• 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.

Sandy Bridge-E benchmarks on Techpowerup.com

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ViRGE said:
It's Intel, so I have no doubts they're permanently disabled.
Click to expand...

guess Ill pass.

toyota said:
what the hell? in the Hard review its using 153 watts more thna a 2600k. for a cpu that only has a 35 watt higher tpd that is pretty massive.
Click to expand...

In the AT review Im only seeing about 60w over 2600k.


are you looking at the 3960x 4.8ghz oced power consumption?
 
Last edited:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5091/...-bridge-e-review-keeping-the-high-end-alive/1

42335.png


42353.png


In that particular application the 3960X has ~15% more performance with 5.5% more power consumption over the 990X.

Over the 2600K it performs 47,5% faster with only 35,77% more power usage.

So at the end, it has greater Performance per Watt than the other two CPUs 😉
 
toyota said:
um what the hell? in the Hard review its using 153 watts more than a 2600k.
Click to expand...

H has posted alot of stuff lately that could be viewed as favoring AMD so that really doesnt surprise me. Since AT has been fairly bias free over the years i would trust there power consumtion tests more, and as the above poster just said its got better perf/watt than SB. Its a great chip as far as power consumtion goes.

I will review the other websites now but as i see it SB-E is great as far as power goes, and considering that intel's high end chipset/CPU's have always kinda thrown power consumtion out the window this is a change for the better.
 
After reviewing the power figures from the reviews BFG posted it seems that once again H is showing some AMD bias, im not surprised. Seems AT's figures were right in the middle of the other reviews and H's figures were slanted to show intel in a bad light.
 
ShadowVVL said:
are you looking at the 3960x 4.8ghz oced power consumption?
Click to expand...
Bingo, HardOCP's numbers are at various overclocked states and he doesn't list the voltage. It's comparable in the sense that SNB and SNB-E are at the same clockspeeds, but TDP has been thrown out the window.
 
ShadowVVL said:
guess Ill pass.



In the AT review Im only seeing about 60w over 2600k.


are you looking at the 3960x 4.8ghz oced power consumption?
Click to expand...
NO and you can look at the review for yourself to see.

ViRGE said:
Bingo, HardOCP's numbers are at various overclocked states and he doesn't list the voltage. It's comparable in the sense that SNB and SNB-E are at the same clockspeeds, but TDP has been thrown out the window.
Click to expand...
not bingo at all. I am looking at stock power consumption.
 
Last edited:
both of you guys need to read more carefully. they show stock AND overclocked performance throughout the whole article. here I will circle stock power consumption for you two.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:
toyota said:
both of you guys need to read more carefully. they show stock AND overclocked performance. here I will circle stock power consumption for you two.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Click to expand...
And thus I feel like an idiot. Thanks for clarifying that, Toyota.😛

And now that I realize what you're talking about, I'm a bit at a loss for what HardOCP did. Power consumption at idle should not be increasing like that unless Kyle has turned off all the power saving features. Similarly I'd have to question his SNB-E stock power consumption at load. Intel's TDPs are never precise, but 334W doesn't make any sense in the context of his other numbers.
 
Last edited:
Rifterut said:
After reviewing the power figures from the reviews BFG posted it seems that once again H is showing some AMD bias, im not surprised. Seems AT's figures were right in the middle of the other reviews and H's figures were slanted to show intel in a bad light.
Click to expand...

AMD bias? I guess that's why they showed the 2500k slaughtering the FX8150 huh. If anything it's bias towards regular SB.
 
Rifterut said:
After reviewing the power figures from the reviews BFG posted it seems that once again H is showing some AMD bias, im not surprised. Seems AT's figures were right in the middle of the other reviews and H's figures were slanted to show intel in a bad light.
Click to expand...

Are you smoking something because [H] was the only site to did the expose on BD's craptastic performance and bugs in games. He even went so far as to call it a failure and an abortion.

Far from being biased, that's the honest truth.

Refer: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/

Also: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5089/sandy-bridgee-and-x79-the-asus-p9x79-pro-review/5

Why such the huge power use vs Z68 setup. 166W vs 280W.

[H] Uses prime 95 for power testing. AT used video conversion. Also, there's a reason intel packed a H20 cooler with it, obviously it has serious TDP issues.
 
Last edited:
Silverforce11 said:
Are you smoking something because [H] was the only site to did the expose on BD's craptastic performance and bugs in games. He even went so far as to call it a failure and an abortion.

Far from being biased, that's the honest truth.

Refer: http://www.hardocp.com/article/2011/11/03/amd_fx8150_multigpu_gameplay_performance_review/

Also: http://www.anandtech.com/show/5089/sandy-bridgee-and-x79-the-asus-p9x79-pro-review/5

Why such the huge power use vs Z68 setup. 166W vs 280W.

[H] Uses prime 95 for power testing. AT used video conversion. Also, there's a reason intel packed a H20 cooler with it, obviously it has serious TDP issues.
Click to expand...

I dont see how multi GPU setup's on motherboards with diffewrnt memory amounts with different PCIe banndwidth can effectivly show power consumtion. When trying to show accurate figures its probably better to stick with single GPU's with the same amount of lanes/bandwidth and the same memory modules. That said X79 using 114w more in that particuler chart isnt that bad considering its got 33% more cores, more cache, and more memory.
 
Im sorry but without knowing the performance, those power readings are useless.

A CPU could have 50% more power usage but it could have 68% more performance, that would make it more efficient, or it could have the same power usage and perform less than the competition.

What [H] numbers shows, is power usage of the system without knowing the work done with the use of that power. It is ok for Idle but not on workloads.
 
Last edited:
For most things desktop users do with their PCs, there's no difference from that $1k cpu vs a 2600k. So if you bench using typical software load, its not a huge difference because it never stresses 100% the 6c/12t cpu. Load it with prime 95 and you find out its max power use.

What next, ppl gonna say prime95 or OCCT for power consumption tests are invalid??
 
adam_the_giant said:
Not worth the Cost for 95% (+) of people.
Click to expand...

I am willing to say, it's not worth for 100% of the people unless you make money using your computer and the workload is something embarrassingly parallel like rendering. Anything less parallel workload is better serviced by a 2<5|6|7|>00K processor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top