Intel Sandy Bridge-E Core i7-3960X Review: High End CPU roundup

[siopao1984]

---

Memory Timings and Latency tightening – should one bother?

There was a time, mostly throughout the age of DDR and DDR2 memory modules, when latencies were really a buzzing topic on hardware forums. Enthusiasts were after reducing the memory latencies to the minimum, in order to gain better performance without any changes in clock. When clock values were still low (especially with DDR), this made perfect sense, as reducing latencies for a module with default values of 3-4-4-8 down to 2.5-3-3-5 made a big impact. With gradual increases in clock (some sticks have already surpassed the 2 GHz limit today), the influence of latencies on overall performance has decreased significantly. In order to confirm just how much, we organized a special test. We used Intel’s new Core i7 3960X with quad-channel memory configuration, covering eight situations that stretch across four memory clocks and tightened or relaxed latencies. This covers most situations users can expect in their own PCs.











The first test was a synthetic one – AIDA64 Extreme. It clearly shows that frequency is the number one factor in memory performance today, and increasing the clock yields similar increases in performance. As for latencies, we can’t say that they have no impact, but they really can’t be considered a significant factor. Next up was two games, one of which is the fairly easy-to-handle Street Fighter 4, whereas the other is based on the modern and hard-hitting Frostbite 2 engine – we’re talking about Battlefield 3, of course. The games responded identically, or more precisely, they didn’t; no change in performance could be detected regardless of clock/latency settings. We’re fairly surprised to see that even CPU-bound games seem to ignore memory for the most part. We’ve used a few additional tests as well, such as PCMark 7, but since no relevant conclusions have been provided by these (no results varying any more than 1%), and we’ve decided to keep them out of the article. To sum up, don’t waste your time in BIOS obsessing over the fact that CL, tRCD, tRP or tRAS won’t go under 7 or 8 – the gains just can’t justify that. Clock values remain as important as ever, though, especially in RAM-intensive applications.

[siopao1984]

What to think?



As for Intel, new CPUs are truly a step forward, although their price/performance ratio remains open to interpretation. Extreme-series CPUs are only fit for hardcore enthusiasts and overclockers, or the very few who require a ridiculous amount of CPU strength for specific purposes, which would place them in the professional category. Gamers, even if their pockets are deep, simply can’t make use of this sort of power. The advance in the architecture itself is present, but not as evident as manufacturers would have you believe. This makes it even more obvious why Core i5 2500K and Core i7 2600K are so popular – for only a fraction of the price of the most powerful CPUs, you get performance that’s comparable or only somewhat lower in pretty much every scenario you’ll ever find yourself in. If you’re familiar with overclocking, it’s even easier to make up for this difference – cheaper Sandy Bridge-based models have proven to be very apt for everyday overclocking. If you prefer AMD’s products, we have to admit that, ultimately, Phenom II X6 1100T offers more than FX-8150 at the moment. Although Bulldozer proved to be faster in a few cases, 1100T was the victor where it counted the most. Honestly, we can’t wait for optimized software to start rolling out, so that Bulldozer can show its true face; if this is too much to ask for, then the price should drop at least. This way, a year-old CPU competes with it directly.

Gamers, take heed – don’t ever try to reach for a stronger CPU if there’s money to be invested elsewhere; this adventure has clearly proven that games don't require you to cash out more than 150€ for the CPU. This translates pretty well to all other users too, while those with a thicker wallet and/or with specific purposes in mind will know well what to do with their money – provided that they don’t already have a Core i7 3960X and enjoy its performance.



Summary:



Intel's new 3960X does win the performance battle, however it is not that far off from its immediate predecessor, the 990X. Only the forthcoming fully enabled 8-core Socket 2011 chip will offer that major boost. In the meantime, AMD has a lot of work to do to stay in the game at all...