Sandy Bridge-E benchmarks on Techpowerup.com

[toyota]

at this point it seems like it would have made more sense just to skip Sandy Bridge E altogether and go right to Ivy Bridge E. that way they could have much faster cpus, PCI-E 3.0, more SATA 3.0, and native USB 3.0. I mean what is a few more months when its been 3 years since 1366 anyway. then AFTER launching Ivy Bridge E, they could launch the 1155 Ivy Bridge parts.

the way it is now makes no sense. its expensive and not even a worthwhile upgrade over the 3 year old 1366 platforms since its hardly any faster and really has no more features. oh well, AMD and Intel could sale poop on a stick and some people would buy it up.

 

[Rifter]

It seems to me in just a matter of 5-6 months, it'll once again become 2nd best. With IVB-E arrive after IVB, I feel that Intel is not prioritizing the enthusiast market enough to warrant such lengthy delays for its most expensive platform.

This also with the stripping down of X79 is making me give serious thought to going back to the mainstream chipset and sticking with single GPU. I agree intel is kinda leaving the enthusiast market out in the cold, but with the BD flop it makes sense, with nothing from AMD they have zero reason to push their enthusiast platform or spend any real money to R&D it.

 

[ViRGE]

This also with the stripping down of X79 is making me give serious thought to going back to the mainstream chipset and sticking with single GPU. I agree intel is kinda leaving the enthusiast market out in the cold, but with the BD flop it makes sense, with nothing from AMD they have zero reason to push their enthusiast platform or spend any real money to R&D it.

Now here's what I don't get: other than losing SAS, how is X79 stripped down?

 

[toyota]

why does the 3960x beat the crap out of the 2700k in Modern Warfare 3 and 2011 F1 in this review? http://www.hardwareheaven.com/revie...-3960x-processor-review-modern-warfare-3.html

 

[AdamK47]

Yeah, there aren't any games that use more than 4 cores. /sarcasm

 

[toyota]

Yeah, there aren't any games that use more than 4 cores. /sarcasm

its not faster because the game is using more cores. you can see that even in comments section where it shows MW 3 was not even fully pushing 4 cores much less 6 with HT. look at all other reviews and the 2700k/2600k match or beat the 3960x in gaming. the difference is here that they used a gtx590 which seems to scale way better on the 1366 and 2011 platforms.

 

[boxleitnerb]

Looks like a driver bug. This large difference is by no means normal. Maybe they screwed up with the driver on the 2700K system that didn't have a SLI profile yet.

 

[toyota]

Looks like a driver bug. This large difference is by no means normal. Maybe they screwed up with the driver on the 2700K system that didn't have a SLI profile yet.

I wish we could find another review that actually used a gtx590 or maybe even a 6990. something is certainly up because those games are not fully pushing 4 or even 3 cores in the case of MW 3 yet the 1366 and 2011 platforms are killing the 1155 by 60% in F1 2011 and MW 3 which makes no sense.

 

[nitromullet]

Looks like a driver bug. This large difference is by no means normal. Maybe they screwed up with the driver on the 2700K system that didn't have a SLI profile yet.

It seems to me that if it was an issue related to the video card setup/drivers you would see lower minimums that you do for the 2700K rig in MW3. Although, the min fps are much lower for the 2700K and AMD chip in F1 2011 .

I'm surprised any site would just throw those numbers up without trying to figure out/explain whats going on.

 

[boxleitnerb]

I wish we could find another review that actually used a gtx590 or maybe even a 6990. something is certainly up because those games are not fully pushing 4 or even 3 cores in the case of MW 3 yet the 1366 and 2011 platforms are killing the 1155 by 60% in F1 2011 and MW 3 which makes no sense.

There are at THG. At times, there are good benefits like World of Warcraft C., but not even close to 60%. In all other games that were tested with 2-way and 3-way SLI it was very close overall.

 

[toyota]

There are at THG. At times, there are good benefits like World of Warcraft C., but not even close to 60%. In all other games that were tested with 2-way and 3-way SLI it was very close overall.

where is this review?

