Hexus.net benchmarks Nehalem

[jimmysmitty]

You take it way too far man. The 3.2GHz QX9770 was there for comparison with the Core i7 to see where it stands.

WHat is it when AMD gets compared to Intels highest end everyone who prefers AMD gets up in arms and calls the price into question?

And to further continue, this review is not about the Phenom but the Core i7. Its also about seeing where Nehalem stands vs the highest end CPU you can get from BOTH parties.

Seriously calm the crap down and don't get defensive especially considering this may affect AMD as well.

 

[piesquared]

blank

 

[gallag]

Remind me again of Intel's strategy. Is it Tick-Tock, or Tock-Tock? Because this definitley looks like a Tick-Tock-Tock. And judging from the very luke warm reception this is getting around the web, i'd have to say many agree.
And for the record, I never said it completely sucks. However it does look like only a minor improvement over Core. But heres the kicker, it's less of an improvement than Barcelona was over Rev F. So yeah, it looks like Intel is having trouble meeting their much talked about Tick-Tock strategy.

Ahh, I see how I am getting confused, You are stating your opinion as fact. What is not to like about nehelam? about 10% ipc advantage over the current fastest and up to 40% in multi threaded apps. Nehalem will be a bigger push forward for Intel than deneb will be for AMD.

And what is this bs "And judging from the very luke warm reception this is getting around the web" the only people displaying this attitude are fanboy for the green team, If nehelam was a AMD cpu they would have to shake the jizz out of there pants.

 

[spud]

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15015&page=1

Check out the memory bandwith, insane!

Application performance ain't too shabby either, with Nehalem @ 2.93GHz generally beating the higher clocked QX9770 @ 3.2GHz, sometimes by huge margins. Gaming performance is poor, but can be attributed to improperly installed drivers apparently.

Fits right into the plan to get the core uArch to address server environments and HPC environments.

Word, Playa.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Ummm, that's blasphemy. How dare you compare i7 to K10. I just can't wait until people see how much i7 mobos will cost. X48 is inching up on $400. Striker is above it. X58 is supposed to require more layers. Imagine buying a $569 CPU with a $500 mobo and getting similar scores in high-res gaming as a person who buys a 9950 with a 790GX mobo.

Does that really HELP customers? Or how about forcing people to use G45 rather than an ATi 3200 level chipset. Sorry for the digression but I couldn't help it. Maybe AMDs lawyers read this site.

You do realize that the mobos price is not decided by the chipset maker don't you? Its the mobo maker. Yes Intel chipsets have always been a bit more expensive but in comparison of quality (I am sure you have less experience since you wont buy Intel) compared to nVidia is worth the extra price. And I mean the nicley price mobos not the extreme haven't dropped yet mobos.

Remind me again of Intel's strategy. Is it Tick-Tock, or Tock-Tock? Because this definitley looks like a Tick-Tock-Tock. And judging from the very luke warm reception this is getting around the web, i'd have to say many agree.
And for the record, I never said it completely sucks. However it does look like only a minor improvement over Core. But heres the kicker, it's less of an improvement than Barcelona was over Rev F. So yeah, it looks like Intel is having trouble meeting their much talked about Tick-Tock strategy.

Yet you have no server benchmarks to compare it to. That and the memeory bandwidth (BIG in server apps) that is being shown available from QPI is going to help Intel in the server market where AMD reigns supreme.

AMD better be worrying about what Nehalem will do in the server market. Not so much in the desktop market because their main money maker is in the server market.

 

[piesquared]

Ahh, I see how I am getting confused, You are stating your opinion as fact. What is not to like about nehelam? about 10% ipc advantage over the current fastest and up to 40% in multi threaded apps. Nehalem will be a bigger push forward for Intel than deneb will be for AMD.

?


And exactly, 10% ipc advantage. This was considered and outright failure with Barcelona.
Also, isn't 40% stretching it a bit? Unless you are seeing different benchmarks, the Hexus review shows 34% max. And that was in a benchmark in which it's predicessor failed. It's like having a foot race in which your competitor stumbles, while you run the same time, and claiming you run way faster than before.

