4930K benchys early look. Conclusion.. Meh.

Tonester0011 · 24 Aug 2013 at 15:09

My buying this depends on:
1. Price
2. Overclocking potential

bicpug · 24 Aug 2013 at 16:02

It's all down to Intel greed, with nothing much from AMD there's no need for them to add a lot even though they have the ability. This is going back to how Intel used to release new chips, the smallest increase possible...we really need AMD to make a cpu that's real competition.

wazza300 · 24 Aug 2013 at 16:05

thank god its a soldered die,things would be very different if it was paste

pretty poor show when intel purposely cripples performance with a pasted die

scotsdragon · 24 Aug 2013 at 16:06

Tonester0011 said:
My buying this depends on:
1. Price
2. Overclocking potential

+1

Razor Time · 24 Aug 2013 at 16:14

The value in this CPU will be how well it overclocks.

Kaapstad · 24 Aug 2013 at 16:35

NirK said:
Considering that the clock speed are 3-6% faster.... There is actually no improvement at all / worse performance.

+1

There is something very wrong with the bench figures in the OP. It is as if someone has just overclocked a 3930k to the required clockspeeds of a 4930k.

Taking into account the higher clockspeed of the 4930k and the increased efficiency of IB over SB, those figures in the OP should be showing a difference of 7% to 10%

Some time ago I ran my 3960X at the same clockspeeds as an early 4960X and found a difference of just over 6% between the two running cinebench 11.5

OLDPHART · 24 Aug 2013 at 17:07

bicpug said:
It's all down to Intel greed, with nothing much from AMD there's no need for them to add a lot even though they have the ability. This is going back to how Intel used to release new chips, the smallest increase possible...we really need AMD to make a cpu that's real competition.

Hopefully the slow world recession recovery and the performance of the 4770K V's 4960K and just maybe or a big maybe > AMD Steamroller will help keep the price down.

alex_123_fra · 24 Aug 2013 at 17:55

We need to wait for some proper benches once NDAs are lifted.

Current SB-E owners are either not going to care about how much these cost and buy them anyway or sell their current 3930k/3960x/3970x chips and pay a small difference to upgrade. It is an enthusiast range and in my mind the stronger IMCs alone which will hopefully allow comfortable 2666+ MHz quad channel memory to be used, as well as similar overclockability to SB-E, it is fairly win win.

pgi947 · 24 Aug 2013 at 18:01

I really hope this doesn't disappoint, otherwise its back to looking at HW.

Orangey · 24 Aug 2013 at 18:17

I miss the days when you could just buy the cheapest SKU with the same amount of cache as the top end. Also these model numbers are getting confusing.

ubersonic · 24 Aug 2013 at 18:33

NirK said:
Considering that the clock speed are 3-6% faster.... There is actually no improvement at all / worse performance.

They did a clock for clock comparison too:

-------------

Not all that impressive, HOWEVER, they got it to do 4.5GHZ (couldn't go higher due to needing a BIOS update) with just 1.272v, and that did 68c on air under IBT. So the is a good chance IB-E will clock better than SB-E *fingers crossed*.

Orangey · 24 Aug 2013 at 18:38

Is this an engineering sample or cherry pick? I never believe any volt/temps/OC info unless it's from a chip in the wild aka post-launch from a forum user.

OLDPHART · 24 Aug 2013 at 18:47

ubersonic said:
They did a clock for clock comparison too:
Not all that impressive, HOWEVER, they got it to do 4.5GHZ (couldn't go higher due to needing a BIOS update) with just 1.272v, and that did 68c on air under IBT. So the is a good chance IB-E will clock better than SB-E *fingers crossed*.

Yes would be nice, stuck between the rock and a hard place atm > X79 Ivy-E or Haswell have spec'd both lol keep changing me mind.

NirK · 24 Aug 2013 at 21:07

0.48 - 3.1% improvement lolz

Ah well hopefully it will allow better overclocks at lower voltage.

Boomstick777 · 24 Aug 2013 at 22:16

OLDPHART said:
Yes would be nice, stuck between the rock and a hard place atm > X79 Ivy-E or Haswell have spec'd both lol keep changing me mind.

