You can't compare a quad-socket platform to a unisocket platform.. Maybe if that big, fat six-core die was headed to the 775 socket in an LGA package, but it's not.
Printable View
You can't compare a quad-socket platform to a unisocket platform.. Maybe if that big, fat six-core die was headed to the 775 socket in an LGA package, but it's not.
Dunnington is a sign of things to come. Sorta like K8 vs Pentium-M, this time roles reversed. Ahem.
No, Dunnington is the last breath of an architecture about to be replaced. I'm not sure what your point is at all. :confused:
Especially considering the die size of Dunnington is probably in the realm of 500mm˛ and it will be destroyed by Beckton (the only arch it should be compared to). His point is nill.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
The SMT gains are everything but laughable. A little bit more appreciation guys, one single feature gives a bigger performance boost than one whole die shrink from intel normally would. What's wrong with it?
Random?! :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Macadamia
What does Dunnington have to do with Core i7? One is a unisocket desktop chip that costs $300 - $1000, another is a multi-socket server chip that costs $1000 - $3000. I don't see the relevance.
AGREE. But this thread is not turning at that. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
This is the same old storry, EVERYBODY loves the new stuff. But instead of debating how it works, How it overclocks and so on the "WOW it is accualy more expensive that a Q9450" arrises.
I agree. I normaly dont have high end GFX cards because they are so expensive!
Im not sure if we are misunderstanding each other.
I just felt sick of the "Wow it dosent give med 30% more power for the same amount of money" argument :D
well I said what I mean above :)Quote:
Originally Posted by .Logic
I understand what everybody is saying. And I dont have 1000 Euro to spend my self.
I just think the thread was turning the wrong way :)
not that I have to decide, But I wanted to influence it in another direction :)
Because folks will do just like they did with E6600 and NOT X6800 that got out numbered 10 to 1. A lot fewer folks even care about the $1000 dollar model. This is Xtreme Systems.org and many know higher overclocking room with lower end processors than those who buy the top models and do the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nosfer@tu
I was just saying that prices are up to the Distributors, OEMs and VAR, not just AMD or Intel. The price you mentioned wasn't an Intel price as you said. I didn't mean anything nasty or negative.
This isn't Xtremely Rich Folks.org either LOL! E6600 and Q6600 and now 9300, 9450 and 8400 seems to be the most used here. One of the aims of overclocking is adding Value by overclocking. Pay for a lowend model and end up with a higher end model.Quote:
why are you sick of that Donnie ?
Who cares if the cpu that is listed at 1000 $ only runs 30% faster than the cpu listed at 500 $
THIS IS XTREMESYSTEMS. NOT BUGET SYSTEMS, Not best bang for buck...
I dont understand why everybody gets so agitated.
RELAX, Dont buy if you dont like the price ratio.
BE HAPPY somthing new is comming out so you can save even more on the Q9450. JESUS RELAX EVERYBODY
Or am I wrong? But that wasn't the point. I still see folks giving Newegg's price and not Intel's Tray Price as I said.
i bet a 4.2ghz wolfdale is faster than a 2.93ghz nehalem in games:p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
And a 4-4.2GHz Nehalem? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jaredpace
i'd say quadcore penryns will do just fine in future games. atm, games aren't fully utilizing todays cpus at all - they're far more gpu- than cpu-dependant.
where nehalem really let's his muscle speak is in heavily paralleled apps like rendering, encoding and such.
I am looking forward to being able to throw x264 encoder on the 8 virtual cores since it scales nearly 100% up to 16 cores at present. You can never encode 1920x1080 with all the good stuff turned up to their limits too fast ;> Hell if the 3.2GHz EE knocks off even 1 or 2 hours off a 24+ hour encode it's definitely worth every penny its selling for and I for one will be praising it. Any gain beyond the current limits of the C2D SP m-arch without going to DP server setups at present is welcomed by me.
All you guys complaining about performance in games and single threaded apps need to lighten up. This is an m-arch aimed at the enterprise / scientific / mathematics / video etc markets, IMC and HT has very little gains on regular home setups and probably won't be worth while for a lot of people until prices drop. For those which it isn't enjoy the price drops on the current C2D 45Nm line-up and game/whatever else you do on ;>
try warhammer online, I've never seen a more cpu dependent game including source engine games. even with my E8400@4.2ghz, the framerate at 1280x800 and 1920x1200 is identical.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaZz!