And what is this bs "And judging from the very luke warm reception this is getting around the web" the only people displaying this attitude are fanboy for the green team, If nehelam was a AMD cpu they would have to shake the jizz out of there pants.

Do you remember how the web was falling all over itself about Core 2? Well, look around. The forums i've seen with even a mention about it, have a smattering of resposnses at best. Those threads seem to migrate to the bottom of the page fairly quickly. So it's not the green team displaying attitude, it's more of a lack of interests all together, from what i'm observing.

 

[cjl]

I don't think it is underwhelming at all, except for people who had unrealistic expectations in the first place. It has a massive advantage in multithreaded and memory intensive applications, and a moderate advantage in single thread. That's exactly what they've been saying all along.

 

[jimmysmitty]

^Um that was the difference between the Nehalem @ 2.93GHz and the Core 2 @ 3.2GHz. There is almost a 300MHz difference so the IPC is higher than 34%.

And it has been the "green" team that has been talking trash about a chip still not in its final form without fully finalized drivers.

They are also the ones getting mad about Phenom being in the same comparison as the 3.2GHz chip and this and that instead of just using it as a basis to compare with they moan about it being compared.

Hell the entire time Phenom was finally coming out people would always complain when they were comparing Phenoms performance to Core 2 Quad.

 

[gallag]

?


And exactly, 10% ipc advantage. This was considered and outright failure with Barcelona.
Also, isn't 40% stretching it a bit? Unless you are seeing different benchmarks, the Hexus review shows 34% max. And that was in a benchmark in which it's predecessor failed. It's like having a foot race in which your competitor stumbles, while you run the same time, and claiming you run way faster than before.

And what is this bs "And judging from the very luke warm reception this is getting around the web" the only people displaying this attitude are fanboy for the green team, If nehelam was a AMD cpu they would have to shake the jizz out of there pants.

Do you remember how the web was falling all over itself about Core 2? Well, look around. The forums i've seen with even a mention about it, have a smattering of resposnses at best. Those threads seem to migrate to the bottom of the page fairly quickly. So it's not the green team displaying attitude, it's more of a lack of interests all together, from what i'm observing.

O.k then, Its only 34% faster & being better where predecessor failed is the whole point, Why do you see this as a bad thing, This is meeting expectation. This is what everyone has been expecting. Why does it hurt you so much?

 

[piesquared]

O.k then, Its only 34% faster & being better where predecessor failed is the whole point, Why do you see this as a bad thing, This is meeting expectation. This is what everyone has been expecting. Why does it hurt you so much?

au contraire amigo! It doesn't hurt at all.

Actually, from what i've been reading, the majority were expecting a massive improvement, like P4 to Core 2. So while i'm sure it most certainly met Intel's expectations, it doesn't appear to have met enthusiasts.

 

[gallag]

au contraire amigo! It doesn't hurt at all.

Actually, from what i've been reading, the majority were expecting a massive improvement, like P4 to Core 2. So while i'm sure it most certainly met Intel's expectations, it doesn't appear to have met enthusiasts.

O.K then, If this overestimating is not just in your head, Link to a few posts where people said it would be better than it is, For every one you find I will find ten that show that the general expectation has been achieved.

Every forum I have read I can not recall anyone guessing more than about 10% single threaded and 20-40% multi and server.

 

[cjl]

Plus we still have to see how it overclocks.

 

[jed]

Most People thought it wouldn't be as good as the phenom
since AMD was making this kind of cpu for awhile but everyone
was fooled.
without overclocking this cpu it beat the best Intel has to offer.
overclocking phenom can't beat the worst intel has to offer.

 

[piesquared]

O.K then, If this overestimating is not just in your head, Link to a few posts where people said it would be better than it is, For every one you find I will find ten that show that the general expectation has been achieved.

Every forum I have read I can not recall anyone guessing more than about 10% single threaded and 20-40% multi and server.

I'm not about to go on a link retrieving hunt. I'll get you started though. XS, [H], AT to name a few. In fact Johan has fairly good article up over at AT, where he explicitly states, this is not a gamers cpu. As a matter of fact it performs worse in that scenario, according to Hexus.


