Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456
Results 126 to 133 of 133

Thread: Anandtech i5 preview

  1. #126
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    i never saw any problems with them

  2. #127
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by JumpingJack View Post
    Yeah, sure will.... give me a bit of time though, I have to spend a bit more time with my son.

    Jack
    Thanks Jack! no hurry

  3. #128
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,979
    Quote Originally Posted by PetNorth View Post
    Thanks Jack! no hurry
    I am working on it.... it will be sometime today.
    One hundred years from now It won't matter
    What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
    How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
    -- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft

  4. #129
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,979
    Quote Originally Posted by PetNorth View Post
    Thanks Jack! no hurry
    Ok, there is still more work to be done here ... but I have some initial results for you.

    Rig Setup:
    Asus Rampage II Extreme (BIOS 1306), Core i7 965, 12 Gigs of DDR3-1333 (C9), 2 GTX295s in SLI, 1 9600GT (drives second monitors), 6 HDs (3 2x1 Raid0), Thermalright 120 1366 edition, TT 1200W PSU, Vista Ultimate 64 SP2 with oodles of crud loaded at startup (you should see my tray, very messy not good).


    Tests:
    I ran tests at 2.66, 2.80, 2.93 GHz (using the core multiplier) -- as such, Asus BIOS disables turbo mode, screen shots are located in the gallery link attached. Each run was observed via CPUID to run at the set multiplier. Due to running at DDR3-1333 the NB frequency was set at 2.66 GHz (has to be 2x the effective mem speed, this I don't think will match Anand's setup). I ran 2 tests at each clock speed, one with HT on and one with HT off. In most cases I ran the 1CPU test twice (not all, but most cases). So most test ran 1CPU/XCPU/1CPU and in cases where I ran twice I report the second run value below. EDIT NOTE -- I turned off the second monitor such that when I did screen captures I did not get 3840x1200 images ...

    I report the data below as such:
    CPU Clock/NB Clock/HT on or off -- 1CPU/XCPU, e.g. 2.66/2.66/On is 2.66 GHz core clock, 2.66 GHz NB clock, and HT is on.

    2.66/2.66/Off -- 3709/13165
    2.66/2.66/On--- 3501/14735
    2.80/2.66/Off -- 3907/13386
    2.80/2.66/On -- 3620/15453
    2.93/2.66/Off -- 4124/14278
    2.93/2.66/On -- 3805/15953

    Link to screens (note image names follow same convention as above) -- please check me for typo's:
    http://forums.xcpus.com/gallery/v/Ju...sc_001/i7CB10/

    So it is indeed possible that Anand's i7 920 turbo'ed by +2, though frankly I have never observed this on the 965 (of course I am using a different stepping than he is). Also, my NB frequency is not likely matching Anand's since I ran at DDR3-1333 and the NB must be 2x or higher the RAM speed. Finally -- Notice the number of processes running -- > 100 (the rig is currently way bloated and it was to much troubles for this initial run to go through and disable all the unnecessary services).

    In my experience with i7, I can get +2 turbo on single or dual threaded apps when the app schedules itself exclusive to one core (or two as the case may be). CB10 uses the Vista scheduler (which just sux for the most part), as a result threads are distributed over all cores (HT or no HT), which I believe (not entirely sure) is enough that the turbo algorithm does not kick up into the higher mode.

    Nonetheless, his Lynnfield data is still discrepant on this test in my opinion, so I will see what I can do to find some time to flesh this out more. Including a fresh install of Vista without all the bloat.

    I do plan to work on this some more, and study just how much impact the NB speed would have -- and with a clean build (no bloat) but it will take a few days.

    Jack
    Last edited by JumpingJack; 05-31-2009 at 10:47 PM.
    One hundred years from now It won't matter
    What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
    How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
    -- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft

  5. #130
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,979
    Quote Originally Posted by Sapo84 View Post
    Thanks to the BCLK @ 166Mhz the core i5 was probably running @2822Mhz when the turbo mode was active, and that could explain why it was faster in some benchmarks.
    I think it has more to do with it than that -- using Bclk and nothing else OCs the memory and NB, the latter being more important for performance in these simple benches.

