Originally Posted by sdlvx
I am not going to lie, I do not like FX 9590 and Intel EEs, but I do enjoy watching you guys rage as you run into your huge predicament. Always bash AMD for having slow single thread, $1000+ Intel loses in single thread to $200 Intel CPU, you guys can do nothing but "OMG UR SO DUM EE IS FASTEST CPU EVER!!"
How is it the fastest ever if it can lose to 4670k?
I also find it interesting that EE has a hard time in the same places that AMD usually does. Maybe I can actually get some of you to realize that someone could easily just cherry pick the benchmarks where 3960x loses, declare it loses 8/10 benchmarks, and then say it sucks.
SB-E was never meant to beat even the mainstream 2600k in single thread performance when it was released, of course it will lose to a 4770K or even a 4670K. However, with all 6C/12T being utilized, it will be the fastest chip around.
Now the 3960X (or the 3970X) has a terrible price/performance especially when you consider the 3930K, even intel fans will tell you that. Dosn't change the fact that intel at least equiped their most expensive chip with extra L3 cache(15mb over 12mb), instead of just a frequency bump (or factory OC). Back at launch, this was intel's reasoning behind the price:
2500K 4 cores / 4 threads - 6mb cache - 3.3 ghz base 3.7 ghz turbo - U$250,00
2600K 4 cores / 8 threads - 8mb cache - 3.4 ghz base 3.8 ghz turbo - U$350,00
3930K 6 cores / 12 threads - 12mb cache - 3.3 ghz base 3.8 ghz turbo - U$600,00
3960X 6 cores / 12 threads - 15mb cache - 3.3 ghz base 3.9 ghz turbo - U$1000,00
And this is AMD's prices
FX 8320 8 cores / 4 modules - 8mb cache - 3.5ghz base 4.0 ghz turbo - U$169,00
FX 8350 8 cores / 4 modules - 8mb cache - 4.0ghz base 4.2 ghz turbo - U$199,00
FX 9370 8 cores / 4 modules - 8mb cache - 4.4ghz base 4.7 ghz turbo - U$350,00 (newegg)
FX 9590 8 cores / 4 modules - 8mb cache - 4.7ghz base 5.0 ghz turbo - U$899,00 (newegg)
These are the top 4 offerings from each brand in their generation (ignoring intel's non K chips). While you can make the argument that the price difference between the 3930k and the 3960x is stupid (and it is), what AMD did can't and shouldn't be compared to intel's model. For one simple reason, with AMD you can purchase a 169,00 dollar CPU and overclock it to the same performance of their 899,00 dollar CPU in every application out there, the same can't be said for intel's line... while for games and apps utilizing up to 4 threads, a 2500k would perform near the same level of a 3960X, as soon as you increase the thread count, the difference becomes clear.
Just going to post one image of a cinebench test to illustrate that (ignore the AMD entries, I know the benchmark is intel optimized and all that, just compare the intel CPUs)
In short, comparing same gens, a 2600k OC'd to 5ghz was still slower than a 3930K at stock, when you compare both at stock and both at max OC considering air/AIO coolers, the 3930k will destroy the 2600k in heavily threaded apps. While the FX 9590 will behave - from all the reviews out there - exactly as a 8320/8350 clocked to match the 9590 numbers.
Sure, you can't guarantee every FX 8320 will actually reach a stable 5.0ghz clock, and while guaranteeing that performance is considered a premium, it does not add a 700 dollar value to the product, not even close to that as you could do it yourself with time and patience buying / selling chips taking a small hit per transaction until you found one that did.
That's my take on it, anyway.