And when you do go on your link hunt, look through the threads and witness how many users have decided not to upgrade, in light of Nehelams performance. Like I said, this is a server cpu.

 

[cjl]

It performed worse because the drivers were wrong, not because it is inherently worse at gaming.

 

[piesquared]

It performed worse because the drivers were wrong, not because it is inherently worse at gaming.

That's possible cjl, as that's what Hexus has publicly stated. I just find it pretty hard to believe that Hexus somehow managed to sneakily get access to the Nehelam machine and run an hour or so worth of benchmarks, without Intel knowing about it. That seems pretty far fetched. You gotta think Hexus would be in pretty deep doo-doo if that were the case. Further, if Intel did grant Hexus access, why the heck would they have used preproduction hardware and software. When this thing is supposed to be all set to go, and release is imminent. At any rate, i'm willing to wait til official reviews are out to make any further claims.

 

[BaronMatrix]

You do realize that the mobos price is not decided by the chipset maker don't you? Its the mobo maker. Yes Intel chipsets have always been a bit more expensive but in comparison of quality (I am sure you have less experience since you wont buy Intel) compared to nVidia is worth the extra price. And I mean the nicley price mobos not the extreme haven't dropped yet mobos.



Yet you have no server benchmarks to compare it to. That and the memeory bandwidth (BIG in server apps) that is being shown available from QPI is going to help Intel in the server market where AMD reigns supreme.

AMD better be worrying about what Nehalem will do in the server market. Not so much in the desktop market because their main money maker is in the server market.

true I haven't bought Intel but I can't find one post anywhere that says nVidia isn't as good. 790i is killing Intel. Th epoint was that if it costs x to make a mobo but 1.5x to make a Nehalem board, it will cost more. X48 is at close to $400. You can buy a 9850 AND a 790FX board for that price and with the same GPU have similar scores.

As far as Barcelona, AMD doesn't have to worry as a 2.3GHz K10 is beating a 2.93GHz Penryn (see Intel's benches). Shanghai @ 2.3 should perform like a K10 at 2.6 (10-15% higher IPC) which should perform like a 3.6GHz Penryn which doesn't exist. I guess though that a 3.2 i7 might get close to a 2.8 Shanghai but it will be MUCH BIGGER (did you see that pic compared to Penryn) and probably(not FUD) use more power. Plus it will require a full refit of a data center where Shanghai is a drop in replacement.


Again, I always say I hope they stay within 15% of each other so no one can be a fanboy.

 

[jimmysmitty]

^You see the memory bandwidth in that review? Isn't memory bandwidth the biggest factor in server apps since most of them use a lot of the bandwidth and memory?

You are very confident that it will take a 3.2GHz i7 to take on a 2.8GHz Barcy yet there is yet to be a server i7/Xeon based on Nehalem put out by Intel to test soi how can you make a judgement?

Size wise and according to some earlier reviews it only used 10w more and the 3.2GHz is supposed to be a 130w TDP chip just like the 3Ghz Penryn was a 130wTDP (Yet it rarely hit that) of course we have to wait before we can make any judgements for a full review that goes over everything with drivers that are fully working and so on and so forth.

 

[Amiga500]

^You see the memory bandwidth in that review? Isn't memory bandwidth the biggest factor in server apps since most of them use a lot of the bandwidth and memory?

The bandwidth is only necessary to keep your processing units fed.

If your actual number crunching units are sh!t, then bandwidth won't help much,


Moving bottlenecks.


On Penryn it is memory bandwidth. On Barcelona it is more likely processing speed itself.

 

[gallag]

IDF nehelam news http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/15344

1:29PM: Nehalem demo of Lost Planet: Colonies. Yorkfield vs. Nehalem. Nehalem is over 50% faster thanks to eight cores, faster cores.

Now Cinebench with overclocked Nehalem and Yorkfiled. Over 30% faster on Nehalem. 45850 Cinebench R10 rendering score.

