Six-core 32nm Westmere Full Review @ HKEPC

[Hornet331]

It's system power consumption, using low power components (gts 210)

yeah but that dosen't say anything about what the cpu consume. Let alone what a theoretical 4core westmere cpu would.

From a CB10 run a while back--ignore voltage (it's actually 1.225V):

pic removed

Can't compare that, since they used cinebench 32bit. 64bit gains quite a few hundret point more then the 32 bit version.

[ajaidev]

From a CB10 run a while back--ignore voltage (it's actually 1.225V):


Img

Thanks, i needed it for a presentation show later on in collage ....

I had the arc info for the Istanbul but the cover has to have a Cpuz screen in it


BTW very sweet setup i loved the cabinet... tough the ram modules were a little naked hehe

[Particle]

Can't compare that, since they used cinebench 32bit. 64bit gains quite a few hundret point more then the 32 bit version.

He wanted a picture of CPU-Z for an "Istanbul" CPU. The Cinebench stuff in the background is irrelevant.

[Hornet331]

He wanted a picture of CPU-Z for an "Istanbul" CPU. The Cinebench stuff in the background is irrelevant.

Quote is there for a reason.

[Olivon]

since when did a bloomfield consume 163W?

CanardPC says 128.2W for 3.2 GHz, a good source

[Hornet331]

CanardPC says 128.2W for 3.2 GHz, a good source

I doubt that since, we all know the first thing i7 does is "turbo throttleing" when the TDP limit is reached. If the stock 3.2 ghz version would use 128.2W (the 0.2 W really cracks me up ), it would never use turbo mode. But a 965 or even better a 975 uses turbo on all cores even on the stock cooler.

They even mention that in there articel and they still don't question there own numbers they have come up, while knowing that....

[poke349]

What's the threshold for throttling on the current i7s anyway?

What's the TDP threshold?

The temperature threshold is about 80C I think.

[Hornet331]

Nobody but intel knows for certain.
We know the family TDP is 130W so its a good indicator for what the TDP ceiling is, we can also guess the thermal throttel point, due to observation.

Im not sure if its 80°C, i guess its 100°C but with 80°C for the PCU to disables turbo mode and after that he starts with various energy conservation techniques.

[poke349]

Nobody but intel knows for certain.
We know the family TDP is 130W so its a good indicator for what the TDP ceiling is, we can also guess the thermal throttel point, due to observation.

Im not sure if its 80°C, i guess its 100°C but with 80°C for the PCU to disables turbo mode and after that he starts with various energy conservation techniques.

Yes, that's what I meant. 80C is for turbo-throttling, the "main" throttling threshold is Tmax @ 100C I think.

[Olivon]

I doubt that since, we all know the first thing i7 does is "turbo throttleing" when the TDP limit is reached. If the stock 3.2 ghz version would use 128.2W (the 0.2 W really cracks me up ), it would never use turbo mode. But a 965 or even better a 975 uses turbo on all cores even on the stock cooler.

They even mention that in there articel and they still don't question there own numbers they have come up, while knowing that....

This article from CanardPC is a little bit oldie, they have tested with C0 revision processors, but it's a good site and I trust them (that's X86-secret team, quite famous).

If anybody has clues ?

[jcool]

What's the threshold for throttling on the current i7s anyway?

What's the TDP threshold?

The temperature threshold is about 80C I think.

The 920 starts to throttle on my DFI JR when it hits around 85C and current/TDP limits are not disabled in bios. Not sure about the TDP barrier tho.. I'd guess around 150W.

Really looking forward to replacing all my single and dual socket Nehalems with Gulftowns, 50% more crunching-power

[Hornet331]

It's not a matter of trust, it just don't adds up with the observations and data we have here in the forum. If Ci7 would nearly run near the brink of its TDP at stock, there would be no turbo mode.... but the fact is, it runs turbo even on stock cooling.

The whole turbo throttling issue for some boards shaded some light on this. Depending on the cooling people got different states where the Ci7 began to use turbo throttling, but that was way above stock frequency (3.8-4ghz area) and then it was often enough to reduce the voltage to nearly stop the turbo throttling.

Later on the issue was fixed with new bios from various board makers.

[poke349]

The 920 starts to throttle on my DFI JR when it hits around 85C and current/TDP limits are not disabled in bios. Not sure about the TDP barrier tho.. I'd guess around 150W.

Really looking forward to replacing all my single and dual socket Nehalems with Gulftowns, 50% more crunching-power

drools...
And then you're gonna sell all your existing Nehalem-dualies?

