32 Replies Latest reply on Dec 3, 2011 7:50 PM by Jim_Simon

    2700K vs 3930K

    Jim_Simon Level 9

      Right now, I think the above is the most interesting comparison for new system builders.  The former is a little cheaper, the latter may well be faster, but enough to justify the price difference?

       

      The problem is that it's difficult to find these two processors in a head-to-head with several relevant apps.  I found a couple sites that list a Cinebench comparison, and the 3930K performed a decent amount better.  But I'd love to see more video and audio benchmarks of these two processors at stock speeds.  If anyone comes across a site that has done such testing, please post.

        • 1. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
          Scott Chichelli Level 3

          considering the 2600k @ 4.5 vs the 3960X @ 4.5GHz only yeilded 10% increase (3930k would OC to the same speeeds)

          it would come down to if you really needed the extra PCie lanes (which most dont)

           

          stock for stock should yeild about the same difference.

           

          now with heavy projects i think we would see a larger difference due to the 2 extra cores

           

          Scott

          ADK

          • 2. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
            Harm Millaard Level 7

            Scott,

             

            I would have assumed you to say that the i7-2600K is faster than the i7-990X by now and also faster than the i7-3930K and just about equal to the 3960X, in fact I expected you to say the i7-2600K is the 'King of Performance' and everybody else is plain wrong.

            And that number of PCIe lanes is completely irrelevant as are the number of DIMM slots. And there is no performance gain to be expected from the move from PCIe-2.0 to PCIe-3.0. Maybe you will confirm that.

            • 3. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
              RjL190365 Level 4

              Still, the potential is available in LGA 2011 for those who are willing to spend a lot of money on additional components. If, for example, someone building or configuring a system is sticking with three or four hard drives and will not be using a discrete RAID card, then LGA 2011 would be a waste of money. And the fastest current GPUs barely take full advantage of even PCI-e 2.0 x8, let alone x16. By that same token, someone with an i7-3930K or an i7-3960X should get at least a GTX 570 to remain balanced; otherwise, that platform will be limited by the GPU.

               

              So, going back to my statement in another thread:

               

              It is downright silly to go heavy on the GPU and light on the CPU. The converse also holds true, in this case: It is also downright silly to go heavy on the CPU but light on the GPU or disks. In other words, the more expensive platform really needs astronomically expensive components in order for it to achieve a worthwhile performance increase over a system based on a less expensive platform. Otherwise, a super-expensive CPU and motherboard equipped with a low- to mid-range GPU and a relatively simple drive subsystem would be a total waste of money.

               

              It is this latter fact that Scott isn't buying.

              • 4. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                Harm Millaard Level 7

                Agreed Randall.

                 

                If one only want to build a cheapo system with at most 5 disks in aid0 instead of a decent disk configuration, Scott is right. With a cheapo disk system, why spend more than a cheapo CPU?

                • 5. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                  Jim_Simon Level 9

                  should yeild about the same difference.

                   

                  Thanks but...honestly I'd prefer some actual benchmarks, rather than interpolated suppositions.  If you ever do this specific test, or come across a site that has, please let us know.

                  • 6. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                    Jim_Simon Level 9

                    will not be using a discrete RAID card, then LGA 2011 would be a waste of money.

                     

                    Well, that's what I'm trying to determine, but with actual benchmarks.  Yes, the 3930 is the more expensive option, but it's about 20% faster in the Cinebench multithread test.  That may well be worth the extra money for quite a few folks even if they don't need the extra lanes, assuming that lead holds up (or is bettered) in other video and audio apps.

                     

                    So...anyone seen those benchmarks?

                    • 7. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                      Crist OC/PC Level 2

                      Dear Jim

                       

                      I let you 2 videos so you learn a bit what is ram-cache

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cqfhZvyE80

                       

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywnXmC52UGg

                       

                      go for a 3930k or even whait for the 3820 "4core". X79 IS A FANTASTIC plataform from my point of view.

                      • 8. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                        RjL190365 Level 4

                        As I stated, the potential is there in that platform for those who are willing to spend more than $5-6K on the rest of the system just to keep things in balance. And my previous PPBM5 tests with an i7-950 overclocked to 4GHz and an i7-2600K overclocked to only 3.8GHz proved that without a discrete RAID controller card, the additional capabilities of the more expensive platform are almost totally wasted: The 950 @ 4.0 GHz failed to outperform the 2600K @ 3.8 GHz when both systems were equipped with the same GTX 470 and the same two pairs of 7200 RPM 1TB disks in RAID 0 (which Harm calls "aid0").

