Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [THG] 'Nehalem' 2.93 GHz Benches Revealed
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[THG] 'Nehalem' 2.93 GHz Benches Revealed - Page 4

post #31 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post
Why don't they just focus on 2 processor setups? Ok, the more cores we throw at it the more L2 cache we get. So, for the gaming world, why don't they just make a cheap dual core CPU, armed with a nice 4 GHz processor, and about 12 MB of L2 cache? Wouldn't that be cheaper than a quad core, perform heck of a lot faster, and would make a nice change in gaming history?
L2 cache is expensive. The cache makes up the bulk of the cost of the CPU.

With Core 3 (Nehalem) capable of achieving 96GB/s memory bandwidth (compared at 12.8GB/s on Core 2) you don't even need a whole lot of L2 cache.
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 39
I can't wait for Nehalem.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 3.24GHz w/ 1.36v (L724A760) Gigabyte P35-DS3R rev 1.0 EVGA GTX 285 1GB + ? BIOS (720c/1512s/1377m) 8GB G.Skill PQ @ 1000MHz 5-5-5-15 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x320GB 7200.11 Raid0 + 750GB 7200.11 for Storage Samsung SH-S203B Windows 7 Pro x64 Samsung T260HD 1920x1200 + Samsung 226BW 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse II PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750W Antec Nine Hundred Razer DeathAdder 
Mouse Pad
Razer Destructor 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 G0 @ 3.24GHz w/ 1.36v (L724A760) Gigabyte P35-DS3R rev 1.0 EVGA GTX 285 1GB + ? BIOS (720c/1512s/1377m) 8GB G.Skill PQ @ 1000MHz 5-5-5-15 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
2x320GB 7200.11 Raid0 + 750GB 7200.11 for Storage Samsung SH-S203B Windows 7 Pro x64 Samsung T260HD 1920x1200 + Samsung 226BW 1680x1050 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Saitek Eclipse II PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750W Antec Nine Hundred Razer DeathAdder 
Mouse Pad
Razer Destructor 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 39
They say that they are not hurting the enthusiast and they are ignoring the people who buy cheap hardware and match performance with higher end hardware, sounds like they are screwing people to me, they dont want people to match the higher performing 4 or 5 hundred dollar, or even the thousand dollar extreme chips with a couple hundred dollar q6600 or e8400. Thats screwing people if you ask me. Also whats the point of a quad core that doesnt perform that much better with 8 logical cores than a regular quad core? I think that this new platform may be a good idea financially for Intel and thats about it, its not helping the average consumer out one ioda, at least not yet. I personally will not be on board to spend well over 1200 dollars just for the board, cpu and ram to have limited ocing ability and im sure a buttload of bugs, as well as software/hardware incompatibilities.

I apoligize for venting, reading those posts from the supplied links got me quite heated.
Edited by Mattb2e - 7/10/08 at 11:15am
post #34 of 39
These things are going to run cool if they only need .86v@2.9GHz.
Main
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600@3.21GHz ASUS P5K-Deluxe 3870x2 4GB G.Skill PQs PC2-8000 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1.32TB RAID0 & 750GB Storage Vista Home Premium 64-bit ViewSonic 22" LCD x2 Microsoft Ergonomic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
SILVERSTONE ST1000 Rocket-Li Thingy Logitech G7 meh 
  hide details  
Reply
Main
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600@3.21GHz ASUS P5K-Deluxe 3870x2 4GB G.Skill PQs PC2-8000 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
1.32TB RAID0 & 750GB Storage Vista Home Premium 64-bit ViewSonic 22" LCD x2 Microsoft Ergonomic 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
SILVERSTONE ST1000 Rocket-Li Thingy Logitech G7 meh 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattb2e View Post
They say that they are not hurting the enthusiast and they are ignoring the people who buy cheap hardware and match performance with higher end hardware, sounds like they are screwing people to me, they dont want people to match the higher performing 4 or 5 hundred dollar, or even the thousand dollar extreme chips with a couple hundred dollar q6600 or e8400. Thats screwing people if you ask me. Also whats the point of a quad core that doesnt perform that much better with 8 logical cores than a regular quad core? I think that this new platform may be a good idea financially for Intel and thats about it, its not helping the average consumer out one ioda, at least not yet. I personally will not be on board to spend well over 1200 dollars just for the board, cpu and ram to have limited ocing ability and im sure a buttload of bugs, as well as software/hardware incompatibilities.

