• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

FRONTPAGE Intel Sandy Bridge Extreme i7-3960X Processor Review

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Isn't it pretty much always been about binning? I mean not every celeron will do 8+ ghz, etc. So different batches/steppings (if it comes down to batches mattering again instead of just random luck) will be better clockers than others as usual?

Yes, but honestly I had hoped that the lowest-performing SNB-E was better than the highest-performing Gulftown. It was a tall order, which is why it doesn't get any dings from me on that; but a part of me had hope. It's still quite impressive, even if it "only" clocks to 5.2. :)
 
Thank you for taking the time and effort to review this processor.

Christian Wood
Intel Enthusiast Team
 
It was my understanding that Quad channel was just as gimmicky as Triple channel in real world use.

Sorry for the O.T. but triple channel isnt really gimmicky, maybe for internetting, wmp, office and stuff sure. But about 8 months ago in f@h the difference between dual and tri channel on the same board was 15k ppd, wich if you arent familiar with the app, its huge. Tho I do agree, tri channel ram on "just" a quadcore is a bit of a waste :D
 
Really FA? I had no idea that F@H was memory bandwidth limited... wow!!!

EDIT: Funny there are no availability issues with these chips? Is it b/c of price? Performance? Or, contrary to some articles, there are enough available to the market...

I sprung out of bed this morning at 06:00 after it not being there around 03:00...and it was there. Its still there in stock and at the same price.
 
Last edited:
Really FA? I had no idea that F@H was memory bandwidth limited... wow!!!

EDIT: Funny there are no availability issues with these chips? Is it b/c of price? Performance? Or, contrary to some articles, there are enough available to the market...

I sprung out of bed this morning at 06:00 after it not being there around 03:00...and it was there. Its still there in stock and at the same price.

Well these processors will sell to the people who must have the fastest for bragging rights, the people who can make full use of them, engineering departments who have a clueless IT guy and those of us who have the spare change and need a new toy.

For me one would be great but I want to see the IB before I sink money into anything.

I see no supply issues.
 
Last edited:
Judging from these guys that getting 5 ghz is pretty good on water, they tested 100 chips and could only get 5.4 ghz on LN2.
I saw that earlier and was posted in another thread. I was hoping to run 57x or so... oh well good think doc prfornance is better than gulftown!
 
I don't mean to come across as too much of a luddite but like Gulftown before it I'm not really sure what the point of buying one of these is, even for an enthusiast.

- Gaming performance differs little from Nehalem and vanilla Sandy Bridge

-It is much faster at encoding multimedia but unless you are playing with 2K or better video or running an unbeliavable number of VSTs and filters it doesn't seem particularly useful.

-Benchmarkers will like it, but that is a fairly niche hobby.

I want to upgrade my PC early in the new year, but since I can comfortably encode 1080p and play BF3 at close to max settings (on a trusty old 4ghz i7 920) I am struggling to justify any purchases to the other half. I'm not saying that PCs are fast enough per say, just that there isn't any interesting enthusiast software or game right now that really benefits from a chip like this. If there were some killer game or other application that would benefit then this would be a different story, and I hope that something comes along soon. :(
 
I don't mean to come across as too much of a luddite but like Gulftown before it I'm not really sure what the point of buying one of these is, even for an enthusiast.

- Gaming performance differs little from Nehalem and vanilla Sandy Bridge

-It is much faster at encoding multimedia but unless you are playing with 2K or better video or running an unbeliavable number of VSTs and filters it doesn't seem particularly useful.

-Benchmarkers will like it, but that is a fairly niche hobby.

I want to upgrade my PC early in the new year, but since I can comfortably encode 1080p and play BF3 at close to max settings (on a trusty old 4ghz i7 920) I am struggling to justify any purchases to the other half. I'm not saying that PCs are fast enough per say, just that there isn't any interesting enthusiast software or game right now that really benefits from a chip like this. If there were some killer game or other application that would benefit then this would be a different story, and I hope that something comes along soon. :(

With regards to games it will come down to if/when game developers start taking advantage of more than 2/3/4/possibly 8 threads, while very few do at this point. I wouldn't hesitate to guess it won't happen until after the next console generation, as most of the games that end up on PC are console ports and they are rarely made to be large# multi-threaded just for the PC.
 
With regards to games it will come down to if/when game developers start taking advantage of more than 2/3/4/possibly 8 threads, while very few do at this point. I wouldn't hesitate to guess it won't happen until after the next console generation, as most of the games that end up on PC are console ports and they are rarely made to be large# multi-threaded just for the PC.

I've been hearing this line of thinking since HT was first introduced on P4's. Not saying it isn't true but at this point it probably shouldn't drive purchase decisions today.


I don't mean to come across as too much of a luddite but like Gulftown before it I'm not really sure what the point of buying one of these is, even for an enthusiast.

- Gaming performance differs little from Nehalem and vanilla Sandy Bridge

-It is much faster at encoding multimedia but unless you are playing with 2K or better video or running an unbeliavable number of VSTs and filters it doesn't seem particularly useful.

-Benchmarkers will like it, but that is a fairly niche hobby.

I want to upgrade my PC early in the new year, but since I can comfortably encode 1080p and play BF3 at close to max settings (on a trusty old 4ghz i7 920) I am struggling to justify any purchases to the other half. I'm not saying that PCs are fast enough per say, just that there isn't any interesting enthusiast software or game right now that really benefits from a chip like this. If there were some killer game or other application that would benefit then this would be a different story, and I hope that something comes along soon. :(

As for this...someone has to take the step forward, it's almost always the hardware.
 
These machines only really suit massive megamultitaskers or people who crunch lots and lots of data.

I'm sure Xeon-based datacrunching rigs based on these SNB-E chips will be very popular.
 
I'm not sure there is anything great about this chip for enthusiasts. A crazy high price and the rather high thermals coupled with the underwhelming overclocks for benching addicts, I don't know if there are any redeeming features even for those with the spare change. :shrug:

Maybe I am misinterpreting the criteria for awarding a badge (certainly seems so) but I don't think this merits a badge from us (just as the joke of a Bulldozer did not merit one).
 
There is the much more reasonably priced 3930K ($599 at newegg). The IPC over Gulftown is significant. Even though these only seem to average 5.2-5.4Ghz o/c, thats like a 6Ghz+ benchable Gulftown which is pretty rare as I understand it. Doesnt seem leaps and bounds better, but still a bigger jump than PhII to Bulldozer.
 
I'm not sure there is anything great about this chip for enthusiasts. A crazy high price and the rather high thermals coupled with the underwhelming overclocks for benching addicts, I don't know if there are any redeeming features even for those with the spare change. :shrug:

Maybe I am misinterpreting the criteria for awarding a badge (certainly seems so) but I don't think this merits a badge from us (just as the joke of a Bulldozer did not merit one).

Bulldozer didn't meet the expectations set out by baseless speculation. Sure AMD talked a little smack with their stupid comic, but the expectations were set too high by the public due to the fact that they never released a single benchmark. That doesn't mean it wasn't a good CPU for the price point we were given. At $240, I still hold it does what it's supposed to do at that level. At the current price of $280 it's a ripoff and the first comment on the review (which shows on the front page) says as much.

As far as this CPU, it is literally the best CPU on the market. As EarthDog pointed out, at 5.3 GHz, it performs where a 6.0 GHz Gulftown performs. That's a massive improvement. It's also much easier to get to 5.3 GHz than it is to make it to 6.0 GHz on a Gulftown. Add to that the fact that we're talking 4.5-4.7 GHz 24/7 overclocks (I'm up to 4.7 on the ASUS board so far), it's also good for every day overclockers.

No, it doesn't show gains in gaming. As stated in the review, "If all you do is lightly threaded applications, the 2600K is still going to be your go-to CPU. If you do anything at all that takes advantage of the available threads on this beast, or if you multitask and take advantage of them manually, this is the processor for you." I also fail to see how the strongest CPU on the planet that overclocks well isn't qualified for an Overclockers Approved?

All of that said, the K is the better deal assuming the only difference really is the loss of 3MB cache (also as mentioned in the review).
 
3930K/3960K is currently the best cpu on the market. Even though, as Hokie's review clearly pointed out, core for core isnt better than 2600K which was not unexpected, it was designed to be and is 2 more cores of the best cpu (2500K, 2600K) on the market, albeit at a premium price.

If most software could utilize 6 cores, this cpu would be seen in a very different light (though maybe not the shortcomings of platform).

It is just the fact that most software that people routinely use doesn't tax 4 cores let alone 6, hence most people are going to stick with 2500K, 2600K.

And in that regard, only benchers/folders/crunchers are likely to pay for increased cost since only they are likely to benefit.

But really not a cpu issue, as it is the best on market, it is a failure of software to keep up with hardware.

Edit: god Im a slow typist, hokie beat me by 9 mins.
 
Back