Good luck with that, unless you're on the XE. I don't care what the five people on here buying XEs think, I'm not spending $999 on a CPU to get a decent overclock when I can get a multiplier-locked Penryn instead which will fall in price when these are released..Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
If the 2.66GHz version is able to reach 4GHz or close to it, then sure. Otherwise, there's no point, Penryn is better.
I'm not going to argue with you because neither you or me know anything about overclocking headroom and clock per clock perfomance of Nehalem vs Penryn in various games. You can't extract any useful OC or perfomance data from the various previews we've seen with non-retail, no fully working mobo and early stepping Nehalems. Wait till they hit the streets for your judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Me buying a XE? No way, I usually don't like to throw away my money ;)
Hey, nothing is final obviously, they haven't even officially announced these yet. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, but things truly look sour currently.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
yes the new cpu will be great for things like:
and only so-so for stuffs like:Quote:
the enterprise / scientific / mathematics / video etc markets, IMC and HT
Quote:
gains on regular home setups and
So, I probably won't be getting one:(Quote:
performance in games and single threaded apps
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
I know a few. Really they are not games. They fall into the sim category.
Falcon 4, Fighter Ops when it's released and many other sims are highly CPU dependent.
Add to that what Drwho? has said here that there is an abismal difference between B0 stepping (the reviewers have this one) and the retail stepping. The only thing I don't like so far is the unconfirmed RAM-core voltage linking, that looks fugly. But again benefit of the doubt till the processor hits the streets.Quote:
Originally Posted by bowman
Drastic changes must be taken seriously, if not we would still be running slow processors forever. So what would be the point of getting a new improved working done?
It seems companies are holding back in this area for its factual conspiracy and undeniable casualties in the market. It is amazing we can get a processor who has 4 cores and 4 virtual working threads for a price like $300 that will be deployed at 2.6 Ghz. It is a breakthrough even if it can not be an overclocker dream. It is already proved by some known and credible technology websites that a 25% of improvement clock per clock is somewhat to be classified as a matured architecture. So I do not see the point of non getting it as soon as it is available for the majority of IT groups in the works.
Metroid.
All of these are plain speculations... We can discuss it properly only when we see some numbers :)
This chart pretty much validates the fact that enabling HT *decreases* performance, if you look at CCWS2K2. I remember there being quite a number of other applications where performance is significantly decreased with HT. Anand only shows one but there was a site that showed a lot more and actually cautioned against HT if those applications were to be used (and even showed how it BSOD'ed in some applications). Heck, do you really use 3dsMax or Divx encoding? If not, then it's hardly worth it, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon84
Wow! look at those Virtual cores just crushing.
I'm certain Nehalem will offer higher IPC and efficiency over Penryn and be competitive at both stock and overclocked speeds. Only 45 days longer till we start seeing some review results, I think we'll be "wowed" again like with Conroe.
I don't know about that. Depends on what part of "this crowd' at Xs your addressing.Quote:
Originally Posted by [XC] gomeler
The gamers won't see huge gains but the encoding,photoshop,rendering, crunchers will so it all comes down to what do you do with your PC.
I don't game but if I did I'd buy a E8600, bang the biatch out to 4500 and call it a winner and bypass nehalem totally.
Now for what I do the question is what day are they delivering them so I can heist a truck and pass them out in the DC section!:rofl:
I'm going to jump straight on the nehalem bandwaggon. I've been in the market for a new system for the past 2 months, and I decided I'm going to wait for the new socket. Why? Because it's uncomfortable knowing that your system is obsolete. It sucks knowing that every day it just gets older and older, with no possible way to change that except to shell out for a brand new system.
For the sheer matter of upgradeability I'm going with nehalem. Whether it overclocks to 3.3 or 4.3 I will buy it, and bring it to its knees :D
There may be some little bugs due to the extensive amount of changes occuring in the next platform. But performance, WILL be better, there is no way that the Q9450 will beat the i7 920, even with overclocking... The added threads, new memory controller, and overall SIZE (1366vs775) will guarantee that this thing will be good.
I'm not scared of this thing being crap, it won't be!