 

[Rifter]

Now here's what I don't get: other than losing SAS, how is X79 stripped down?

well they are short PCIe 3, USB 3, SAS support, 8 SATA 3 ports(was originally going to have 10 SATA 3/SAS and 4 SATA 2 ports, now has only 6 total, and only 2 SATA 3)

Thats what i would call stripped WAY down from original design.

 

[boxleitnerb]

where is this review?

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-15.html

 

[AtenRa]

Today's single chip graphics cards need at least 8x lanes, bellow that they will be bottleneck.
This is why dual graphic card configurations on 16x PCIe lanes (2x 8) dont loose more than 2-3% of performance against the 32x lanes(2x 16).

If we add one or two more cards (triple or Quad CF/SLI) the 16 lanes bandwidth is not enough and communication between the four cards and the chipset (in this instance the CPU) is bottle necked.

The NF200 is a bridge chip, it has 32 PCIe 2.0 lanes and can be configured to 16x 16x or 16x 8x 8x or 4x 8 PCIe slots. That means that with four Graphics Cards, each card will have at least 8x PCIe lanes to communicate with the NF200.

The NF200 gathers, organize and distribute the workloads of the four GPUs between them and it communicate with the CPU via the CPUs 16x PCIe lanes.

This way we eliminate the bottleneck of communication between the cards and the cards with the chipset and we have enough bandwidth for the NF200 to communicate with the CPU or any other chipset.

Implementing the NF200 to the P67 or Z68 will bring a little latency with it, that will have an impact of 2-3% in performance against a native 32x PCIe chipset or CPU like the SB-E. It also raises the motherboard cost, needs for cooling and increases the power usage of the platform.

Future GPUs like AMD's GCN and NVIDIA's Kepler/Maxwell could need more than 8 PCIe lanes of bandwidth and Socket 2011 will be much better suited and ready for them if triple or quad CF/SLI is required.

 

[AtenRa]

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3960x-x79-sandy-bridge-e,3071-15.html

The Asus Maximus IV Extreme they use has the NF200.

try this one

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/p55-crossfire-nf200,2537-3.html

 

[ViRGE]

well they are short PCIe 3, USB 3, SAS support, 8 SATA 3 ports(was originally going to have 10 SATA 3/SAS and 4 SATA 2 ports, now has only 6 total, and only 2 SATA 3)

Thats what i would call stripped WAY down from original design.

PCIe 3: They have it, it just isn't validated yet. I don't know why people keep saying they don't.

USB 3: Was never scheduled for X79. Though I agree that it would be nice to have.

More SATA Ports: This goes hand in hand with SAS. This is the only thing that was actually cut out as far as I know.

 

[Rifter]

PCIe 3: They have it, it just isn't validated yet. I don't know why people keep saying they don't.

USB 3: Was never scheduled for X79. Though I agree that it would be nice to have.

More SATA Ports: This goes hand in hand with SAS. This is the only thing that was actually cut out as far as I know.

PCIe 3 I'll believe when i see it, like anything else it can still change as its not supported with the first few CPU SKU's they have launched.

USB 3 may not have been officially announced but its stupid this late into the game to not support it native.

The real deal breaker for me was the SATA/SAS situation, its the same as the 1155 chipset which is a slap in the face to enthusiast buyers. This tells us how little Intel cares now that we know AMD is not going to be a player in the enthusiast market...

 

[Edrick]

PCIe 3 I'll believe when i see it, like anything else it can still change as its not supported with the first few CPU SKU's they have launched.

USB 3 may not have been officially announced but its stupid this late into the game to not support it native.

The real deal breaker for me was the SATA/SAS situation, its the same as the 1155 chipset which is a slap in the face to enthusiast buyers. This tells us how little Intel cares now that we know AMD is not going to be a player in the enthusiast market...

As for PCIe 3.0, they have it included based on the official spec, but they simply can not validate it due to no cards currently available that use it.

USB 3, I agree, it is dumb to release a chipset today without it. USB 3 has been out how long now? At least give us LightPeak support as an alternative. At least we have 3rd party chips that all MB makers use.

