Is a 3960X Thaat much better than a similary clocked 2600K?

[Chi11ed]

Ok, my wondering, for us OCers who do not have extremely deep pockets, and have to spend our money wisely to get the best bang for buck, is a 3960X that much better than a 2600K?

I currently have a 2600K (5.63Ghz), on a Maximus IV Gene-Z and am wondering, should i be saving and scraping my cents together to get a 3960X??? Other than wPrime, vantage and AM3, Will it have that much of an advantage over a 2600K at the same clock? Should i rather spend some cash binning 2600K's for a 5.8+?

 

Or how does the 3930K compare(at half the price of the 3960X)?

 

Im also seeing the 3960X's are not Ocing as high as 2600K's, looking like 5.4 - 5.5Ghz is a good chip, whereas in 2600K's, your aiming for 5.7 - 5.8Ghz. Maybe the 3960X just need to clear a few batches and they will go higher???

 

What are your guys thoughs and opinions here??

[Massman]

The generally accepted that an i7 3960X is only beneficial for 3DMark Vantage and 3DMark11 at this point. As long as the clocks won't go up, the chip will be slower than Sandy Bridge (in most benchmarks) and Gulftown (in some benchmarks).

 

3930K is pretty similar to 3960X (you hardly noticed the difference in cache), but is said to have more potential for higher clocks due to higher leakage.

[Chi11ed]

Wow thanks, So maybe keep my 2600K(bin a couple more for a few more mhz), or if i upgrade my bench rig, on a budget, 3930K is the route to go for benching.

 

Thanks Massman.

[Massman]

For SB-E, I'd wait for a couple of silicon respins. Most of the OCs that you see today are done with either ES or early retail samples, so the overclock is pretty similar. For SB, it took a few months before we got to 5.8 or even 6G as well.

[Splave]

2011 has been fun but for 24/7 totally not worth the cost in the least bit

[Splave]

3930K is pretty similar to 3960X (you hardly noticed the difference in cache), but is said to have more potential for higher clocks due to higher leakage.

 

is this true? source?

[xoqolatl]

I'm 90% sure there's no rule about leakage distribution between SKUs... they are probably binned for fitting the power/clock requirements, not for failing them; so if a CPU fits in 3930K bin it might fit in 3960 as well, but it becomes a 3930K anyway. They might also be sorted into different cache sizes after optical inspection, but that doesn't depend on leakage as well.

[Massman]

It's normal that you will scan and use the highest quality silicon for your highest SKU. Lower leakage = higher quality. So, Intel will use the highest leakage chips for the 3960X SKU.

 

At least at release date; I'm sure that as product ages, more depends on what the market demands rather than silicon quality. So top quality silicon, that usually would be reserved for top sku, would be used for other products because the demand is higher.

[K404]

I think you're all overstating the binning process. The ONLY difference is the cache.... liable to faults/ yield problems? A deliberate attempt to give a REAL reason to buy the more expensive chip, given that there's a partially unlocked chip for a lot less money?

 

It's been a long time since there was a spec difference between the top chip and the next one down.

 

Realistically, there will be VERY FEW chips that could not be sold as 3960X if the demand was that high. We all know yield is a large part of final spec. The easier it is to hit XYZ MHz, the higher the yield is. Intel are NOT pushing the silicon anywhere near it's limit.

Edited November 18, 2011 by K404

[Chi11ed]

Intel are NOT pushing the silicon anywhere near it's limit.

 

Haha, Exactly why were here

 

On that note though, so you are saying that if you are on a bit of a budget, a 3930K will in general keep up, or at least not do badly at all vs a 3960X. Both will OC very similarly, nad have similar limits, its just really the 3mb cache difference for stock users and extreme overclockers, for almost double the price.....