When you get them you might wanna see if you can blow away all the speed records for the Pi benchmark in my siggy.

*That's if Dave doesn't beat you to it...

[jcool]

Oh heh, a new benchie - I'll def. check it out sometime

[PeterStoba]

That is quite a dissapointment A case of software catch up again? Yawn.

[[XC] Synthetickiller]

Makes me happy I haven't moved from 65nm. Never thought I'd say that 2 years later. Waiting for the next q6600 to rear its head. I guess 8 core 22nm?

I'm not at all surprised about real world results. i7 didn't even buy that much for most people and this isn't that much of a real improvement for 99% of people.
I hope Intel can get the clock vs clock speeds up a LOT, at least compared to 775 socket chips to give people a legit reason to upgrade to "next gen."

[Hornet331]

Makes me happy I haven't moved from 65nm. Never thought I'd say that 2 years later. Waiting for the next q6600 to rear its head. I guess 8 core 22nm?

I'm not at all surprised about real world results. i7 didn't even buy that much for most people and this isn't that much of a real improvement for 99% of people.
I hope Intel can get the clock vs clock speeds up a LOT, at least compared to 775 socket chips to give people a legit reason to upgrade to "next gen."

You will never see such big jumps in performance per clock 20-50% over a broad range, more like the stady increasment of 0-10% each new cpu generation with a declining tendency.

The thing to blame for that is x86, its already hard to keep a 3 issue architecture filled (amd) and got even harder when intel introduced C2 (4 issue).

Thats why you saw the return of HT, to keep the execution engies field.

X86 needs to die if you want to see huge gains in IPC or performance per clock again.

[poke349]

X86 needs to die if you want to see huge gains in IPC or performance per clock again.

Agreed, they need to make more x64 benchmarks that use all the new instructions like SSE.

[Chad Boga]

btw when is the next 32nm AMD CPU coming?
and how well it will do Vs i7 32nm?

Supposedly AMD will introduce 32nm with their next gen processor code named Bulldozer.

As for when that will be out, I think Q4 10 is the best case scenario, but Q1/Q2 11 is more likely.

[JumpingJack]

What's the threshold for throttling on the current i7s anyway?

What's the TDP threshold?

The temperature threshold is about 80C I think.

TDP does not determine the threshold, the power output of actual consumption and the efficiency of the cooling solution determines load operating temperature and TM1 and TM2 are programmed to throttle if that temperature threshold is exceeded.

Not sure about the core iX series, but 105 deg was Tjmax for some of the prior products.

[poke349]

TDP does not determine the threshold, the power output of actual consumption and the efficiency of the cooling solution determines load operating temperature and TM1 and TM2 are programmed to throttle if that temperature threshold is exceeded.

So if I'm understanding that correctly:

The temperature threshold for turbo-throttling is a function of a bunch of things including actual power consumption.

[drizzt5]

For crunchers, this chip is a wet dream.

I know.... ughhh......

[kl0012]

Supposedly AMD will introduce 32nm with their next gen processor code named Bulldozer.

As for when that will be out, I think Q4 10 is the best case scenario, but Q1/Q2 11 is more likely.

Bulldozer isn't mentioned in AMDs 2011 roadmap anymore. It was expectable since AMD had to adopt Intel AVX extension. BTW Q4-10/Q1-11 is a time of Sandy Bridge intro which was taped out 2 months ago, probably because of longer debug/test cycle of new gen + graphics.

[YukonTrooper]

For crunchers, this chip is a wet dream.

For everyone else, meh.



GLAD I'm a cruncher.

Booyah!

[informal]

It's system power consumption, using low power components (gts 210)

That's correct. The only thing i couldn't quite understand was the author's i7-965 comment under the chart with power consumption numbers. Both CPUs tested should be 2.4Ghz models.

Bulldozer isn't mentioned in AMDs 2011 roadmap anymore. It was expectable since AMD had to adopt Intel AVX extension. BTW Q4-10/Q1-11 is a time of Sandy Bridge intro which was taped out 2 months ago, probably because of longer debug/test cycle of new gen + graphics.

If BD is not 2011 thing anymore(as you say),when is it supposed to launch then?!
BD cores are now already in 2nd major revision,first being "canceled" back in the 2007.Since then,it "gained" 256bit AVX support and SSE5 on top of that(XOP etc. in new renamed nomenclature).
So Chad is right,BD is in best case scenario late 2010,or in worst case Q2 2011.