It's a bit disappointing but not unexpected, it was the same thing with 2600k - 3770k. I'm really looking forward towards haswell-e and beyond, it's about time that the industry pushes for raw performance again,

I don't know why is that bothering you? Do you love spending 500$ on CPU/MB/RAM every year? I don't think so...

No but it's stagnating to the point that by the time this 2600K breaks we still haven't reached a decent increment. When I upgrade I like it to be worthwhile.

Second; the 4960K is 50% faster in Monte Carlo Sim, not 100%.

Now I'm no mathematician

Yep.

If a CPU can do twice as much for the same amount of time, its called a 100% increase. CPU A - completes a test in 12.6 sec CPU B - completes ( a test in 6.3 sec ) 2 tests in 12.6 = does twice as much for some amount of time = 100% increase. Maybe that's easier for you to understand.

LOL, you are actually right there. I took the numbers the wrong way (from 6 to 12 instead of 12 to 6). My math teacher would whip me right now for such a comical mistake. I stand corrected there. The rest of the post still stands.

But you didn't. That chart is comparing time... Finishing a job in half the time ( 50% less time ) means it can do 2x, or 100%, more for the same amount of time.

Your both idiots. I'm an Engineer this is my job. If you don't believe me look at the benchmark; Anand already commented the 4770 which completed the bench in 9 secs is 33% faster than 4960k that took 6 secs.

6s is 33% less time than 9s. But 9s is 50% more time than 6s. So for 9s 4960x will able to complete 1.5 test's ( 50% more ) than 4770. @

8350 completed the bench in 12 secs, Intel did it in 6 secs which is HALF the time AMD took. That is 50% quicker not 100%. 100% would be 0.00 seconds. Is this starting to make sense?

No, half the time is 100% quicker. Completing the test in half the time, 6.3s = completing 2 tests ( 100% more ) in 12.6s. Finishing a job for 0.00 sec, would mean It's infinitely faster than anything governed by the physical laws of this universe. Not 100% faster. Everything takes time, 100% less time ( take all the time away ) is instant, or infinitely fast. Thus, you just presented yourself the reason why your way of looking at the numbers is completely flawed. Pill, back to elementary bro.

^Sure 6.3s is half of 12.6s, which is 50% less time. And that's the time 4960x needs to complete the test. Which means, It can complete twice as many ( 100% more ) tests in 12.6s. Making it twice as, or 100% faster than 8350. ( which can only complete a single test in 12.6s ).

Except that it didn't take 12 seconds and if it had then the 8350 would have taken 24 which means they would both still would be doing the same amount of work. You can theorize all you want but it won't change the facts.

oh my god, you're clueless. I'll quote myself :

Pill, back to elementary bro.

Oh wow, your edited post is even more amazing. Don't think I've read something this stupid in years. Brings back memories of stupid kids at school. Sort of funny and sad at the same time...

I'm clueless, lol that's rich. No idea what you're quoting but please don't ever become an hardware tester. Btw, tell me - do all trolls hail from Serbia or only 99.9% of them? 😉 I'm out of this discussion. Bye Bye.

Don't ever become an Engineer please. Oh wait... Yep, even here, 99.9% are just like You.

Pointless gaming tests. You should have tested the minimum framerates, because that is affected by CPU memory performance. Testing average framerates was completely pointless, it was obvious the results would be identical to similar CPUs. Has anobody seen quad-channel gaming tests with minimum framerates?