[Tom's Hardware] Sandy Bridge-E and X79 Platform Preview

[Edrick]

If people admitted it I wouldn't have such a problem with it. What annoys me is the people that try to rationalize it using things like the L3 cache, which makes no difference in performance.

Admit to what? If I had unlimited resources, yes, I would buy the most expensive computer gear money could buy. Even if it only gave me 1-2% more performance, then great. Other than you, who wouldn't? If Intel could sell me a CPU with 100MB L3$ on it and clocked slightly higher, I would buy it. Its that simple. I really have no idea why that bothers you so much.

On the other hand, with limited resources, of course people will try to find the sweet spot in price/performance. And the $1000 extreme CPUs are not that. A $300-$500 CPU makes much more sense.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Admit to what? If I had unlimited resources, yes, I would buy the most expensive computer gear money could buy. Even if it only gave me 1-2% more performance, then great. Other than you, who wouldn't? If Intel could sell me a CPU with 100MB L3$ on it and clocked slightly higher, I would buy it. Its that simple. I really have no idea why that bothers you so much.

On the other hand, with limited resources, of course people will try to find the sweet spot in price/performance. And the $1000 extreme CPUs are not that. A $300-$500 CPU makes much more sense.

I guess Intel needs fools that buy their most expensive $1K CPUs to pay for their R&D.

People buy the most expensive gear even if it's not better because it's a status symbol, nothing else.

 

[AdamK47]

No

 

[john3850]

Are EE chips binned or not.
The Wafers process can be setup to give a company higher clocked and lower voltage chips but the percentage of these chips per wafer is far below the normal.
So when you get a intel extreme cpu your getting a better chip that runs on less volts.
Or are ee just a binned cpu.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

No

Yes. Buying the same thing for 67% more and using "because I can" as a reason means you're buying it because it's a status symbol. Otherwise, why would you give $400 free to Intel? Do you like to give free money to everyone?

If the ones that knowingly spend money on these chips admitted it's because it makes them feel good they want to waste money on anything they can and it's therefore a status symbol then I wouldn't be having this argument. What pisses me off is the people making it out as if the more expensive chip is better. They're not.

A Sandy Bridge CPU at 3300MHz isn't gonna be better binned than one at 3200MHz. All they do is take a perfectly working CPU, disable a bit of the cache, and set the clock speed 100MHz lower so some moronic enthusiasts can feel better about having a more expensive chip.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Are EE chips binned or not.
The Wafers process can be setup to give a company higher clocked and lower voltage chips but the percentage of these chips per wafer is far below the normal.
So when you get a intel extreme cpu your getting a better chip that runs on less volts.
Or are ee just a binned cpu.

Again, no. They're the same thing. A CPU running at 100MHz higher than the other one, especially when they're manufactured at the same time, isn't gonna be better binned when they have so much headroom left. Whether you get a better OC out of a 3930 or a 3960 is gonna be luck of the draw. Intel's not testing these chips for overclocking headroom, but for stability at a given voltage.

 

[AdamK47]

Yes. Buying the same thing for 67% more and using "because I can" as a reason means you're buying it because it's a status symbol. Otherwise, why would you give $400 free to Intel? Do you like to give free money to everyone?

If the ones that knowingly spend money on these chips admitted it's because it makes them feel good they want to waste money on anything they can and it's therefore a status symbol then I wouldn't be having this argument. What pisses me off is the people making it out as if the more expensive chip is better. They're not.

A Sandy Bridge CPU at 3300MHz isn't gonna be better binned than one at 3200MHz. All they do is take a perfectly working CPU, disable a bit of the cache, and set the clock speed 100MHz lower so some moronic enthusiasts can feel better about having a more expensive chip.

Do you like debating everything?

What's worse?
1. Someone who gets satisfaction from buying the best no matter how small the gains are the higher the price gets.
2. Someone who continually debates everything on an Internet forum in order to gain satisfaction from getting people to go long with their viewpoints?

I will deprive you of #2.

 

[greenhawk]

Buying the same thing for 67% more and using "because I can" as a reason means you're buying it because it's a status symbol.

Everyone wants / needs to do something similar at some point just to say "I've done that". It helps make their recommendations carry more weight

Mine was spending $1000 on server grade hardware to get dual cpus before dual cores came out.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

This depends on workload now. The 2600k equals its performance or betters it more than it loses on "Desktop workloads". So me personally I wouldn't say its the fastest desktop cpu you can buy now its more of a draw.

