Is it just me or the BOINC results are a little disappointing,being just on par with C2Q@65nm clock for clock?Or there is more than meets the eye?
Is it just me or the BOINC results are a little disappointing,being just on par with C2Q@65nm clock for clock?Or there is more than meets the eye?
That's not I want too
But, for real, some benches are not really much more differences if compares with Quad Kensfield / Yorkfield ... eg : 3DMark06 CPU Score, or ZD Win32 Floating Point, or CPUMark ...
Afterall, Just for references ...
Thats quite normal for one new product to receive criticism on the first time before final release
===N/A===
I heard a rumor about a new HP + AMD for ServerWorks and for Intel LOL! This board looks like a Skulltrail type board for the folks like you. Since these cost more than some of the regular boards sold for servers, they have nothing to loose. Just a rumor though.
If this SW board doesn't see the light of day, you'll not have to worry about what Chipset, there'll only be one. IMHO, we're more than likely to see one by AMD than nVidia. Expensive low volume aren't treated the same as high volume cheaper stuff.
Alot is also affected by the singlechannel memory and maybe bogus board. JC is your board also unable to run above 1 channel?
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
JC,you can post anything you like,after all this is just a ES with a not quite finished platform,so maybe things will improve a bit after it is polished.Post the mark06 and ZD Win32 FP Score, if you can of course .
Thanks for all the input you provided,it's probably the first preview of the Nehalem system on the whole web
How about some real world apps instead of so much synthetic stuff? Then how can we compensate for you only having one channel of RAM when these will ship with 3 Channels?
Example, Run Yorkfield or Kentsfield with one stick of RAM for comparison sake? Anyway, thank you very much!
Donnie 1 stick with Nehalem is a lot better than having 1 stick of memory with Kenstfield since C2Q needs all it can take from mem. bandwidth perspective while Nehalem has IMC.Don't forget this is DDR3 memory,a lot of bandwidth on disposal.I'd guess we'll for sure see some improvement with 2/3 channels of memory but this design choice was mostly made for servers and a future 4P beasts which will need it very much.Single socket/desktop users would probably see some benefits but not nearly as much as servers(look at AMD's NUMA for ex.).
I'd bet more on a things like early bios/board than mem. configurations (but the last will surely help it some)>
Last edited by informal; 07-01-2008 at 05:59 AM.
Aren't the score actually pretty good?
Kentsfield @ 3600 MHz (4 CPU)
3558 Whet / CPU
8289 Dhry / CPU
Bloomfield @ 2933 MHz (8 CPU)
2786 Whet / CPU
7095 Dhry / CPU
Now this is where I might get it all wrong:
(score) x (number of CPU)
Kentsfield:
3558 x 4 Whet = 14232
8289 x 4 Dhry = 33156
Bloomfield:
2786 x 8 Whet = 22288
7095 x 8 Dhry = 56760
Looks to me like Bloomfield / Nehalem is much stronger, or did I get it all wrong? If I have gotten the above wrong, then that WCG benchmark sure is misleading or confusing.
BOINC shows total scores(per CPU package),at least that's what i understand.Someone please confirm/deny this.
Now if this is the case,scale down the Kentsfield score to 2.93Ghz and you end up @ pretty much the same score with Nehalem,clock/clock.
I've looked at tomshardware.tw preview of Nehalem scores,and especially at Crysis CPU test.Managed to find a database of C2Q scores for the CPU test 2 at techarp:
http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.a...tno=499&pgno=3
Nehalem @2.93 scores:
while QX9650 gets around 18.7fps @1280x1024 noAA according to techarp database.Wolfdale e8400 even scores better than Qx9650with ~18.9fps in CPU test2.Crysis: 1280x1024 noAA
CPU TEST2 18.29
Anyone knows what are the scores for QX9650 in CPU test 1 in Crysis bench tool @1280x1024?
Last edited by informal; 07-01-2008 at 07:15 AM.
I can confirm that the results in the benchmark are per core, not the total CPU or package performance. I get the same with 2 or 4 cores (within 100 pts). So the answer must be clear.
Also, Bloomfield have 4 "real" cores and 4 "HT" ones, or whatever they call it today. So the score must be an avarage of the stronger and weaker cores.
