X79, en graphique et en chiffres ! + X79 love RAM speed.

MISC productivité et autres.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/3dsmax-2.png

Gaming, "low res" comparatif CPU.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/crysis2.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/dirt3.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/farcry.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/hardreset.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/metro.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/starcraft.png

3Dmark11

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/3dmark-1.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/3dmark-2.png

Power

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/power-1.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/power-2.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/power-3.png

Overclocking.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/oc.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/core-i7-3960x-3930k/3930-oc.png

conclusion

Throughout the entire test session we had a hard time getting rid of the feeling that we are getting acquainted not with a new enthusiast platform, but with a new server and workstation solution. The server roots of the LGA 2011 platform show themselves way too obviously. The server origin is noticeable in the design of the semiconductor die with eight computational cores, in the processor characteristics including enormous l3 cache, in the support of quad-channel but relatively slow memory controller.

The results of the performance tests can also be interpreted accordingly. LGA 2011 processors have more computational cores than their LGA 1155 counterparts, but they work at lower clock speeds. Therefore the ideal application for the Sandy Bridge-E based newcomers will be multi-threaded tasks, such as digital content creation and processing, for example. In other words, these are the tasks typical of high-performance workstations in the first place.

As for the role of a general-purpose platform, LGA 2011 doesn’t fit in too seamlessly. Mainboards and processors that are part of the platform are very expensive, but in reality they don’t deliver too many advantages. Moreover, the flagship platform doesn’t really do better than LGA 1155 in a number of usage models that could be of interest to regular users, such as gaming, for example. Also the new platform doesn’t support Quick Sync technology. Moreover, its power consumption is through the roof and overclocking poses additional challenges and requires super-efficient cooling.

In other words, there are not so many real advantages that could make the new LGA 2011 platform a dream come true for advanced users. In fact, there can be only two significant arguments in favor of this platform. They are unprecedented multi-threaded performance and support of the fastest implementation of multi-GPU configurations. However, these arguments will be convincing enough only for a small number of enthusiasts, while the majority of users will still prefer LGA 1155 processors and mainboards. Especially since Core i7 family in LGA 1155 form-factor has recently been refreshed again and its performance rose to a higher level.

However, it will be psychologically difficult for the owners of LGA 1366 based systems to migrate to LGA 1155, and this is when LGA 2011 may come in very handy. The introduction of progressive Sandy Bridge microarchitecture in six-core processors turned out very fruitful: Core i7-3960X and Core i7-3930K outperform Core i7-990X by about 10% on average, but in some cases this advantage reaches as far as 30%. The new platform has become more interesting due to a fourth memory channel, PCI Express 3.0 controller integrated into the processor and simpler single-chip core logic set.

But even if you are determined to upgrade to LGA 2011, you should keep in mind the downsides of this decision, which result primarily from the rushed platform launch. By releasing desktop Sandy Bridge-E processors ahead of their server modifications Intel accepted a number of compromises. They used an old chipset under the new “X79 Express” name as an LGA 2011 core logic set, which not only has limited functionality in terms of interfaces support, but differs significantly and in a negative way from what has been initially promised. Today’s Core i7 from the new 3000-series are based on Revision C core with significant power consumption and not very high overclocking potential. Intel is planning to eliminate these issues, but only after the launch, so we are in for some processor line-up refresh and maybe even a chipset upgrade. Therefore, until things get figured out it is better to hold off the purchase even if you are certain the LGA 2011 platform is for you.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Boulard83

À regarder tes tableaux, on dirait qu'on compare INTEL avec des "anciens" cpu de chez amd

Pour ceux qui veulent comparé les board avec le nombre de dimm de ram, 2ways SLI/3ways SLI/4ways SLI, E-ATX / XL-ATX / ATX , etc

Je sais pas si je sujis le seul mais ça me donne même aps le gout de changer mon vieux Evga X58 avec mon 920 :S

That platform need Raid 0 SSDS

Edited November 18, 2011 by 1o80B

Ramdisk.

youtube.com/watch?v=5cqfhZvyE80&feature=youtu.be

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/memory/display/lga2011-ddr3.html#sect0

Utopiquement parlant, plus de speed est meilleur que des timing plus serré. Par contre, dans beaucoup d'applications, le quad channel DDR3 n'est pas réellement plus performant. Sur papier et en bench ça semble aider un tout petit peu mais pas tant.

Conclusion

The study of the memory controller in the new Sandy Bridge-E processors produced unexpected and at the same time very interesting results. It turned out that this time Intel used a totally different approach to optimizing the work of the memory sub-system. The main idea of this approach was to optimize the quad-channel DDR3 SDRAM controller not for single-threaded but for multi-threaded load, which is more typical of the servers and high-performance workstations. Therefore, the Sandy Bridge-E memory controller doesn’t look too good in traditional desktop benchmarks. However, the new system simply blows you away by its unprecedented practical bandwidth in special tests such as Stream, for instance.

Unfortunately, this is bad news for the desktop users. Most typical desktop applications do not address the memory in multiple parallel threads. Therefore, we have quite a paradox in reality, when quad-channel memory access provides minimal or no benefits. Even though it may seem unbelievable, you will get practically the same performance if you use a dual- or triple-channel DDR3 SDRAM in your LGA 2011 system instead of a special quad-channel kit.

This may be a pretty useful piece of information for those users, who do not feel like upgrading their memory. They will experience truly minimal performance loss if they decide to give up quad-channel memory access.

The most important parameter for the memory sub-system in the new LGA 2011 platforms is certainly DDR3 SDRAM frequency. This parameter has a great effect on the overall system performance than the number of channel, and a much greater effect than the latencies. Therefore, you should pay special attention to this particular parameter while shopping around for memory for your LGA 2011 system. In fact, this is no news at this point: the same priority was in place for other platforms with DDR3 SDRAM, too. The overclocker memory makers are well aware of this that is why they have given up the hunt for lower timings and are focusing mostly on hitting higher frequencies.

LGA 2011 platform favors memory overclocking and allows achieving stability at pretty high DDR3 speeds. Now that the prices on DIMM modules are crashing down, it is a good chance for the manufacturers to make some money off their more expensive elite DDR3 kits. However, don’t be misled by aggressive marketing. The importance of high memory frequency, which we stated earlier, is a relative factor. In fact, the Sandy Bridge-E platform performance only depend so much on the memory frequency and even if you put in the fastest memory out there, you gain may not exceed a few percent. So, we suggest investing into expensive high-speed memory in the end, when all other system components have been upgraded to the ideal choices.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Boulard83

Ouep, voilà qui confirme les tests préliminaires faits à ce sujet à la sortie du chipset.