 

[cjl]

true I haven't bought Intel but I can't find one post anywhere that says nVidia isn't as good. 790i is killing Intel. Th epoint was that if it costs x to make a mobo but 1.5x to make a Nehalem board, it will cost more. X48 is at close to $400. You can buy a 9850 AND a 790FX board for that price and with the same GPU have similar scores.

As far as Barcelona, AMD doesn't have to worry as a 2.3GHz K10 is beating a 2.93GHz Penryn (see Intel's benches). Shanghai @ 2.3 should perform like a K10 at 2.6 (10-15% higher IPC) which should perform like a 3.6GHz Penryn which doesn't exist. I guess though that a 3.2 i7 might get close to a 2.8 Shanghai but it will be MUCH BIGGER (did you see that pic compared to Penryn) and probably(not FUD) use more power. Plus it will require a full refit of a data center where Shanghai is a drop in replacement.


Again, I always say I hope they stay within 15% of each other so no one can be a fanboy.

You keep calling X48 boards $400.

Lets' see how true that is:

Asus Rampage Formula = $299
DFI LP LT X48 = $250
Asus Rampage Extreme = $399
Gigabyte GA-X48 = $225
Intel reference X48 board = $250
Asus P5E deluxe X48 = $219
MSI X48C Platinum = $230


I'm only seeing one $400 board out of that sample from the top rated X48 boards on newegg. More importantly, the boards can easily be found in the $200 range (and a fairly decent selection too - not just a single cheap board). Likely, the X58 will be the same, with the top end boards coming in around the $400 mark, but easily attainable, and still very good boards being available in much lower price brackets.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, I wont slam Nehalem because last time I came into the cpu section EVERYONE was saying it was waaaay faster than Penryn. Maybe its EVERYONES perception that has been turned down some? When Anand did his sneak preview, EVERYONE said the numbers were too small on the increases. They havnt changed much. It isnt Nehalem thats changed, its people thats changed. This is actually the first time Im hearing the lowered expectations. It was a different story when I came in and asked all my questions then. Go ahead and apologize for Nehalem all you want, but some of us were right from the get go, which I dont really care about so much as how my questions were perceived and treated. Stop with the love fest already. It is what it is. Good chip, not great. Has made great strides where AMD was winning, and left DT somewhat out of it, so, me being a DT user, and a gamer, Im still disappointed, since now we know how itll perform.

 

[B-Unit]

jaydee, does your Penryn chip run games too slow for you or something? I dont understand the whine fest your putting on...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

OK, so now its a whine fest? Have you read my posts? Will Nehalem keep up with gpus? Before I answer you, you answer me. Im not talking now, and Im not talking Penryns. Im talking about Nehalem. Im also talking about the only path Intel is selling is multithread, which hasnt done alot for any of us. And some people here are programmers, and devs. They get crapped on, why? Is it because, as usual Intel wants it their way? What about a truly faster cpu? One that will keep up with gpus in speed? If this is whining, then youve bought into something, or believe this is the only way. Its a way for Intel to make more money. If they started designing chips that went faster instead of wider, which would you buy? Is that whining also? To ask that question? Answer those questions for yourself.

 

[NMDante]

What? Keep up with GPUs? What the heck does that have to do with anything? That is pretty ridiculous. Tell us, jaydeejohn, what CPU has kept up with GPUs right now? That is a very lame argument. What does the speed of a GPU have to do with anything? Did you ask the same question when Phenom was being launched?

How about this question - Does Nehalem keep up or surpass the previous CPU generation it will probably replace? Yes or no?

Also, I did a search for your so-called Intel fanboys and their "higher" expections, and I couldn't find anyone claiming any huge performance increase with Nehalem vs. Penryn. Here's a search of "Nehalem" in these forums. Can you find the high fanboy expectations, that you claim EVERYONE said?
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/f...earchtype=1&trash=0&trash_post=0&moderation=0

Keep up with GPUs? Wow. Talk about reaching for excuses to make something look bad.

In fact Johan has fairly good article up over at AT, where he explicitly states, this is not a gamers cpu.

So, what does it mean when the gaming benchmarks surpassed those of the Phenom 9950 BE? That it is a better gamer CPU than the Phenom it was compared to?