Gaming Performance

Gaming performance across the board echoes what we've already seen a lot of - the 3820 shows marginal gains over the 2600K.

Civilization V

Civ V's lateGameView benchmark presents us with two separate scores: average frame rate for the entire test as well as a no-render score that only looks at CPU performance.

Civilization V - 1680 x 1050 - DX11 High Quality

Civilization V - 1680 x 1050 - DX11 High Quality

Crysis: Warhead

Crysis Warhead Assault Benchmark - 1680 x 1050 Mainstream DX10 64-bit

Dawn of War II

Dawn of War II - 1680 x 1050 - Ultra Settings

DiRT 3

We ran two DiRT 3 benchmarks to get an idea for CPU bound and GPU bound performance. First the CPU bound settings:

DiRT 3 - Aspen Benchmark - 1024 x 768 Low Quality

DiRT 3 - Aspen Benchmark - 1920 x 1200 High Quality

Metro 2033

Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark - 1024 x 768 - DX11 High Quality

Metro 2033 Frontline Benchmark - 1920 x 1200 - DX11 High Quality

Starcraft 2

Starcraft 2

World of Warcraft

World of Warcraft

Windows 7 Application Performance Power Consumption
POST A COMMENT

83 Comments

View All Comments

  • Tetracycloide - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    I like the way you think. Reply
  • vectorm12 - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    I doubt the extra PCI-e lanes have a tangible real-world benefit when gaming to be honest.

    However if you use the cards mainly for compute I in no way doubt there's potential for a massive performance increase to be had as shown by the 7970 review.

    All in all I consider SNB-E to be a gigantic letdown as it really doesn't cater to enthusiasts as much as to workstation users.

    Considering the cost of the platform I doubt one of the lower tier XEON platforms wouldn't be more cost-efficient in the long run, considering ECC RAM etc.
    Reply
  • thunderising - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    Was expecting more improvements from this TOCK of Intel's Reply
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    Ivy Bridge is right round the corner. Is anyone really buying a new system at the moment? Reply
  • piroroadkill - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    Obviously there's a place at the very high end for the 6-core part, but a 4-core part at this level is pointless. Anyone who wanted a system of this performance already bought a 2500 or 2600K and overclocked the balls off it, so for those people, nothing less than Ivy Bridge or beyond will do.

    Beats me.
    Reply
  • AssBall - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    Well... This chip might get really interesting once we get the pricing numbers for Ivy Bridge. It is a solid chip I would consider if equivalent Ivy Bridge is priced high. I don't see any reason for Intel not to price Ivy Bridge highly either. They can compete with AMD on their lower end parts. Reply
  • Denithor - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    Anyone who needs large amounts of RAM without the cost of 8GB sticks would be happy with this option. 8x4GB is much much cheaper than 4x8GB... Reply
  • Roland00Address - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    4gb sticks of ddr3 memory is about $3 to $4 dollars per gb
    8gb sticks of ddr3 memory is about $9 dollars per gb. These stick prices have gone down in price recently to much more reasonable levels.
    Reply
  • Denithor - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    Well, even at that rate it's still a considerable savings:

    8x 4GB x $4/GB = $128
    4x 8GB x $9/GB = $288

    For a net savings of ~$160. Which, combined with the lower price on the chip, would completely offset the increased cost of the motherboard.

    Plus, if 32GB just isn't enough, you could go 8x8GB which you simply cannot do on SB/IB setups (only ship with 4 physical RAM slots).
    Reply
  • 14ccKemiskt - Thursday, December 29, 2011 - link

    Well spoken! Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now