.

Points well made about 3820 and x79. Yes, SB and 1155 are some of the best stuff to we've seen. Running two cards, I'll take the extra lanes x79 offers, not caring if I see a difference. The platform cost difference is a drop in the bucket for me, and prolly is for those grabbing it. Not trying to show up, just sayin, the argument being made is irrelevant to those pursuing 2011 and 3820.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Probably a better comparision Axel:

G.SKILL Ripjaws Series 8GB (4 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 - $57.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231325

4 sticks *should* cost more than two sticks of the same capacity.

Points well made about 3820 and x79. Yes, SB and 1155 are some of the best stuff to we've seen. Running two cards, I'll take the extra lanes x79 offers, not caring if I see a difference. The platform cost difference is a drop in the bucket for me, and prolly is for those grabbing it. Not trying to show up, just sayin, the argument being made is irrelevant to those pursuing 2011 and 3820.

It's not fair because you're running 2GB DIMMs on X79 and 4GB DIMMs on P67/Z68, and who wants to run 2GB DIMMs on desktops nowadays, especially in X79 which is an enthusiast platform? If you want an apples-to-apples comparison, you need to use DIMMs with matching capacity.

Also, the whole reason why you look at the 3820 is because you want good bang-for-buck, so for the people looking at it as an alternative spending $100-150 more for a platform isn't just "a drop in the bucket". Even more so when they probably won't use the features X79 provides in addition to P67/Z68.

 

[Diogenes2]

Why do you need 16gb of RAM to realize the performance benefits of quad channel ?

Apples to apples would be dual channel vs quad ( 2 DIMMs Vs 4 ), not 16gb vs 8 .

 

[rgallant]

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1501/7/
I decided to go for broke and skip straight to 5GHz; sadly, it never made it. What I settled on was 4.9GHz. To get there completely stable took 1.525v indicated in the BIOS, with 1.45v showing in the Intel Overclocking Utility under load. I tried all the way up to 1.6v to reach 5GHz but to no avail as it would start to load Windows 7 and fail. I even tried changing the 1 core CPU load to the 50x multi but it still refused to go past the same point in the Windows 7 boot up. There is a very distinct "terminal velocity" on Sandy Bridge where adding more voltage and increasing the cooling capacity will not yield an improvement in clock speed. Some are calling it a "multi wall" but it's really just the speed limit of a particular CPU.

-so did the 2600k ever get to 5ghz? the es didn't

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Why do you need 16gb of RAM to realize the performance benefits of quad channel ?

Apples to apples would be dual channel vs quad ( 2 DIMMs Vs 4 ), not 16gb vs 8 .

Then the apples-to-apples comparison would be 4GB (2x2GB) for Sandy Bridge and 8GB (4x2GB) for Sandy Bridge-E. But, as I said, going with 2GB DIMMs nowadays is pretty foolish.

You can't say "we need a fair comparison" and then use lower density RAM for SB-E and higher-density for SB.

And there's no performance benefits to quad-channel in desktops. The only real reason why you have it is that it enables support for twice the memory as Sandy Bridge. If you gimp it with 2GB sticks you'll get support for "only" 16GB, and you can get that easily on SB with 4x4GB.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

What does Intel do with the six-core SB-E CPUs that have a defective core or two?

 

[Edrick]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231314

G.Skill Ripjaws 8GB (2x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz 1.5V= $47

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231315

G.Skill Ripjaws 16GB (4x4GB) DDR3 1600MHz 1.5V=$90

Do you even bother to looks things up before you post these false statments (sic)?



Oooooh, now I see it. My bad. It's not 100% more, it's 91% more. I guess you're right; this changes everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You always make up your own arguments that make no logical sense to anyone else to try and prove your case. Gee, 16GB cost 90% more than 8GB. Imagine that. Therefore, quad channel is 90% more than dual channel. WRONG. Compare 16GB to 16GB.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231489
G.Skill 16GB (2x8) DDR3 1600mhz = $139.99

So looks like dual channel is more money than quad channel.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

You always make up your own arguments that make no logical sense to anyone else to try and prove your case. Gee, 16GB cost 90% more than 8GB. Imagine that. Therefore, quad channel is 90% more than dual channel. WRONG. Compare 16GB to 16GB.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231489
G.Skill 16GB (2x8) DDR3 1600mhz = $139.99

So looks like dual channel is more money than quad channel.

LOL, the irony.

