Core i7 4960X processor review

Posted on: 09/03/2013 08:05 AM

---

Really nice memory performance.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 08:09 AM

---

Yes, but falls down everywhere else. Seem the i7-4770K would be the more sensible choice as it's faster in every other test. Of course, the ideal thing would be to couple the i7-4770K with (at least) DDR3-2133, and then overclock it

Posted on: 09/03/2013 08:38 AM

---

glad to see that my purchase of the 3770k is still holding up very nicely. Those memory speeds are incredible though.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 08:44 AM

---

I agree, insane is better word. Now 16xxx MB/s on my i7-920 OC'ed to 4.01GHz paired with 6x Patriot 4GB 1866 CL9 (Triple Channel) looks so f**king small

Posted on: 09/03/2013 09:12 AM

---

Oh boy! Finally an A-List product review.

While I wish the 4930k was included too, I will really enjoy this when I read it later on.

Thank you Hilbert.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 09:26 AM

---

Looks nice but 'im going to keep my 3930K for awhile,thx for the review

Posted on: 09/03/2013 10:04 AM

---

Thanks, is 4820K review missing OC part?



___________________________________






hm i7 4960x is very hot at only 4.6Ghz @ 1.45v, makes me wonder did they really use proper soldering or not.. Also power consumption, I thought it would be much lower on IB-e



Edit: i checked anadtech and he couldnt even get it to 4.6ghz

Posted on: 09/03/2013 10:37 AM

---

I think it's time to retire FarCry2 and Crysis2 from the benchmark suite. (review says "New in the CPU benchmark suite is Crysis 2.")

Crysis3 is about the only title that would've shown the potential of a 6core so really needs to be there instead of Crysis2.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 10:43 AM

---

There's some disparity on the AIDA memory readings. Sandra seems to give a better figure, which is missing for some reason.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 10:54 AM

---

Well, as far I as I can there is absolutely no point in me upgrading from my 3970X as the performance boosts wouldn't even be noticeable when gaming. Think i'll wait for X99 and Haswell E

Posted on: 09/03/2013 10:57 AM

---

Yup same - there is absolutely no point in upgrading until X99.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 11:02 AM

---

Kinda expected. I still find 4770k best choice out there.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 11:12 AM

---

I dropped Sandra for memory testing, with each massive update the tool scores change as well. So that it unfortunately is not reliable/consistent enough.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 11:35 AM

---

So it performs as expected which is the same scenario since the 2600k.

10% increase in IPC with each release. 2700k+10%=3770k+10%=4770k
And now 4960X is again 10% over the previous gen.

Hitting some kind of a wall there? Where are the true advances in technology? But hey they need to milk us really good don't they.

Biggest competitor a 5 year old platform with a 3 year old CPU. Oh please...

Stop releasing every year and focused on providing something truly groundbreaking ffs. Oh yeah, we got Skylake. In 2 years....

I know my comment isn't exactly 100% spot on some things, but I had to get this out. I feel a bit better now.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 12:07 PM

---

Great review as always Hill.

Those Cinbench figures are off the chain!

Posted on: 09/03/2013 12:17 PM

---

Ít says in the conclusion that the OC was giving him crash at boot!

Posted on: 09/03/2013 01:01 PM

---

So it performs as expected which is the same scenario since the 2600k.

10% increase in IPC with each release. 2700k+10%=3770k+10%=4770k
And now 4960X is again 10% over the previous gen.

Hitting some kind of a wall there? Where are the true advances in technology? But hey they need to milk us really good don't they.

Biggest competitor a 5 year old platform with a 3 year old CPU. Oh please...

Stop releasing every year and focused on providing something truly groundbreaking ffs. Oh yeah, we got Skylake. In 2 years....

I know my comment isn't exactly 100% spot on some things, but I had to get this out. I feel a bit better now.

No you are dead right mate, this is the problem now, they ground tech to a halt because they realize why release something which is 20-30% better, when they can release something 10% better, get all the sales from that, then move to the next minimal increment, (as small as they can realistically get away with) it's a total utter scam, utter rip off, they are playing us for fools, and it works because the majority are.

Technology is showing this pattern more and more in so many different areas but PC hardware is one of the very worse.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 01:06 PM

---

So the 4820K is $30 cheaper than a 4770K yet it only performs around 2-3% slower. It will be overclockable once we get a better BIOS, the quad channel memory reads are just insane, it can drive SLI/Crossfire better thanks to 40 Pcie lanes....?

People here seem pretty blind, to me the better choice is without a doubt the 4820K, I was going to get a 4770K near the end of the year but now I am starting to think the 4820K would be a much better option in the long run. I mean are we really going to argue about the difference between 250fps and 248fps???