So I think, that if the HT cores were disabled, and only the real ones are left, then the score would actually rise quite a bit, but the number of cores would only be 4.
Just speculating, but I think Dave will actually be happy about the results
EDIT: The CPU tests in Crysis aren't very good ones.
From the very little infos about how the CPU tests were done, and with what settings beyond resolution and no AA, then I could have my Nehalem killer setup (all of these benchmarks and infos are true, but not telling the complete picture):
1280 x 1024 noAA
CPU TEST1 162.70 avg fps
CPU TEST2 94.29 avg fps
Point is, there is no sense in comparing the CPU tests with the limited info given by Tom's.
Last edited by Seraphiel; 07-01-2008 at 08:03 AM.
Hmm i think that JC was disappointed with BOINC since the scores where lower than Movieman expected.
Anyone else care to post their thoughts on BOINC benchmark results?
JC - Thanks for sharing all this good preview info!
Regarding the BOINC benchmark, it is per core, so for total work done the hyperthreading looks promising
If you assume linear scaling with clock speed (big assumption): 3600/2933 = 1.227x
Nehalem @ 3.6 would be:
Whetstone 3418
Drystone 8715
I think there might a difference in OS as well - 64-bit OS has advantage over 32-bit (I think Movieman's numbers were on 64-bit) - some guys are claiming 5-10% difference but maybe someone can confirm/refute this?
ROG Power PCs - Intel and AMD
CPUs:i9-7900X, i9-9900K, i7-6950X, i7-5960X, i7-8086K, i7-8700K, 4x i7-7700K, i3-7350K, 2x i7-6700K, i5-6600K, R7-2700X, 4x R5 2600X, R5 2400G, R3 1200, R7-1800X, R7-1700X, 3x AMD FX-9590, 1x AMD FX-9370, 4x AMD FX-8350,1x AMD FX-8320,1x AMD FX-8300, 2x AMD FX-6300,2x AMD FX-4300, 3x AMD FX-8150, 2x AMD FX-8120 125 and 95W, AMD X2 555 BE, AMD x4 965 BE C2 and C3, AMD X4 970 BE, AMD x4 975 BE, AMD x4 980 BE, AMD X6 1090T BE, AMD X6 1100T BE, A10-7870K, Athlon 845, Athlon 860K,AMD A10-7850K, AMD A10-6800K, A8-6600K, 2x AMD A10-5800K, AMD A10-5600K, AMD A8-3850, AMD A8-3870K, 2x AMD A64 3000+, AMD 64+ X2 4600+ EE, Intel i7-980X, Intel i7-2600K, Intel i7-3770K,2x i7-4770K, Intel i7-3930KAMD Cinebench R10 challenge AMD Cinebench R15 thread Intel Cinebench R15 thread
It turns out its a real BOINC monster. We simply forgot SMT. Happy Dave then
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
First of all Thank you very much for running the benchmark.
Now just so I am sure, this is a single socket quad core correct?
If that is so, then the new Hyperpath(Hyperthreading) is skewing your numbers. If it is possible to shut off that function so that only 4 threads are working you may see some VERY incredible numbers.
Not quite double but maybe 60-75% above what was shown.
If that is true, then you are sitting on essentially the most powerfull machine that exists outside of some supercomputer.
I don't say that lightly, on the old dual single core xeons the difference in benchmarks with HT turned on and off were app 70% greater.
Now add into this that your only on single channel memory on a board that will do tri channel, a pre release board and probably still some bugs and added all up my thought is Dear God Almighty!
Oh, and I forgot to add: You only at 2933mhz..
At the risk of sounding like some schoolkid instead of a jaded 56 year old guy, stop and think what this will do when on a retail fully debugged board with tri channel DDR3-1333 or DDR3-1600 and running in the 3400-3600mhz range.
Just think on that a minute or two, before you call and buy Intel stock!
read above, your on the right track..
Oh yea, quick, get the nitro pills for my aging heart!
Last edited by Movieman; 07-02-2008 at 01:59 AM.
Crunch with us, the XS WCG team
The XS WCG team needs your support.
A good project with good goals.
Come join us,get that warm fuzzy feeling that you've done something good for mankind.
Thanks Dave, and now off to sleep with you, dreaming about retail systems performance for a DP version (DP Beckton especially)
Bookmarks