    Jack
    One hundred years from now It won't matter
    What kind of car I drove What kind of house I lived in
    How much money I had in the bank Nor what my cloths looked like.... But The world may be a little better Because, I was important In the life of a child.
    -- from "Within My Power" by Forest Witcraft

  6. #131
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    yepp, bclock doesnt matter for perf, but if you oc the bclock you overclock uncore and mem, since anand didnt detail whether he lowered those multipliers, it explains why his numbers are slightly higher than later 2.66 stock speed retail i5 chips.

    thx for all the scores jumpingjack!

  7. #132
    Xtreme Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by JumpingJack View Post
    Ok, there is still more work to be done here ... but I have some initial results for you.

    Rig Setup:
    Asus Rampage II Extreme (BIOS 1306), Core i7 965, 12 Gigs of DDR3-1333 (C9), 2 GTX295s in SLI, 1 9600GT (drives second monitors), 6 HDs (3 2x1 Raid0), Thermalright 120 1366 edition, TT 1200W PSU, Vista Ultimate 64 SP2 with oodles of crud loaded at startup (you should see my tray, very messy not good).


    Tests:
    I ran tests at 2.66, 2.80, 2.93 GHz (using the core multiplier) -- as such, Asus BIOS disables turbo mode, screen shots are located in the gallery link attached. Each run was observed via CPUID to run at the set multiplier. Due to running at DDR3-1333 the NB frequency was set at 2.66 GHz (has to be 2x the effective mem speed, this I don't think will match Anand's setup). I ran 2 tests at each clock speed, one with HT on and one with HT off. In most cases I ran the 1CPU test twice (not all, but most cases). So most test ran 1CPU/XCPU/1CPU and in cases where I ran twice I report the second run value below. EDIT NOTE -- I turned off the second monitor such that when I did screen captures I did not get 3840x1200 images ...

    I report the data below as such:
    CPU Clock/NB Clock/HT on or off -- 1CPU/XCPU, e.g. 2.66/2.66/On is 2.66 GHz core clock, 2.66 GHz NB clock, and HT is on.

    2.66/2.66/Off -- 3709/13165
    2.66/2.66/On--- 3501/14735
    2.80/2.66/Off -- 3907/13386
    2.80/2.66/On -- 3620/15453
    2.93/2.66/Off -- 4124/14278
    2.93/2.66/On -- 3805/15953

    Link to screens (note image names follow same convention as above) -- please check me for typo's:
    http://forums.xcpus.com/gallery/v/Ju...sc_001/i7CB10/

    So it is indeed possible that Anand's i7 920 turbo'ed by +2, though frankly I have never observed this on the 965 (of course I am using a different stepping than he is). Also, my NB frequency is not likely matching Anand's since I ran at DDR3-1333 and the NB must be 2x or higher the RAM speed. Finally -- Notice the number of processes running -- > 100 (the rig is currently way bloated and it was to much troubles for this initial run to go through and disable all the unnecessary services).

    In my experience with i7, I can get +2 turbo on single or dual threaded apps when the app schedules itself exclusive to one core (or two as the case may be). CB10 uses the Vista scheduler (which just sux for the most part), as a result threads are distributed over all cores (HT or no HT), which I believe (not entirely sure) is enough that the turbo algorithm does not kick up into the higher mode.

    Nonetheless, his Lynnfield data is still discrepant on this test in my opinion, so I will see what I can do to find some time to flesh this out more. Including a fresh install of Vista without all the bloat.

    I do plan to work on this some more, and study just how much impact the NB speed would have -- and with a clean build (no bloat) but it will take a few days.

    Jack
    Thanks Jack, really very informative

    So, comparing your tests with this Anand Lynnfield preview, his i7 920 is running one thread benches (and probably two threads benches) at ~2.93. So, no way that this Lynnfiled is limited to 2.8 with Turbo ON. Like I suspected, Anand statement doesn't seem accurate at all. It's running at least at 2.93, but probably higher.

    This Turbo thing confuses a lot

  8. #133
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Thanks Jack.According to your data,the lynnfield rig AT tested is running higher Turbo with clocks over 2.93Ghz in many cases(CB10 is one as things stand atm).

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •