• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[OBR] i7 3770K benchmarks

Intel17 said:
http://www.obr-hardware.com/2012/02/world-exclusive-core-i7-3770k-tested.html

Looks like a 3.5GHz 3770K is 10% faster than a 3.4GHz 2600K. Discuss.
Click to expand...

If that's true, that looks pretty in-line with what we expected. The clock different makes up approx 3% improvement, with IPC increases covering the remaining ~7%. Thats in the '5-10% IB improvement' that we have been hearing for a while.

More interested in the power consumption, since thats where the focus was on IB.
 
Soccerman06 said:
2gb ram in dual channel. WTF is this 2007?
Click to expand...

This cracks me up about the non-tier-1 hardware review sites.

They'll get their hands on some fancy new piece of hardware (an HD7970 for example) and then they pair it up with a system that is anemic by standards from even 2 yrs ago (HD7970 + Q6600 D🙂.

It is the kind of crap that you or I would be emberrased to even post up in the forum as a mere post, let alone actually put up as our "breaking review story" of the week 😱
 
Can't wait for a MicroCenter bundle 🙂

Agree on the power consumption angle. Running this flat out 24/7 is going to be my application...

Still totally bummed that we won't see a six core variant. I was window shopping six core Intel again this morning... sigh. Not even remotely in my price range.
 
Idontcare said:
This cracks me up about the non-tier-1 hardware review sites.

They'll get their hands on some fancy new piece of hardware (an HD7970 for example) and then they pair it up with a system that is anemic by standards from even 2 yrs ago (HD7970 + Q6600 D🙂.

It is the kind of crap that you or I would be emberrased to even post up in the forum as a mere post, let alone actually put up as our "breaking review story" of the week 😱
Click to expand...

Agreed but tier 1 hardware review sites crack me up equally when they benchmark using outdated software when newer versions have existed for months if not years.
 
piesquared said:
Agreed but tier 1 hardware review sites crack me up equally when they benchmark using outdated software when newer versions have existed for months if not years.
Click to expand...

LOL Techpowerup for about 2 century's in the pc world or about 5 years in reality used some very ancient game titles to benchmark new gpus like cod4 and ut3 and when their 7970 review came out it looked like they came back to the future with some new titles finally...i almost didn't bother reading their review cause 200fps in ut3 at 1080p doesn't sell me a gpu when i already pull 150+ on my $250 one.:awe:
 
blckgrffn said:
Still totally bummed that we won't see a six core variant. I was window shopping six core Intel again this morning... sigh. Not even remotely in my price range.
Click to expand...

We seem to be seeing the ramifications of designing around "1/2 of 35W". The perf/W of the architecture, binning, SKU is being optimized around that TDP which may be why we see diminishing returns elsewhere. Expect that to continue.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
We seem to be seeing the ramifications of designing around "1/2 of 35W". The perf/W of the architecture, binning, SKU is being optimized around that TDP which may be why we see diminishing returns elsewhere. Expect that to continue.
Click to expand...

Does that mean I should be happy that AMD is cool with staying @ 125W TDP on their high end parts?

I mean, at some point that should be a compute density advantage if not a perf/watt advantage. Someday... 😛

I do understand what you are saying and accept that your argument is likely the truth.
 
Last edited:
What, you don't think including results like this in your average performance ratings is useful?
cod4_1024_768.gif
 
blckgrffn said:
Does that mean I should be happy that AMD is cool with staying @ 125W TDP on their high end parts?
Click to expand...

Yes. So it is possible the gap with higher TDP SKUs might close between the two. The question is whether AMD is willing to continue making high performance parts.
 
IntelUser2000 said:
Yes. So it is possible the gap with higher TDP SKUs might close between the two. The question is whether AMD is willing to continue making high performance parts.
Click to expand...

Jeeze, I hope so. Going to Xeon SKUs to get significant performance increases over previous generation parts is not a fun future to ponder. My wallet is only so thick.

You could scale out and get net performance gains, but scaling up has it's own benefits as well...
 
blckgrffn said:
Does that mean I should be happy that AMD is cool with staying @ 125W TDP on their high end parts?

I mean, at some point that should be a compute density advantage if not a perf/watt advantage. Someday... 😛

I do understand what you are saying and accept that your argument is likely the truth.
Click to expand...

Both AMD and Intel have been at the 125/130W TDP for a while on the high end. As long as they are improving on their mainstream TDPs, I think its GREAT we have powerful options available to us. Let the people choose..

Folks gripe on Intel about having different platforms, but I think its really starting to make more sense. AMD kind of already has 2 'tiers' in their MBs anyway, those can take the higher-TDP CPUs (X6s and BDs) and those that cannot. By Intel keeping the TDP manageable on most consumer CPUs (1155) it ensures that all boards will run these fine. Want more CPU power, get the enthusiast socket.
 
ExarKun333 said:
Both AMD and Intel have been at the 125/130W TDP for a while on the high end. As long as they are improving on their mainstream TDPs, I think its GREAT we have powerful options available to us. Let the people choose..

Folks gripe on Intel about having different platforms, but I think its really starting to make more sense. AMD kind of already has 2 'tiers' in their MBs anyway, those can take the higher-TDP CPUs (X6s and BDs) and those that cannot. By Intel keeping the TDP manageable on most consumer CPUs (1155) it ensures that all boards will run these fine. Want more CPU power, get the enthusiast socket.
Click to expand...

Bah. I don't want to go back to the days of $600-$1000 CPUs being what you needed for high end stuff, so I will respectfully disagree. I have little doubt that Intel could have made a 100W IVB Six core part with reasonable clock speeds. I am guessing those sweet profit margins on LGA2011 made that less of a priority, especially considering where AMD is right now perf/watt.

The vast majority of AMD boards can run all levels of CPUs. It's more an issue of BIOS support for Thuban/BD that is the issue. The high-end X2's used plenty o' power back in the day.

For years now, $200 has brought home a great CPU, whether that was the e6400 when C2D came out, Core 2 Quad for quite some time, the i7-920/i5-750/760 for quite a while, and finally that epic win the 2500k represents.

TDP has been 95-125W on desktop SKUs for quite a while and idle/low load power usage keeps getting more and more modest so I don't see why we can't keep that for the foreseeable future. You can always put a low power CPU in that socket.
 
Last edited:
blckgrffn said:
Bah. I don't want to go back to the days of $600-$1000 CPUs being what you needed for high end stuff, so I will respectfully disagree.
Click to expand...

I guess you can hope for a successor to a 3820 chip that's a 6 core.

But I don't see this changing. I'm thinking there may exist a time where anything bigger than AIO desktop systems are rare as LGA2011 desktops. Apple is ramping up their efforts on the iPad to get apps that are more and more relevant(like that textbook announcement), and cheap Tablets are starting to take off. Things are now changing at a pace where even a techie like me thinks its rapid. 2/3 of Intel's share is in Notebooks, they are going to really push Ultrabooks to keep Notebooks going, and that's going to affect their strategic decisions as a whole.

Desktops gotta be the least of their worries.
 
gramboh said:
Also the reason Intel does not release a 6-core IB 1155 is there is not enough space on the die/socket, unless they remove the iGPU, which would bungle up their general product strategy.
Click to expand...

LOL, never thought of that. Haswell makes that even wider, and adding 2 extra cores would need a new die to fit it without making the package wider.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top