                         

                        On the other hand, the X79 has a completely different onboard SATA RAID controller than the X58. So, maybe, things might improve on that platform for those who cannot afford a decent RAID system. In fact, ADK's PPBM5 testing bears this out: An i7-2600K with 16GB of RAM (the maximum cost-effective RAM amount for that platform), even overclocked to 4.6GHz, cannot achieve any faster overall results than a totally stock-speed i7-3960X with 32GB of RAM (the maximum cost-effective amount for X79 with eight DIMM slots) when both systems are running CS5.5. And ADK's overclocked results clearly show just how limited four hard disks in two aid0 arrays really are in terms of performance. The X79's onboard RAID might perform better in a four-disk RAID 5 configuration than previous Intel ICH/PCH implementations did in RAID 5 mode.

                        • 9. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                          Scott Chichelli Level 3

                          Harm Millaard wrote:

                           

                          Scott,

                           

                          I would have assumed you to say that the i7-2600K is faster than the i7-990X by now and also faster than the i7-3930K and just about equal to the 3960X,

                          you know what they say about asuming....

                           

                          th 2600k/2700k OC to the same so much for that... already posted the 3690 beats older gen, already posted the 3930k ocs to the same as the 3960.

                          therefor it would not make sense...

                          • 10. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                            Scott Chichelli Level 3

                            Harm Millaard wrote:

                             

                            Agreed Randall.

                             

                            If one only want to build a cheapo system with at most 5 disks in aid0 instead of a decent disk configuration, Scott is right. With a cheapo disk system, why spend more than a cheapo CPU?

                            and again Harm Most users do not need a large raid array (unless they want redundacy) and even that should be backed up...

                            in fact i would say of all the systems we sell, a large raid array is only in 15% of them (guessing but close)

                             

                            realistically the cost between the 2700k and 3930k is pretty nominal

                            $300 on the processor and about $100 on the board.

                            for $400 i know what i would buy. but to some $400 is a breaking point. plus to make it worth it (unless doing animation etc) you have to buy the raid card and 8 enterprise drives

                             

                            whats funny Harm is YOU dont need the raid array you have... nor do most others.

                            • 11. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                              Scott Chichelli Level 3

                              Jim Simon wrote:

                               

                              will not be using a discrete RAID card, then LGA 2011 would be a waste of money.

                               

                              Well, that's what I'm trying to determine, but with actual benchmarks.  Yes, the 3930 is the more expensive option, but it's about 20% faster in the Cinebench multithread test.  That may well be worth the extra money for quite a few folks even if they don't need the extra lanes, assuming that lead holds up (or is bettered) in other video and audio apps.

                               

                              So...anyone seen those benchmarks?

                              HI Jim,

                              cinebech should be retired its a useless test that rarely show true in real world tests including those softwares used in it..

                              the same test that shows Quadros in a better light than GTX xxx.. surely you wont debate that one?

                               

                              i wil have Eric run the default speed on the 3930k, just curious why dont you do an OC? you read these forums you know the benefits of an OCed processor...

                              and how many have stable systems..

                              • 12. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                Jim_Simon Level 9
                                i wil have Eric run the default speed on the 3930k

                                 

                                Thanks, dude.  Any chance I can get you guys to do the same with a stock speed 2700K?

                                 

                                 

                                just curious why dont you do an OC?

                                 

                                Not saying I won't.  I just like to eliminate variables in benchmarks.  Always start with stock speeds, then add the overclocking tests if you wish.  But they're an option, the stock speeds are the standard.

                                • 13. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                  Jim_Simon Level 9

                                  for $400 i know what i would buy.

                                   

                                  That's what I'm trying to get at.  Is that $400 worth it, even if you don't need the extra PCI-E lanes?  Is the E fast enough to justify that extra $400.  In the end, that will be a personal decision.  But it's a decision that should be based on direct comparison benchmarks.

                                  • 14. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                    Jim_Simon Level 9

                                    cinebech should be retired its a useless test that rarely show true in real world tests

                                     

                                    That's why I'm looking for others - PP, Audition, Photoshop, x264, AE, MainConcept, Lame, etc.

                                    • 15. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                      Harm Millaard Level 7

                                      whats funny Harm is YOU dont need the raid array you have... nor do most others.

                                       

                                      And how can you know? You don't have any idea of what I do, so I think you are talking like a 'Kip zonder kop', a beheaded chicken.

                                      • 16. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                        Scott Chichelli Level 3

                                        Thanks for the laugh! I envisioned the chicken… J

                                        • 19. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                          RjL190365 Level 4

                                          and again Harm Most users do not need a large raid array (unless they want redundacy) and even that should be backed up...

                                          in fact i would say of all the systems we sell, a large raid array is only in 15% of them (guessing but close)

                                           

                                          realistically the cost between the 2700k and 3930k is pretty nominal

                                          $300 on the processor and about $100 on the board.

                                          for $400 i know what i would buy. but to some $400 is a breaking point. plus to make it worth it (unless doing animation etc) you have to buy the raid card and 8 enterprise drives

                                           

                                          whats funny Harm is YOU dont need the raid array you have... nor do most others.

