Ok. so in relevance to that chart posted a few posts above are they taking the averages or are they taking the highest numbers?Originally Posted by bingo13
Your second pass is actually the first pass for the updated x.264 bench, notice the version numbers on each of your tests.
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.
If the two platform would have beend released nearly at the same time frame i still would have goen for s1366, soley for the reason that i can upgrade to gulftown.
And the reason why you don't see a higher model in my sig is, that on aircooling theres no reason to go for a higher model, thought i have a feeling that for gulftown another EE cpu might be mine.
thank you for proving my point that having a two different platforms is not good for the consumer and having one that allows you to install entry level up to high end is best.If the two platform would have beend released nearly at the same time frame i still would have goen for s1366, soley for the reason that i can upgrade to gulftown.
Belgium's #1 Hardware Review Site and OC-Team!
to bad gulftown is a server processor and isn't aimed to be marketed to consumers.thank you for proving my point that having a two different platforms is not good for the consumer and having one that allows you to install entry level up to high end is best.
(well depends on what is defined as consumer... i for myself don't see enthusisats as consumers, so S1366 was never a consumer plattform for me to beginn with.
Last edited by Hornet331; 05-30-2009 at 12:07 PM.
I've always had issues with the term server.to bad gulftown is a server processor and isn't aimed to be marketed to consumers.
(well depends on what is defined as consumer... i for myself don't see enthusisats as consumers, so S1366 was never a consumer plattform for me to beginn with.
That's more a usage of a system than the hardware itself.
no reason at all why you can't use a dual Gainestown with 12-24gig of memory as your daily driver
It opens email so fast your eyes can't keep up!
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.
Why do folks keep missing this excellent point?
Posted by duploxxx
I am sure JF is relaxed and smiling these days with there intended launch schedule. SNB Xeon servers on the other hand....
Posted by gallag
there yo go bringing intel into a amd thread again lol, if that was someone droping a dig at amd you would be crying like a girl.qft!
If i could spend more money on hardware i would get a few of those puppies:
http://www.dell.com/content/products...555&l=en&s=biz
I'm not sure about that at all: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...7&postcount=88
Anand has the CPU, he clearly noted it would not bump past 1x. Regardless, I can reproduce his numbers pretty easily with my hardware but I will talk to him and see if that was indeed true.
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
Well those C10 numbers show i5 @2.66 being approx. one bin faster than i7@ 2.66Ghz. The only reason could be turbo boost being higher than on i7 part.i7 920 should do ~2793Mhz ,if not more, in single threaded apps.
Maybe the Uncore speed. I guess the uncore is OCed on the Lynnfield. There is a bunch of unknown values. Did Turbomode kick in or not. Did it exceed the TDP value define in BIOS etc etc.
Last edited by Shintai; 05-30-2009 at 03:43 PM.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
Anand has mixed his cinbench results before, Scientia wrote a complete article inferring the incorrect conclusion because he was comparing 32-bit to 64-bit runs, I shot him an email I will see if he can provide an explanation.
32-bit single threaded, for example, I only see +1x bump
This is because windows scheduler is distributing the load across all cores (real and virtual).
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
Thats quite possible. But again, in the Cinebench there is a 2.5% difference. Could just be a benching/scheduler glitch. Cinebench doesnt seem to like HT in singlethreaded mode.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
Anand has mixed his cinbench results before, Scientia wrote a complete article inferring the incorrect conclusion because he was comparing 32-bit to 64-bit runs, I shot him an email I will see if he can provide an explanation.
32-bit single threaded, for example, I only see +1x bump
This is because windows scheduler is distributing the load across all cores (real and virtual).
Yeah I hear you.It still up to AT to clarify what exactly was going on with BIOS settings on that lynnfield system.
As for i7 965,shouldn't the 920 have a bit higher Turbo boost kick compared to 965(which gets only "1" bin)?I ask since I think I read at i7 launch that 920 was to have the biggest boost from Turbo being the lowest clocked model(thus having more "headroom" than 2 higher end models,TDP wise).
No, they all have a predefined value in a linear scale. I actually think the retail 2.66Ghz got less turbomode headroom than the 2.8 and 2.93Ghz for Lynnfield. For i7 its all the same. 1x quad, 2x single/dual in C0 stepping.
All artificial limited ofcourse.
There could also be turbomode difference between C0 and D0 stepping. However I dont know and havent tested. But its worth noticing that Xeons (D0) got higher turbomode modes.
And the 920 by AT seems to be an old C0 ES sample for sure (Who knows how thats limited or not). Why dont they test with retail CPUs?
However its all starting to be a mess. Both from AMD and Intel.
Uncore speed differences. 200Mhz for example between AM2+ and AM3. And yet another 200Mhz between those and Opterons. Lynnfield also got a 133Mhz (I think) slower uncore than i7.
Then there is all the turbomode issue. A hot testlab could show poor results for example. Next is Hyperthreading etc.
And it certainly wont be easier in the future
Last edited by Shintai; 05-30-2009 at 03:56 PM.
Crunching for Comrades and the Common good of the People.
Yeah I know. Well this is just an earfly preview,by the time it launches hopefully there will be less unkown variables(mature boards/bios,defined models that have/don't have SMT,fixed Turbo multies etc.)
I'm fairly certain that i7 gets 1x for quad/dual & 2x for single C0 stepping, I've never seen 2x outside of one active core on i7 personally.
Work Rig: Asus x58 P6T Deluxe, i7 950 24x166 1.275v, BIX2/GTZ/D5
3x2048 GSkill pi Black DDR3 1600, Quadro 600
PCPower & Cooling Silencer 750, CM Stacker 810
Game Rig: Asus x58 P6T, i7 970 24x160 1.2v HT on, TRUE120
3x4096 GSkill DDR3 1600, PNY 660ti
PCPower & Cooling Silencer 750, CM Stacker 830
AMD Rig: Biostar TA790GX A2+, x4 940 16x200, stock hsf
2x2gb Patriot DDR2 800, PowerColor 4850
Corsair VX450
it's a good preview anyway, but given the variables, not really much point to it (tbh).
The margin of error from having poor functioning turbo mode, unknown uncore freq's etc outweigh anyones estimation of performance anyway! ( in other words, we know roughtly how it will perform given it's still nehalem, and we know dual channel DDR3 has little effect)
I agree with you Shintai, it is a mess, and a lot of reviewers unfortunatly DONT get their head around all the minor differences, and end up doing 'unfair' comparisons or incorrectly simulate other models, causing flamewards on forums :p , or accusations of reviewer brand Bias (when infact they may just have missed the detail)
the faster BCLK on the i5 affects performance does it not? or did anandtech overclock the BCLK on the i7 to 166 too and dropped the multiplier? I didn't read the review so maybe someone can fill me in >.<
2600k @ 4.5GHz || P8Z68V || 16GB Vengeance || 5850 || Crucial M4 || TJ-10BW || ST1000 || 2408WFP
Heat
Can you run with your i7 @2.93 the Cinebench 10 x64 1 CPU?
(Anand uses it in this preview).
Yeah, sure will.... give me a bit of time though, I have to spend a bit more time with my son.
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
It is one of my biggest complaints, not direct at AT, but at the HW sites in general. More or less, much of their test setup information is very lacking, it is hard to make heads or tails of things sometimes.
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
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.
Averages...
Not the first ones by any means.... and the CPU still has a couple of revisions left in it before it is production ready.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks