Intel Core i7-4960X "Ivy Bridge-E" Performance Shows Up To 11 Percent Gain
We all love to see improvements in CPU performance generation to generation, and so we eagerly anticipate pitting the current top-of-the-line Intel Core offering, the Intel Core i7-3970X Sandy Bridge-E processor against an Ivy Bridge-E chip.
Apparently, someone already has, and the results show up to an 11% performance increase. A poster to Chinese site Coolaler, named Toppc, claims to have benchmarked the aforementioned Sandy Bridge-E chip to the upcoming Intel Core i7-4960X Ivy Bridge-E processor.
Sandy Bridge-E scores (click to enlarge)
Ivy Bridge-E scores (click to enlarge)
Toppc used Cinebench, CPUmark, Futuremark’s 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 06, and wPrime to see how the two performance against each other. You can see in the images how they did, but here are the scores (with the Sandy Bridge-E processor listed to the left):
Of course, this is all assuming that Toppc didn’t fake this in any way; but if it’s the real deal, the results are interesting.
Apparently, someone already has, and the results show up to an 11% performance increase. A poster to Chinese site Coolaler, named Toppc, claims to have benchmarked the aforementioned Sandy Bridge-E chip to the upcoming Intel Core i7-4960X Ivy Bridge-E processor.
;)
;)
;)
;)
Sandy Bridge-E scores (click to enlarge)
;)
;)
;)
;)
Ivy Bridge-E scores (click to enlarge)
Toppc used Cinebench, CPUmark, Futuremark’s 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark 06, and wPrime to see how the two performance against each other. You can see in the images how they did, but here are the scores (with the Sandy Bridge-E processor listed to the left):
Cinebench: 10.16 / 10.94
CPUmark: 533 / 561
3DMark Vantage CPU test 1 and 2: 5004.46 and 46.20 / 5337.40 and 51.47
3DMark 06 CPU score: 8099 / 8586
wPrime speed and stability: 5.01 and 149.167 seconds / 4.601 and 1138.169 seconds
CPUmark: 533 / 561
3DMark Vantage CPU test 1 and 2: 5004.46 and 46.20 / 5337.40 and 51.47
3DMark 06 CPU score: 8099 / 8586
wPrime speed and stability: 5.01 and 149.167 seconds / 4.601 and 1138.169 seconds
Of course, this is all assuming that Toppc didn’t fake this in any way; but if it’s the real deal, the results are interesting.
