'Nehalem' 2.93 GHz Benches Revealed

[gxsolace]

Today we reveal some very interesting performance figures on 'Nehalem' -- something Intel (and AMD) doesn't want you to know -- yet.

'Nehalem' 2.93 GHz Benches Revealed : Read more

 

[beerzombie]

I'm not sure how relevant it is, but you don't mention if you're running Vista SP1 32 or 64 bit. Anyway really looking forward to a full review.

 

[pizap]

Can't wait for the full review

 

[spuddyt]

isn't the x6800 a dual core? you are comparing a dual and a quad?

 

[asdasd123123]

Uhhh, so the QUAD CORE nehalem is 23% faster than a DUAL CORE? Errr.
Someone made a type-o, or that new cpu is useless

 

[Titanius]

[citation][nom]spuddyt[/nom]isn't the x6800 a dual core? you are comparing a dual and a quad?[/citation]

Obviously you haven't read the entire article, here is the answer to your question quoted directly from the article:

"Keep in mind though that the CPUs above are all dual-cores."

 

[techtalk]

I didn't understand the 23% comparison. Please elaborate.

 

[Guest]

Uh, isn't the FX-74 going on two years old now? Odd setup to benchmark against.

 

[androticus]

WHY would you compare to Athlon and not (Quad) Phenom????

 

[asdasd123123]

[citation][nom]Titanius[/nom]Obviously you haven't read the entire article, here is the answer to your question quoted directly from the article:"Keep in mind though that the CPUs above are all dual-cores."[/citation]

What's your point? There are quad core cpus from both intel and amd to compare with, and has been for a while now. There's no point what so ever to use a dual core for reference.

There's only one scenario where that comparison would make sense, and that's if 3dmark is exclusively single threaded, and as far as I know, it isn't.
Scoring 23% better with twice as many cores is a rubbish score.

 

[gxsolace]

[citation][nom]asdasd123123[/nom]What's your point? There are quad core cpus from both intel and amd to compare with, and has been for a while now. There's no point what so ever to use a dual core for reference.There's only one scenario where that comparison would make sense, and that's if 3dmark is exclusively single threaded, and as far as I know, it isn't.Scoring 23% better with twice as many cores is a rubbish score.[/citation]

How is it rubbish? i have a dual core cpu and i'd like to know how much performance i'd get from going to Nehalem when it comes out? Seems reasonable for me and any other dual core owner. Get a better grasp on the scope of things and not such a narrow mind. In fact, i and many others didn't plan on upgrading to quad cores for the very reason that the performance difference were small, as indicated in the article. now that we see even bigger differences with nehalem, I feel now it's reasonable to upgrade for the price. Sheesh.

 

[asdasd123123]

And on top of it all, they have even stated that the AMD is a quad, but the FX74 is a ancient dual core with 90nm technology?!

Even the intel dual core is rather old, with 65nm. An e8500 would have been a better choice, being 1333fsb/45nm and so on...!?

 

[Guest]

cool

 

[asdasd123123]

And now they add an amd quad fx test...... Is this a joke Toms?
Have you heard of Phenom recently?

 

[jimmysmitty]

I think people should wait for the full review. This is just a teaser really.

Unfortunately 3DMark is by no means a good way to show a CPUs power. A real test will come in the encodig/decoding and also how well it can run the games physics and such since it is supposed to have a onboard physics engine, courtesy of Havok.

 

[joefriday]

Wake me up when we have non synthetic, real world benchmarks.

 

[cjl]

I have but one question: Is that core voltage for real?

 

[Guest]

Good Point, That is a VERY low voltage at that speed.

 

[gxsolace]

asdasd123123 dude don't vote me down because what I said makes sense.

 

[Guest]

maybe the 'Quad' Athlon FX74 (isn't this actually a twin dual-core processor MB?) was used as this is the only AMD 'Quad-ish' offering to run at 3GHz native, I'm probably wrong but no Phenoms run that fast without O/C do they? Just a thought.

 

[Guest]

LOL.

Here's an idea: Take that unlocked multiplier on that Phenom BE, and set it to 3GHZ, AND THEN COMPARE THE BENCHMARK SCORES... Surely the experienced overclockers at Toms can get it 3ghz stable. The fact that it was OCed from 2.5 to 2.6 makes me think that Nehalem is not that much better clock-for-clock, your choice of platforms for comparison are just silly.

 

[onearmedscissorb]

[citation][nom]gxsolace[/nom]How is it rubbish? i have a dual core cpu and i'd like to know how much performance i'd get from going to Nehalem when it comes out? Seems reasonable for me and any other dual core owner.[/citation]

Because the entire point is to show how much difference there is between Nehalem and Core 2 processors, which is why they used a processor with the same clock speed, and yet, it literally tells you nothing.

You say that it tells you how much of an improvement a Nehalem will be for you and others switching from a dual core Core 2, but what if a quad core Core 2 would have made just as much or extremely close to the same difference? It does not tell you what a Nehalem gives you that you cannot get today. There is absolutely nothing you can really take away from this, because even in the event that you have one of these exact processors compared to, no one is going to have this particular Nehalem setup.

This site absolutely baffles me lately. Not that I'm ungrateful that they do tests and take the time to write about it, but on a very consistent basis, there have been glaringly obvious things wrong with the articles that totally defeat the purpose of bothering.

 

[kidswithguns]

[citation][nom]asdasd123123[/nom]And now they add an amd quad fx test...... Is this a joke Toms?Have you heard of Phenom recently?[/citation]
This is not a full review, and YES, read the end of the post, there are the Phenom 9850, and 9950.

[citation][nom]spuddyt[/nom]isn't the x6800 a dual core? you are comparing a dual and a quad?[/citation]
Read more before making a comment. QX6800 is an QUAD-CORE CPU.

[citation][nom]androticus[/nom]WHY would you compare to Athlon and not (Quad) Phenom????[/citation]
FX-74 is not an Althon, the AMD setup combined of two FX-74, and it made a quad-core setup (dual-sockets mother board).

Please only make a comment, when you are fully understand the post.

 

[gxsolace]

onearmedscissorb, i don't think that's the case here. I think its more on the lines of showing some figures in there to see some numbers for nehalem. That was the bottom line from the get go, at least to what the author stated. All those updates with comparisons only came up when people started whining. Bottom line is that the platform is still way early anwyay so any figures would not be final anyway. Just wanna see some numbers.

 

[jimmysmitty]

[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]I have but one question: Is that core voltage for real?[/citation]

You saw that too? I asked the same question when they first posted the CPU-Z chart cuz I was like "Wow thats freakin low for that speed".

[citation][nom]Jay-D[/nom]LOL.Here's an idea: Take that unlocked multiplier on that Phenom BE, and set it to 3GHZ, AND THEN COMPARE THE BENCHMARK SCORES... Surely the experienced overclockers at Toms can get it 3ghz stable. The fact that it was OCed from 2.5 to 2.6 makes me think that Nehalem is not that much better clock-for-clock, your choice of platforms for comparison are just silly.[/citation]

Or here is a better idea. Lets not use synthetic benchmarks that show nothing of true real world performance.

You also forget that this is not even in the final stages and is really early hardware. There will be performance enhancements to come more than likely and will change a lot of things really.

Also in 3DMark/PCMark a OC normally only gives a few hundred points so what would the point be? Right now on a clock per clock Q6600 vs a Phenom 9750BE, the Q6600 gets a higher 3DMark CPU score. So whats that tell ya?