The argument is that you need to use matching DIMM sizes to make it apples-to-apples. And one of the reasons you go for X79/Sandy Bridge-E in the first place is more memory support. By gimping it you're not gaining any memory advantage in comparison to SB. If you don't want to run at least 16GB of RAM, don't buy into Sandy Bridge-E. Simple. Otherwise, you'll be whining in a year when you can't do a good upgrade due to limiting your system with 2GB modules. And 8GB is prohibitively expensive for people not using professional applications, so right now the best compromise--and the only one that makes sense--is 4GB DIMMs.

BTW, do you want to play this again?

G.Skill 32GB (4x8GB) DDR3 1600MHz 1.5V=$295.

Compare using 4GB DIMMs for apples-to-apples or don't compare at all. Anyone buying 2GB DIMMs in this time and age is a fool, and if you want 8GB DIMMs it's because you're doing professional video or photo editing, or running virtual machines. If that's the case, you should be running SB-E anyway.

 

[Rvenger]

You always make up your own arguments that make no logical sense to anyone else to try and prove your case. Gee, 16GB cost 90% more than 8GB. Imagine that. Therefore, quad channel is 90% more than dual channel. WRONG. Compare 16GB to 16GB.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231489
G.Skill 16GB (2x8) DDR3 1600mhz = $139.99

So looks like dual channel is more money than quad channel.

I think we just need to stop feeding this guy. He shoots down everyone and argues until the thread gets closed. Anyways, 3820 has more cache on board, so it has to count for something.

 

[Diogenes2]

What does Intel do with the six-core SB-E CPUs that have a defective core or two?

Can't say for sure, but they don't make 3820's ...

Unlike the relationship between the 3960X and 3930K, the 3820 is an entirely new die.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I think we just need to stop feeding this guy. He shoots down everyone and argues until the thread gets closed. Anyways, 3820 has more cache on board, so it has to count for something.

Maybe we need to stop feeding you so you stop talking out of your behind.

The extra cache makes zero difference in performance. 8MB L3 is already plenty for a Quad-Core, as is 12MB L3 for a Six-Core.

Cache argument is old and overused by people that don't understand how the Sandy Bridge architecture works (in other words, misinformed consumers). The reason you buy the 2600K over the 2500K is the Hyper-Threading and that's it. Big caches are useful in server workloads, not desktop workloads.

 

[Rvenger]

At least if I am wrong, I will stand corrected. So am I really talking out of my behind?.... no.


I am out of this thread, I tried being objective and I made no solid statements like you are doing. I will wait until the retail reviews and see it for my own eyes. Attacking other members like its personal is a good way to get banned in forums, just a fyi.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

At least if I am wrong, I will stand corrected. So am I really talking out of my behind?.... no.


I am out of this thread, I tried being objective and I made no solid statements like you are doing. I will wait until the retail reviews and see it for my own eyes. Attacking other members like its personal is a good way to get banned in forums, just a fyi.

There are already reviews out for retail samples.

Also, what's in bold: makes you wonder given your last statement.

I think we just need to stop feeding this guy. He shoots down everyone and argues until the thread gets closed. Anyways, 3820 has more cache on board, so it has to count for something.

If you don't want to get attacked, don't attack first; especially when you're the one that's wrong.

This lousy attitude needs to stop. Please use the next week to reflect on your actions
-ViRGE

 

[ViRGE]

What does Intel do with the six-core SB-E CPUs that have a defective core or two?

Actually the six-core processors are the harvested parts. SNB-E is an 8 core design; Intel disables 2 cores for the desktop parts, and only the server parts have all 8 cores enabled. This is done primarily for power reasons (you'd never get 8 cores to up to 3.9GHz inside 130W), but it also allows Intel to use chips whose only defects are 1-2 bad cores.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

You always make up your own arguments that make no logical sense to anyone else to try and prove your case. Gee, 16GB cost 90% more than 8GB. Imagine that. Therefore, quad channel is 90% more than dual channel. WRONG. Compare 16GB to 16GB.

:whiste:

 

[rgallant]

came across another es Feb.13-2012 bench , BUT this one is 5 ghz linx stable @ 1.36 v WC ,
-max. oc 5.3 @ 1.5xx v

http://www.overclockzone.com/zolkorn/year2012/02/intel_core_i7_3820/linx_3820_5g.PNG

-here's some sb 5 ghz voltages but 12 hrs prime,but the 3820 should still be in the same ball park ,pending retail benches .
http://www.overclock.net/t/968053/o...voltages-temps-bios-templates-inc-spreadsheet

- 6 core oc is not great [under 1.4 v for 7\24]
http://www.overclock.net/t/1167939/sandy-bridge-e-overclock-leaderboard-owners-club