I wondered about that too :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Printable View
I wondered about that too :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Yes, it was a 3GHz system, I was looking at NB clocks :D
I have compared most of the benchmarks posted in this thread. I hope I am not offending anyone by borrowing their pics.
Listing the benchmark results by best first - worst last:
EDIT: REMOVED BECAUSE OF HURT FEELINGS.
BTW: I felt my benches run smoother than what they would have done on an Intel system. :yepp::p:
next
EDIT: Look above..
next again
EDIT: look at post 804
final
Edit: See post 804
some explanations:
I wanted to compare 8 Nehalem cores (HT imagined or not, they are listed as cores by apps) with 8 lower clocked Barcelona cores on dual socket (L1N64WS/B) with 4gigs of reg ram under Vista x64. I included the higher clocked qx benches to compare as I find it interesting :)
BTW: The third truecrypt pic and the last pic is of a QX6700@3GHz iirc
Were all HWiNFO32 benchmarks run as Multi-threaded?
I suggest running Single-threaded test to get pure core performance (however, in this case the Turbo will most probably engage).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIKMARK
I can only speak for myself, but yes mine were run multithreaded. Running single threaded is.. ..what for? We all know Intel is better at single threaded apps, and single threaded apps is not the discussion here :)
Except for FPU.. They made it quite weak in NetBurst, somehow improved in Merom. They're still betting on SSEx.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIKMARK
Jcornell: would you be able to do some of the benches at lower clocks? to compare?
Now if onl somebody would have the patience to make a small graph depicting all this beautiful Nehalem scores vs. other configurations.
:D
sounds like you're the chosen one :D (That'll learn ya to stick your head up :p: )Quote:
Originally Posted by XS Janus
hmm ok if noticed something, seems HW32 cant dedect power saving stat or dont switches to full speed on my QX9650. I get 35000 point point more when cpu runs at 3ghz fixed.
ok if done the charts, just a quick hackjob but still. :p:
i only have added the dualsocket Opteron and the QX9650 (exept for truecrypt), cause this systems had full sets of test.
How did you do the BOINC benchmark, did you add all the 'CPUs' (logical cores) together?
I'm still wondering if that wouldn't give SMT too much credit, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
The boinc score is per core.
Yeah, but, as you can see when SMT is on the score is hardly any lower, so if one added those 8 logical cores together SMT would give something like an 80% gain which is just crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Is there any way to test it in a more realistic way?
sry i edited the post, i meant boinc tests all cores and then divides the scores, at least i think thats how it happens. But im not sure about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Okay, one can only hope for the WCGers it's really that good a boost.. :D
Nice chart :)
Now there's no lower clock Nehalem, all recycled :rofl: ...
Just old benches ... Gainestown 2.4GHz A0 (HT Disabled + crapped BIOS :ROTF:)
http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/g...halem/G_24.jpg
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIKMARK
Are all the Nehalem benches with single channel DDR3? JC, what is the problem with the RAM channels is it the CPU or the board?
@Hornet331: Thank you very much hor your trouble. That was very fast.:p:
This really puts it into perspective.
Suddenly the power is becoming obvious.
:cool:
Here the Cinebench chart with 2,4ghz gainestown with 8 threads.
real cores still own HT cores. ;)
edit: fixed some typos (damn it was late when i did this graphs :ROTF:) see here