SAS removal was expected. There have been reported issues with that for a long time now. I only expected SAS support from high end MBs anyways, if not only for servers.

The SATA 6GB/s ports nerfed down to 2 was a big deal. Now it is the same as P67/Z68, which I thought was too low back in January.

 

[Edrick]

at this point it seems like it would have made more sense just to skip Sandy Bridge E altogether and go right to Ivy Bridge E.

And then next year at this time you will say it is better to skip IB-E and wait for Haswell in a few months.

 

[Ferzerp]

And then next year at this time you will say it is better to skip IB-E and wait for Haswell in a few months.

Yes, because what Intel is doing with the "-E" line is stupid. You can't release the high end so late in the product cycle. The high end previously came first, and if these had come out with the normal SB, the price premium would not make so many people balk. We've always paid a premium for the top end, but when the top end will likely be matched or bettered very soon, for so little in comparison, why buy it?

I've said it before, the whole idea of releasing mainstream and then much, much later releasing the high end, is an awful decision.

 

[Rifter]

As for PCIe 3.0, they have it included based on the official spec, but they simply can not validate it due to no cards currently available that use it.

USB 3, I agree, it is dumb to release a chipset today without it. USB 3 has been out how long now? At least give us LightPeak support as an alternative. At least we have 3rd party chips that all MB makers use.

SAS removal was expected. There have been reported issues with that for a long time now. I only expected SAS support from high end MBs anyways, if not only for servers.

The SATA 6GB/s ports nerfed down to 2 was a big deal. Now it is the same as P67/Z68, which I thought was too low back in January.

yeah SAS i could have lived without but only 2 SATA 3 ports was a joke. I mean really, 2 , hell even the top end AMD chipset is better than that.

 

[Rifter]

Yes, because what Intel is doing with the "-E" line is stupid. You can't release the high end so late in the product cycle. The high end previously came first, and if these had come out with the normal SB, the price premium would not make so many people balk. We've always paid a premium for the top end, but when the top end will likely be matched or bettered very soon, for so little in comparison, why buy it?

I've said it before, the whole idea of releasing mainstream and then much, much later releasing the high end, is an awful decision.

I think AMD is to blame in this instance. If they had held to their launch in Q2 and BD hadn't sucked you can bet Intel would have pushed X79 earlier than they did.

 

[Vdubchaos]

at this point it seems like it would have made more sense just to skip Sandy Bridge E altogether and go right to Ivy Bridge E. that way they could have much faster cpus, PCI-E 3.0, more SATA 3.0, and native USB 3.0. I mean what is a few more months when its been 3 years since 1366 anyway. then AFTER launching Ivy Bridge E, they could launch the 1155 Ivy Bridge parts.

the way it is now makes no sense. its expensive and not even a worthwhile upgrade over the 3 year old 1366 platforms since its hardly any faster and really has no more features. oh well, AMD and Intel could sale poop on a stick and some people would buy it up.

Well, it's just a confirmation that they are slowly running out of upgrade path/things are leveling off.

 

[ed29a]

I think AMD is to blame in this instance. If they had held to their launch in Q2 and BD hadn't sucked you can bet Intel would have pushed X79 earlier than they did.

Weird logic here, blame the victim? I blame regulators who let Intel crush the x86 market and got a slap on their wrist with a 1G$ or so settlement. But hey, let's blame the company who desperately tries to compete with the behemoth that is Intel and having only one tenth of Intel's resources (probably less).

Enjoy your Intel monopoly!

 

[Rifter]

Weird logic here, blame the victim? I blame regulators who let Intel crush the x86 market and got a slap on their wrist with a 1G$ or so settlement. But hey, let's blame the company who desperately tries to compete with the behemoth that is Intel and having only one tenth of Intel's resources (probably less).

Enjoy your Intel monopoly!

I wish AMD was competitive, i own more amd systems than intel. But intel wouldnt let AMD soak up sales with BD, i truly believe if it was on time and a good chip intel would have pushed up X79.

EDIT to add, also the only thing AMD is a victim of right now is their own poor management decisions.