Nehalem-EP......BLOOMFIELD

[Seraphiel]

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 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

while QX9650 gets around 18.7fps @1280x1024 noAA according to techarp database.Wolfdale e8400 even scores better than Qx9650with ~18.9fps in CPU test2.
Anyone knows what are the scores for QX9650 in CPU test 1 in Crysis bench tool @1280x1024?

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.