I apoligize for venting, reading those posts from the supplied links got me quite heated.
I am defintely not supporting what Intel is doing with the limited OCing. However I don't understand your about bugs and software incompatibilities? Since when has a new processor launch brought software incompatibilties and bugs? (Phenom TLB?)
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i7 2500k ASRock P67 Extreme4 Gen 3 AMD 7970 16GB DDR3 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Intel 520 256GB SATA DVD Burner Windows 7 64 bit Deal U2410 
KeyboardPowerMouse
Adesso Mechanical Silverstone OP650 Logitech G700 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
I am defintely not supporting what Intel is doing with the limited OCing. However I don't understand your about bugs and software incompatibilities? Since when has a new processor launch brought software incompatibilties and bugs? (Phenom TLB?)
Lol not the processor itself, the new board architecture, the X58, thats what I was referring to.
post #37 of 39
Given that the quad-core with 8 threads currently, on alpha silicon, performs nearly twice as well as a higher clocked kentsfield in the BOINC benchmarks, and that said alpha chips are already running fine in all kinds of benchmarks, I think the platform that launches in the fourth quarter will be very mature.
Small box
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 7700K ASUS Z270F Strix ASUS 1080 Ti FE Corsair Vengeance 16 GB 3200 MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 960 Evo Corsair H115i Windows 10 ASUS PG279Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Unicomp Corsair CX850 Fractal Design Define C Logitech G PRO 
Mouse Pad
Steelseries QCK XXL 
  hide details  
Reply
Small box
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 7700K ASUS Z270F Strix ASUS 1080 Ti FE Corsair Vengeance 16 GB 3200 MHz 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 960 Evo Corsair H115i Windows 10 ASUS PG279Q 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Unicomp Corsair CX850 Fractal Design Define C Logitech G PRO 
Mouse Pad
Steelseries QCK XXL 
  hide details  
Reply
post #38 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman View Post
Given that the quad-core with 8 threads currently, on alpha silicon, performs nearly twice as well as a higher clocked kentsfield in the BOINC benchmarks, and that said alpha chips are already running fine in all kinds of benchmarks, I think the platform that launches in the fourth quarter will be very mature.
Well I certainly hope so, it would idiotic of them to not have all the kinks worked out by the release, especially with the cost of the hardware to the consumer.
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by pauldovi View Post
You are getting upset because a X6800 scores differently than a QX6800. That not inflating anything, they are different processor!
No, you're missing the point. They compared a dual core X6800 to a quad core Nehalem and then claimed there was a 23% clock-for-clock core-for-core improvement (Note that this text is changed now because people realized it was false, but my screenshot shows the original text). They're comparing dual core vs a quad core, so their claim is simply not true. And then when they do actually include a comparably clocked quad core for comparison, they claim a score lower than what it actually gets. By making Intel's current chips look worse, they are inflating the performance difference between Core2 and Nehalem, there is no way around it.

Quote:
The other benchmark cannot really be used. Who knows if the two tests used the same hardware / OS / drivers as the first test?
Well of course it's not the same hardware, the chipset is different. And the benchmark from their site that I posted earlier used Vista just like the Nehalem bench. But from looking at other reviews that feature PCMark05 and the QX6800, there isn't much variation:

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2963


http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2112085,00.asp


http://xtreview.com/review189.htm


http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/06...800/page3.html
Edited by darkcloud89 - 7/10/08 at 3:29pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [THG] 'Nehalem' 2.93 GHz Benches Revealed