Posted on: 09/03/2013 01:11 PM

---

No you are dead right mate, this is the problem now, they ground tech to a halt because they realize why release something which is 20-30% better, when they can release something 10% better, get all the sales from that, then move to the next minimal increment, (as small as they can realistically get away with) it's a total utter scam, utter rip off, they are playing us for fools, and it works because the majority are.

Technology is showing this pattern more and more in so many different areas but PC hardware is one of the very worse.

I don't know why is that bothering you? Do you love spending 500$ on CPU/MB/RAM every year? I don't think so...

You got 3930k and now enjoy two years until Skylake and DDR4. It gives you chance to upgrade something that really matters more often, like a GPU.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 02:35 PM

---

I'm good with my "980X" for a while yet.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 02:36 PM

---

Only the memmory is impressive. Other than that not much of a reason to upgrade from my 2600k.

I don't know why is that bothering you? Do you love spending 500$ on CPU/MB/RAM every year? I don't think so...

You got 3930k and now enjoy two years until Skylake and DDR4. It gives you chance to upgrade something that really matters more often, like a GPU.

Don't bother he would complain if his balls were stuck in a gold vice. Look at his rig he complains about how expensive these enthusiast parts are then goes out and buys the most expensive ones he can find.

By th way were is that one guy I was talking to that said there is no way intel will price an IB-e cheaper than the 4770k? How's that crow taste?

Posted on: 09/03/2013 03:08 PM

---

Nvm.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 03:20 PM

---

So the 4820K is $30 cheaper than a 4770K yet it only performs around 2-3% slower. It will be overclockable once we get a better BIOS, the quad channel memory reads are just insane, it can drive SLI/Crossfire better thanks to 40 Pcie lanes....?

People here seem pretty blind, to me the better choice is without a doubt the 4820K, I was going to get a 4770K near the end of the year but now I am starting to think the 4820K would be a much better option in the long run. I mean are we really going to argue about the difference between 250fps and 248fps???

There is also the fact that down the road if you feel the need you can always look for a deal on a 4930k giving 4820k users an extension path (rather than upgrade) for the future. I agree, while Haswell's IPC might be slightly better, the limitations of PCIe lanes, memory bandwidth, and heat due to the IHS far outweigh the little advantage it has with IPC. There is also the fact that it isn't jerry rigged with a PLX chip like the z77/87 chipsets have been. So the latency upon addition of another one-two GPUs encountered with the PLX chip wont be so on the x79 platform.

Kind of like the 3930k, sure it's single threaded performance isn't as good as Ivy or haswell but it's by no means bad and i'd gladly trade some single threaded performance (we're talking 5-10%) for two more cores. Currently i don't do anything but game, but we're looking to a multi-threaded future the new consoles are evident of that.

Since i'm going multi-GPU either way thinking of selling my 3570k and G1.Sniper3 to go X79. Might just go the yard and get the 4930k and be done with it.

I think it's time to retire FarCry2 and Crysis2 from the benchmark suite. (review says "New in the CPU benchmark suite is Crysis 2.")

Crysis3 is about the only title that would've shown the potential of a 6core so really needs to be there instead of Crysis2.

Agreed as well, for gaming CPU test i think Crysis 3 should become somewhat of the standard until something else comes along.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 03:22 PM

---

No you are dead right mate, this is the problem now, they ground tech to a halt because they realize why release something which is 20-30% better, when they can release something 10% better, get all the sales from that, then move to the next minimal increment, (as small as they can realistically get away with) it's a total utter scam, utter rip off, they are playing us for fools, and it works because the majority are.

Technology is showing this pattern more and more in so many different areas but PC hardware is one of the very worse.

On what planet do you guys live?

With Haswell, Intel was able to decrease power usage by an insane amount while keep the speed either the same or faster even. Increasing battery life in notebooks by over 40% is not something that to be sneered at. It's insane to think that a dual core Haswell is more power efficient than the A6X (ARM based) CPU in the iPad4; if that is not "groundbreaking" to you then you have ridiculous expectations.

Guess what, the enthusiast market doesn't drive decisions at a $111 Billion dollar company, sorry.

Posted on: 09/03/2013 03:31 PM

---

I knew the performance was going to be similar to the core I7 3960X so no problems there but i was expecting a better overclocking potencial. Can´t wait to see the OC results of the 4820K that seems to me to be a very interesting chip and cheaper than the 4770K!

Also i think i´ve noticed two small mistakes on the 4820K article:

In page 2 says that the 4820K is a quad core chip with 15mb of L3 cache but the chip should have 10mb of L3 cache.

And in page 5 says that the 4820K is a six core chip capable of handling 12 12 threads...

A great article as always!