                                          Actually, even that depends on the workflow. Most consumers (as opposed to professionals and even some prosumers) do not need a large RAID array because the formats that they work with needs a fast CPU but not so much in the way of disk I/O bandwidth. Pros and some prosumers really do need both a fast CPU and high disk I/O throughput (in fact, faster than any three-disk aid0 can provide) because they are working with formats that have both high resolution and high video bandwidth and also because some NLEs automatically convert compressed video to uncompressed RGB and then back at editing level. A two-disk aid0 is hardly sufficient for uncompressed HD work (some NLEs automatically convert compressed HD video to uncompressed at editing level) even if the two disks in that aid0 are the fastest drives currently on the market.

                                          • 20. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                            Harm Millaard Level 7

                                            I saw you and laughed my head off.

                                             

                                            Seriously, along Randall's remarks, try to edit a mix of RED 4K, uncompressed, XF 422 and AVCIntra100 in a multitrack sequence off a 2-disk aid0 and compare that to my raid. No matter how fast your i7-2600K is, and according to you it is about the best, you will still be seriously bottlenecked. Not on your simple AVCHD test sequence, that you often refer to, but a real life project with these sources using 8-12 tracks and around 10 hours of source material and you can imagine an aid0 is seriously underpowered.

                                            • 21. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                              Scott Chichelli Level 3

                                              As usual going around in circles..

                                               

                                              As I have said 100 times red4k, uncompressed 4:4:4 etc need a big raid..

                                               

                                              The majority of users do NOT have the required workflow for a large raid

                                               

                                              How do I know? Based on my clients who range from the hobbyist to very large corp clients

                                               

                                              (most are Professional or prosummer)

                                               

                                               

                                               

                                              again the majority are more than fine with 2x 2 set raid 0 and a decent back up schedule and do not need nor are required

                                               

                                              to spend $ on absurd raid arrays they will never need.

                                               

                                              And again I am keeping animators out of this (they are better off with SSDs anyway and dual Xeons)

                                               

                                               

                                               

                                              And you harm from what I know are not in the red4k crowd… J

                                               

                                               

                                               

                                              Thanks

                                               

                                              Scott

                                              • 22. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                RjL190365 Level 4

                                                Agreed, Harm. Multiple layers of video from sources that are all taxing on disk I/O bandwidth can choke even a four-disk aid0 (meaning four disks all in a single drive letter). And some of those formats even require the fastest of CPUs. And yes, professionals and some prosumers work with that many layers of disk-taxing (and often CPU-taxing) video formats.

                                                 

                                                With that said, I am tempted to break apart all of my aid0s and run all of the hard drives in my possession as individual, non-aid0 disks...

                                                • 23. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                  Jim_Simon Level 9

                                                  Hey Scott, just checking back to see if you guys have had a chance to pit the 3930K against a 2700K in your tests yet?

                                                  • 24. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                    Scott Chichelli Level 3

                                                    I will check with eric

                                                    • 25. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                      RjL190365 Level 4

                                                      By the way, I found two results with an i7-2600K (the step below the i7-2700K) running with a top-end Areca RAID card and CS5.5. These results are barely any faster overall than my system with two 2-disk aid0 arrays on the onboard Intel SATA controller; however, those two systems are running RAID 5 (which is almost always slower than RAID 3 due to the additional latencies in accessing distributed parity data) and are equipped with reference GTX 560s (which might have been the biggest bottleneck on those two systems when it comes to HD-to-SD transcoding using MPE GPU acceleration).

                                                      • 27. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                        Crist OC/PC Level 2

                                                        It look very nice. But to be honest base on architect of  the eve bridge will not be a processor for Overclock... putting in account how are the cores in the processor. =(

                                                        • 28. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                          Scott Chichelli Level 3

                                                          ummm based on past performance of intels tic/toc.

                                                          Ivy is a die shrink therefor lower TDP therfore better ability to OC.

                                                           

                                                          FYI the Ivy coming out in last first/early 2nd quater is the 1155 socket ivy NOT 2011...

                                                           

                                                          Scott

                                                          ADK

                                                          • 29. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                            Crist OC/PC Level 2

                                                            Scott

                                                            Im not talking about Socket, Im must focus on what is easy to cool from a physical point of view. You understand what I say Right? Inclusively I dare to ask what is your opinion.

                                                            Planar_vs_Tri-Gate-540x303.jpg

                                                            • 30. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                              Scott Chichelli Level 3

                                                              i think you over think...

                                                              trigate is cooler to begin with and part of doing it is to stop electron bleed (why Intel cant reach higher GHz)

                                                              will let you know around feb when i get my engineering samples..

                                                              • 31. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                                Crist OC/PC Level 2

                                                                Thx for your opinion.

                                                                 

                                                                B.R.

                                                                Cristobal Salas

                                                                • 32. Re: 2700K vs 3930K
                                                                  Jim_Simon Level 9

                                                                  Jim,

                                                                   

                                                                  This may be interesting:

                                                                   

                                                                  That is interesting.