Application and Futuremark Performance

What we're essentially trying to gauge here is how an Ivy Bridge processor with reduced overclocking headroom compares to a Sandy Bridge chip with lower IPC and higher clocks. In the process, we can also see how both of them compare to chips with lower IPC and extra cores (specifically Gulftown and Sandy Bridge-E).

Futuremark PCMark 7

Futuremark PCMark Vantage

Out of the gate the PCMarks are both responding well, but I suspect that may also be due to the Intel SSD employed in this Erebus GT. It may still be using SandForce's controller, but it's Intel's firmware. Whatever the case, for general use the new Erebus GT screams through PCMarks, delivering a 7% increase in PCMark 7 and 12% in Vantage compared to the previous model.

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R10

3D Rendering - CINEBENCH R11.5

Video Encoding - x264

Video Encoding - x264

Looking at the CPU-dependent benchmarks may or may not be troubling, depending on your perspective. From the looks of things, Ivy Bridge's improved IPC is almost entirely mitigated by its reduced overclocking headroom. The IVB Erebus GT is a scant 2% faster in most of our CPU tests, with the SNB variant actually taking a slight 1% lead in Cinebench 11.5. What's interesting is that on the CPU side, even overclocking and increased IPC still doesn't bridge the gap between Intel's quad cores and their hexacores; the i7-990X still runs wild in any task that can take advantage of the extra cores.

Futuremark 3DMark 11

Futuremark 3DMark Vantage

Futuremark 3DMark06

What can we take away from the 3DMark results? 3DMark06 is always going to be CPU-limited (and probably should be deprecated at this point), but in 3DMark Vantage's older workload we see a pair of GTX 680s essentially equaling the performance of two GTX 590s. That's two current generation GPUs hitting stride with four of last generation's. When you get to 3DMark11, the GTX 680s just run away with it. This is important, remember it, because it's going to come up again when we get to power consumption.

Re-Introducing the iBuyPower Erebus GT Gaming Performance
POST A COMMENT

64 Comments

View All Comments

  • fastman696 - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    A single 680 to compair to the 7970 would have been nice to see! Reply
  • Sabresiberian - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    I agree that it would have been interesting, but I understand too why we didn't see it in this review, which was about systems built by iBUYPOWER and others, and not a direct GPU to GPU comparison test.

    ;)
    Reply
  • Wreckage - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    680 is upwards of 20% faster than a 7970. Reply
  • CherryBOMB - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    or at least 2x 7970's in crossfire. Reply
  • Stabgotham - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    Curious how the temps fared with the custom setup... Reply
  • Stabgotham - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    At full load, I mean.... Reply
  • Dustin Sklavos - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    They're there. Look at the max in the HWMonitor caps. Reply
  • seanleeforever - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    hi Dustin
    is there a reason why you guys review this machine as oppose to, say HP Z1, you know, something every one can buy instead of IBuyPower which only servers US market to the best of my knowledge. is there something so special about iBuyPower systems that you guys just feel the need to cover all of their products?
    Reply
  • Hourglasss - Friday, April 27, 2012 - link

    Ibuypower probably sends them the machines to review, HP probably doesn't. That simple. It's not a conspiracy. Reply
  • Dustin Sklavos - Saturday, April 28, 2012 - link

    Basically. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now