Thanks for posting the video.So it's a mobile platform after all. No wonder why i7 scored lower,it runs @ 2Ghz when all the cores are loaded. We already have SB numbers in Cinebench over at coolalers website.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDANPE
Printable View
Thanks for posting the video.So it's a mobile platform after all. No wonder why i7 scored lower,it runs @ 2Ghz when all the cores are loaded. We already have SB numbers in Cinebench over at coolalers website.Quote:
Originally Posted by IDANPE
Quote:
Originally Posted by IDANPE
according to what I've seen, SB completed in about 40sec while 920XM uses 68sec
in terms of time, it is about 1.7 times faster for SB to render the same scene???:shocked::shocked:
I wonder if this is the job by AVX?
Maybe it's a "modded" version of Cinebench making use of AVX? :shrug:
or it's running at 3+Ghz...
mobile 3GHZ 4c/8T cen't be bad thing :yepp:
I wonder why the desktop version of Sandybridge only clock 3.4Ghz while the mobile version clock 3Ghz+......
if its mobile platform vs desktop platform then its fail again intel .....
maybe they had fear show it in better R11.5 version, this version is more "reality" than lagging R10 at more than Quadcores...
It's called higher clocks + higher Turbo(thanks to 32nm).Quote:
Originally Posted by haylui
well, the 920XM platform, while it IS a mobile platform, isn't very mobile like.. 55w TDP + the chipset .Quote:
Originally Posted by superrugal
While i'm not discounting SB's performance here, I think if anything it shows exactly what SB is aimed at.. very good performance/watt.
To show this in the BEST possible light (which is the smart thing to do when you're marketing something) it makes sense to use a very high power consumption mobile platform as a comparison for perf/watt improvements
it's mobile vs mobile.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sn0wm@n
only 3.4 max?
same clocks as the current chips... what gives? :shrug:
i wonder why they keep the guaranteed clocks low and boost turbo instead...
and 10-15% higher ipc of sb vs current gen? where? its half of that from what ive seen, and thats vs lynnfield/clarkdale which have a lower ipc than bloomfield/gufftown...
gulftown and even bloomfield continuing in the market for quite a while until sb launches says a lot about how much faster sb will be, doesnt it? :P
ok, can anyone reconcile the chart with dresden's finding in BOINC?
/citavia.blog.deQuote:
P.S.: Since looking for BOINC stats of Ontario and Llano was successful I tried the same for Sandy Bridge (although there are other benchmark results out there):
Sandy Bridge Stepping 3, 2.2GHz
Sandy Bridge Stepping 2, 2.0GHz
Sandy Bridge Stepping 0, 2.2GHz
Sandy Bridge Stepping 3, 2.4GHz
(see end of blog post)
Fudzilla talked about the same DDR3-1333 only officially supported:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilOne
Did you say that it is same clock as the current chip ?Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
i7 860 is 2.8GHz, and i7 870 is only 2.93Ghz !
Also, SB is supposed to have better performance per clock, and better performance per watt
3.4 GHz without turbo is great default clock!
:ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/46?vs=107
lynnfield has the exact same performance as bloomfield, there are only very very few apps where the additional bandwidth helps bloomfield... get your facts right. :cool:
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlanK3r
Specially when 1090T get i7 965 numbers. :rolleyes:
while it's $600 cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nintendork
you linked a bad comparison to make your point, ended up reinforcing saaya's instead ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
The i7 870 has a higher Turbo freq (3.6 vs 3.2Ghz) , and not all those tests are fully multithreaded.. ones that are do show a few percent on avg higher performance on Bloomfield :p
I thought it was pretty obvious it was a mobile chip IE 920xm when they said their fastest i7 and it was only topping out at 2ghz. That and the fact that intel and everyone in the know has said over and over and over and over again that the first SB parts will be mobile and desktop mainstream. Why would they then compare it to a high end chip? Why is it so hard to draw simple conclusions but so easy to make random conspiracy theories?
How much of a jump are these going to be, performance wise, compared to the current 1156? I've been thinking i3 530 @ 4.2ghz or greater, but is this really worth it? It's not like we can't drop these into 1156 boards (Thanks a lot INTEL!).
At least keep the 1156 mounting holes. We don't need ANOTHER set of coolers for this.
I like the idea of say 31x100 = 3.1ghz. Imagine OCing something like that. 31 x150 = 4.65ghz. I can see people putting LN2 on these and getting 7+ ghz no issue.
Interesting strategies Intel and AMD are using. Intel is releasing midrange to begin with where AMD is going full throttle and releasing their high end right away. Then again AMD is banking everything on there chips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] Synthetickiller
last i heard about it is the placement of some pins that is different so different thing different place = non compatibility ... so no ... but yes we will still blame intel for a long platform longevity .........
Intel and Socket longevity are 2 things that will never coincide. This is mainly because they change so much that between the architecture if they kept the same board problems would pop up out of nowhere. Intel's strategy of changing the socket with the processor keeps these problems from occurring.