Haswell = cheaper, uses less power and performs very very well. Haswell is ideal until Haswell -E imho. At least then we gain 2 extra cores (First 8 core desktop chips) and much lower power use. An 8 core Haswell -E chip could be a worthy upgrade, by then AMD should have some Steamroller chips out

, could be whole different market. Atm Haswell is a great solution and not very expensive.

scotsdragon · 25 Aug 2013 at 10:11

Boomstick777 said:
Haswell = cheaper, uses less power and performs very very well. Haswell is ideal until Haswell -E imho. At least then we gain 2 extra cores (First 8 core desktop chips) and much lower power use. An 8 core Haswell -E chip could be a worthy upgrade, by then AMD should have some Steamroller chips out , could be whole different market. Atm Haswell is a great solution and not very expensive.

Its only ideal if you get a good one, i find haswell like ivy is a proper lottery between chips and poor tim plus the x79 has option for tons of ram and ( i could be wrong but full fat x16 x16 sli action that you only get on higher end z87 with plx chips which make them almost as costly as the x79, if you take the 3930k out of the equation and go with the 3820 or the newer version of said chip dont prices kind of match up ?

Boomstick777 · 25 Aug 2013 at 13:46

scotsdragon said:
Its only ideal if you get a good one, i find haswell like ivy is a proper lottery between chips and poor tim plus the x79 has option for tons of ram and ( i could be wrong but full fat x16 x16 sli action that you only get on higher end z87 with plx chips which make them almost as costly as the x79, if you take the 3930k out of the equation and go with the 3820 or the newer version of said chip dont prices kind of match up ?

Yeah some people see Haswell as poor clocking, but over time most are getting better clocks, there was more of a learning curve with Haswell, not as simple as Sandy / Ivy, the on chip volt control changed the over clocking, but now most seem to be getting Haswell chips to reach 4.4Ghz - 4.6Ghz with a decent cooler.

If you compare stock VS stock, the 4770K outperforms the 3960X at most things and uses a lot less power while doing so. So being at a midtier price, that is a hell of a lot of value, and the reason I switched from my 3960X to a 4770K setup, to save money and use less power. Overclocking is a bonus imho. For most that kind of performance at stock is appealing.

Haswell is ideal for most gamers etc until Haswell -E, maybe by then more cores will be being utilized as well, due to the nature of upcoming consoles, it might push developers to use more cores. I do think there is little reason to go X79 over a 4770K setup unless your doing workstation type stuff. For gaming and general PC use, 4670K and 4770K offer amazing value VS performance, and the option to upgrade to a 5770K or whatever they call the next refresh chip.

Krisali · 25 Aug 2013 at 13:59

Boomstick777 said:
That just sounds like acceptance, we expect more from GPU's improvements year on year, so why should people be happy to pay the same prices we were paying two years ago for a product that only offers 5% more performance?

Can you imagine that working in the GPU space, two years and only 5% more perfomance

I hope AMD execute soon, and can make the market competitive again.. The stagnation sucks. APU's are more exciting.. That's how bad it is

I know this is an enthusiast forum and we should expect a bit more but when was the last time your PC struggled to actually do something? The first gen I5 in my old macbook still runs everything fine in OSX or Windows. All the big players are clearly coasting but it feels like its due to a lack of anything that truly taxes a modern PC

Boomstick777 · 25 Aug 2013 at 21:57

Krisali said:
I know this is an enthusiast forum and we should expect a bit more but when was the last time your PC struggled to actually do something? The first gen I5 in my old macbook still runs everything fine in OSX or Windows. All the big players are clearly coasting but it feels like its due to a lack of anything that truly taxes a modern PC

5% performance increase in 2 years is poor by most peoples estimations. If this was GPU's for example they would be straight up laughed at. The drop in power consumption is good but yeah you would expect a little better from such a high priced tier of products.

You may be happy with current CPU's and think they good enough but there is still lot's of room for performance increases, lower power use / more cores etc, and at the very least price reductions due to the cost savings for Intel. There is a massive market for performance computer parts. If there wasn't we wouldn't be here talking about it would we?

To say well it's ok for Intel to charge an arm and a leg for 5% after 2 years because CPU's these days are good enough just isn't logical. If we thought like that no one would ever upgrade and Intel would never sell anything.. It's counter intuitive. Intel need to feed the market but are drip feeding us performance as there is lack of direct competition. That is the only reason they can get away with 5% after two years. This isn't good for the consumer, hopefully AMD can make things competitive again with Steamroller..

It won't matter to you because you're happy with what you've got already

cheesyboy · 25 Aug 2013 at 22:18

Tom's did a benchmark review on an eng-sample 4960X last month;
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-4960x-ivy-bridge-e-benchmark,3557.html

They weren't exactly blown away