Ye the bogus info about no OC and that Intel would limit it was fun. Specially after the same people got caught wrong with i7.
Printable View
Ye the bogus info about no OC and that Intel would limit it was fun. Specially after the same people got caught wrong with i7.
9% faster is pretty impressive technologically, 2.66 GHz is 20% clock disadvantage, so ~ 30% clock for clock IPC advantage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
AMD's saving grace, from the enthusiast point of view, is the unlocked multiplier making it easier to OC as well as gaming being more a function of GPU where they run about even.
Still, if the rumored price is correct (~196, say retail 220-230ish), there will be some downward price pressure on the 955.
Dog? S754 and S939 also ran side by side new CPUs for both. So that's no argument. Having to upgrade motherboard AND CPU if you want to add a second card is insanely ineffective; let's say I buy one HD 4890 now, and don't consider buying a second, so I go out and get a S1156 system; 1 year from now I get my hands on a second HD 4890, I'll have to get another motherboard & CPU to be able to use it to fill potential... great. It never a good deal for the customer to have different categories they are put in; as it will cost more for them to move, and often times can backfire on the manufacturer, I'm sure than when AMD dropped S754 support, and released newer S939 CPUs, people who would have normally considered an upgrade for their CPU to a faster model, just stuck with their first purchase S754 system a while longer; If they only had S939 from the beginning then they would've made more sales over time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Ah and aftermarket cooling hell for S775/S1156/S1366; why did they need to make the mounting on S1156 different :shrug: just use S1366 mounting holes and people can re-use their 3rd party cooling over and over :up:
LGA1156 supports 2 x8 slots by splitting the x16. So LGA1366 is more for those people with 3 cards...Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
And before we get into a performance discussion about splitting it. Its no different than having a X2/GX2 card on x16.
oh... wow... did they update it? i could swear it wasnt there before... :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mats
impressive how well it performs even at 2.13gh!
what? since when? so 1366 will go EOL before 2012? that doesnt make much sense... :stick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
pff... if only you knew what really went on back then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
:rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
your next argument will be what? "it's more for people with N cards"
who cares about the cards; splitting up a generation with two different sockets is: :down: for the customer, pure and simple.
Downloading this now to see how my machine sits in that chart.:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
It was there from the beginning, BUT, the 2.13 GHz and the X4 isn't present in every benchmark.Quote:
Originally Posted by saaya
What about turbo impact?Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
If anandtech estimate is correct http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...spx?i=3570&p=4
i5 at 2.66, is running really at ~2.93 (4 threads) and ~3.33 (1-2 threads). Or something like that, If I am not missing something...
... how about the news that S1366 is server hardware... theres no more splitting in generations that was always there. HPC - Server/Workstaion - Consumer - Mobile -> S1567- S1366 - S1156 - S989, before it was S604 - S771 - S775 - S478 (socket P)Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Its maximum running at 2.83ghz (166BLCK) since the ES sample is locked to 1x turbomode only. Retail can only be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/sho...px?i=3570&p=10
Why is it the X4 does just fine on both the first and third graphs but dives in the 2nd graph? Why is this? Isn't the third one more demanding?
And this? (I suppose i7 2.66 is running with Turbo ON = ~2.93):
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/i...4222/19212.png
cause farcry2 is the most multithreaded game of this 3 :p:
You mean the i5 got turbo on and i7 doesnt?Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
No, both Turbo ON. i7 2.66 @~2.93
they are clearly targeting it as desktop system, otherwise they would not market it as "gaming CPU" and "desktop processor"; hence it is not solely server; so not server hardware;Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
Quote:
With faster, intelligent, multi-core technology that applies processing power where it's needed most, new Intel® Core™ i7 processors deliver an incredible breakthrough in PC performance. They are the best desktop processors on the planet.¹
its target for consumers, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is server hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Theres no difference between a Xeon and a i7, not on the boards and not on the cpu.
Its was the same for skulltrail, server grade hardware marketed for consumers. i7 just covers more different cpu types.
doesn't matter one iota that it is or isn't server hardware; they target consumers, I see in your sig you got Core i7 920, the entry level, the kind budget that would buy Core i5 if it had come out first; so now that same you has to choice between two platforms, whereas this is not good a policy; one platform / generation for consumers is best;
LGA1366 is just an extension of Skulltrail type platform basicly. Just as 1 CPU.
Just ran that bemchmark and got this..
Now I'm wondering if I got the right one.:rofl:
This is what I used:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...o=520#download
Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 66.39 fps, 3903.23 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 73.01 fps, 3903.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 67.61 fps, 3903.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 69.29 fps, 3903.22 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.21 fps, 3995.75 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.01 fps, 3995.77 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.47 fps, 3995.77 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 47.35 fps, 3995.77 kb/s
This is the "2nd pass"
Results for x264.exe v0.59.819M
encoded 1442 frames, 75.64 fps, 3894.05 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 69.08 fps, 3897.09 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 70.72 fps, 3895.96 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 57.25 fps, 3896.56 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.59 fps, 4002.59 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.83 fps, 4002.68 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.65 fps, 4002.33 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 52.89 fps, 4002.44 kb/s
That's a good point, I always forget about Trubo (adds extra complexity)... but you are missing something from the Anand article, the engineering sample was locked at 1 step for the engineering sample.Quote:
Originally Posted by PetNorth
So even with a 166 Block with a 1x bump, Nehalem is still an impressive 20% clock for clock better on average. It is actually closer to 25-30% on a wider range of applications since I have both an i7-965 and a PIIX4-940 and have seen these type of discrepancies. If you throw SLI 295's (two cards 4 GPUs) or 4870 X2's the discrepancies grow even larger in quite a few (majority) of games.Quote:
Unfortunately this is the sample I tested with. Thankfully it was healthy enough for me to overclock the BLCK to 166MHz, resulting in a 2.66GHz frequency. Turbo mode was still stuck at a 1x increase over the stock frequency, so final Lynnfield performance should be much better in single and dual threaded apps than what you’ll see here today.
I know it is not something you like to think about, you are obviously a huge AMD supporter, but for the moment (and for a while longer, until at least bulldozer), AMD is playing the value card.
Personally, I don't think it makes a huge difference ... the 940 runs everything just fine, I gravitate to the i7-965 for heavy duty video encoding/editing work though.
Jack
I'm not sure that one platform is best for consumers (sure we don't want to see all cars using the same FIAT UNO platform /joke). I dont care how many platforms will be introduced by Intel. What really matters is a "consumer properties" of the platforms.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmke
Your second pass is actually the first pass for the updated x.264 bench, notice the version numbers on each of your tests. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
Considering a vast majority of folks don't even consider upgrading their systems other than the enthusiasts of course, platform choice isn't really going to be major issue. General users buying prebuilt rigs are going to buy their i5, i7 or AMx based rig and run it until the wheels fall off so to speak without ever opening the case.
The difference I see with i7 & i5 vs s754 & s939 is that Intel released the high end platform from the start whereas AMD released the higher end platform later which left early adopter s754 users who might have wanted more performance with a limited upgrade path.