Note how I said "basically the fastest". While it is true that in low threaded situations a 2600K can equal if not surpass a 980X (this is a major reason why I own a 2600K) HOWEVER, its not like the 980X is ever that much slower, and whenever you do push past the 2600K's 4 cores / 8 threads, the 980X will demolish the 2600K. For overall workloads the 980X is still quite clearly the hands down superior CPU. The minutes or hours you would save from having the extra cores on the 980X on heavy workloads will more than make up for the couple of seconds you might save here and there with the 2600K. I'd trade my 2600K for a 980X in a heartbeat.

Not really a good argument now.

I never said it was a good argument now, and made several clear stipulations as to when/why the 980X was a great deal. Thanks for ignoring the brunt of my post, I'll do the same for you.

How about the analog nature of mouse movement?

I never said the mouse was inferior, I was simply pointing out that the keybaord can be a significant weak link in the whole "KB+mouse is superior" argument. True, a keyboard has a ton of keys which can be an advantage, but for fine tuned movement control for racing or moving a character, its all or nothing (pedal to the metal), no in-between because the key switch is either activated or its not.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Do you like debating everything?

What's worse?
1. Someone who gets satisfaction from buying the best no matter how small the gains are the higher the price gets.
2. Someone who continually debates everything on an Internet forum in order to gain satisfaction from getting people to go long with their viewpoints?

I will deprive you of #2.

It's not the best. An "Extreme Edition" sticker doesn't make it better. It's the same performance. Therefore, the rest of your argument is wrong.

 

[Edrick]

It's not the best. An "Extreme Edition" sticker doesn't make it better. It's the same performance. Therefore, the rest of your argument is wrong.

How much do you want to bet that the 3960 will perform the same as the 3930? You know for a fact they will perform the same, even without them being released yet. You name it.

I will bet the 3960 will perform at least 1% faster in at least 1 benchmarck compared to the 3930. You game?

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

How much do you want to bet that the 3960 will perform the same as the 3930? You know for a fact they will perform the same, even without them being released yet. You name it.

I will bet the 3960 will perform at least 1% faster in at least 1 benchmarck compared to the 3930. You game?

At the same clock speed, no. Yes, I game. Since most enthusiasts will overclock these, though, it should represent that. Comparing at stock clock speeds is useless except those using it for work. Must be a real-world application, though. No synthetics.

Anyway, like I linked earlier, cache makes very little to no difference in performance in Sandy Bridge, even if you get to very low amounts. *Points at Celeron G540 vs Pentium G620 and Core i5 vs Core i7 with HT disabled*.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Makes no difference in desktop/gaming apps. Workstation/Server environments love cache.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Makes no difference in desktop/gaming apps. Workstation/Server environments love cache.

Like I said, even if you'll use them for work, the performance difference is only from 2-3% higher. May be worth it to some huge corporations...

^^

Also, gaming is not the only thing everyone with desktops does. If all you're doing is gaming you should've forgotten about the Six-Cores already.

 

[Makaveli]

Makes no difference in desktop/gaming apps. Workstation/Server environments love cache.

I agree with this since both camps are now using IMC's cache size doesn't matter as much as it use to for games!

 

[Makaveli]

Note how I said "basically the fastest". While it is true that in low threaded situations a 2600K can equal if not surpass a 980X (this is a major reason why I own a 2600K) HOWEVER, its not like the 980X is ever that much slower, and whenever you do push past the 2600K's 4 cores / 8 threads, the 980X will demolish the 2600K. For overall workloads the 980X is still quite clearly the hands down superior CPU. The minutes or hours you would save from having the extra cores on the 980X on heavy workloads will more than make up for the couple of seconds you might save here and there with the 2600K. I'd trade my 2600K for a 980X in a heartbeat.

You basically agreed with what I said

And I plan on going to westmere and staying on 1366 and will skipping both SB and SB-E and waiting for IB and the new 3d transistors. My workloads now are starting to get abit more core heavy and for seat of the pants performance with common apps you can't tell the difference between those chips unless looking at benchmarks.

 

[HendrixFan]

Case in point: the 3960X should be 2-3% faster than the 3930K stock, and the chances of you getting an EE that's higher binned are from slim to none.

You keep making this claim. How can you possibly know how an unreleased processor will be binned?

 

[AdamK47]

You keep making this claim. How can you possibly know how an unreleased processor will be binned?

Because he's better than all of us.

 

[Shmee]

It seems to me that while a 2600K may be fine for games, the reason the SB-E will be superior is not for the chip itself, but rather the platform. Currently, AFAIK, most z68/p67 boards are rather limited in the PCIE lanes and some other features. If x79 can bring enough bandwidth for 3-4 graphics cards, plus other peripherals without worrying about cutting out USB3 ports or SATA III ports, then this would be a big improvement.

Now, I wouldnt be buying the most expensive chip either, probably just the unlocked version to OC. Also, Quad ram kits might come down in price, though memory is already pretty cheap.

To sum things up, I think what would really set these boards apart from the mainstream would be features. At least I hope.

 

[StrangerGuy]

It seems to me that while a 2600K may be fine for games, the reason the SB-E will be superior is not for the chip itself, but rather the platform. Currently, AFAIK, most z68/p67 boards are rather limited in the PCIE lanes and some other features. If x79 can bring enough bandwidth for 3-4 graphics cards, plus other peripherals without worrying about cutting out USB3 ports or SATA III ports, then this would be a big improvement.

Now, I wouldnt be buying the most expensive chip either, probably just the unlocked version to OC. Also, Quad ram kits might come down in price, though memory is already pretty cheap.

To sum things up, I think what would really set these boards apart from the mainstream would be features. At least I hope.

If you like blowing cash on S2011, more power to you. But to claim X79 is a better gaming platform is as ludicrous as saying PC gaming is expensive just because the top-of-the line rig is $3000.

 

[Atreidin]

Yes. Buying the same thing for 67% more and using "because I can" as a reason means you're buying it because it's a status symbol. Otherwise, why would you give $400 free to Intel? Do you like to give free money to everyone?

If the ones that knowingly spend money on these chips admitted it's because it makes them feel good they want to waste money on anything they can and it's therefore a status symbol then I wouldn't be having this argument. What pisses me off is the people making it out as if the more expensive chip is better. They're not.

A Sandy Bridge CPU at 3300MHz isn't gonna be better binned than one at 3200MHz. All they do is take a perfectly working CPU, disable a bit of the cache, and set the clock speed 100MHz lower so some moronic enthusiasts can feel better about having a more expensive chip.

Just because someone wants the fastest system available doesn't mean they want it as a status symbol. They might just want it because it is, you know, their hobby. They are fascinated with it and enjoy it for what it is. Amazingly enough, there are many people who aren't obsessed with what other people think.

 

[BlueBlazer]

Not forgetting that there's also an 8C/16T CPU for LGA2011 platform, like this one.......

No idea how much this will cost, surely greater than $1K......

 

[Shmee]

If you like blowing cash on S2011, more power to you. But to claim X79 is a better gaming platform is as ludicrous as saying PC gaming is expensive just because the top-of-the line rig is $3000.

Hey, I far from like spending that much money. But, if you read what I posted, I was trying to say that it would be better for ppl who play at high resolutions, like me, who need extra GPUS to power the graphics at that many pixels. MOST p67/z68 boards afaik, do not have the PCIE lanes to support more than 2 PCIE devices, let alone say, 3-4GPUs and a peripheral (sound card, raid card, etc).

I am not saying everyone needs this many lanes, but ppl playing at ultra high res with demanding games usually need more GPU horsepower, which often translates to putting more cards in slots. And just because a slot is there, doesn't mean the whole board has enough PCIE lanes to support all the cards.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

You keep making this claim. How can you possibly know how an unreleased processor will be binned?

I already answered that above. Read.

Just because someone wants the fastest system available doesn't mean they want it as a status symbol. They might just want it because it is, you know, their hobby. They are fascinated with it and enjoy it for what it is. Amazingly enough, there are many people who aren't obsessed with what other people think.

I already answered this as well. No, it's not the fastest; it's just AS fast, but not faster. And yes, it is a status symbol. That couldn't be clearer. It being a "hobby" isn't the best reason for giving $400 free to Intel.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Not forgetting that there's also an 8C/16T CPU for LGA2011 platform, like this one.......

No idea how much this will cost, surely greater than $1K......

It's a Xeon, and it's an Eight-Core. Great for huge rendering jobs.

My argument was about the so-called "enthusiasts".