Seems wrong...
The time is alot different from what I've heard, further, that clockspeed isnt real..? The models in 2008 wont be at that frequency... Bizar
Seems wrong...
The time is alot different from what I've heard, further, that clockspeed isnt real..? The models in 2008 wont be at that frequency... Bizar
It`s probably an early batch, but it`s real.
Knowing AndreYang, he`s prolly had it for a little while now
Perkam
__________________ Chicken....will be TASTY...in 2010
Seems wrong...
The time is alot different from what I've heard, further, that clockspeed isnt real..? The models in 2008 wont be at that frequency... Bizar
from what i read somewhere, intel has locked all their nehalem cpus that they send out @ 2.4 gigs?? someone correct me if im wrong??
from what i read somewhere, intel has locked all their nehalem cpus that they send out @ 2.4 gigs?? someone correct me if im wrong??
Yes! It's in another thread here.
My E6600 got 21secs as well, I have not ran it on my Wolfdale.
__________________
C2Q-9550 with Ninja 120mm Fan, Asus P5Q Pro P45 mobo, Lian Li 7B Al Case, OCZ Stealth 700W PSU, 6GB of Mushkin PC-800 RAM, Vantec Card internal reader, Sapphire Radeon 4850, Auzentech Prelude 7.1 OPA2227P-ND OPAMPS, AverTV Card (for Analog Capture), 640GB WD HDD and 1TB Seagate HDD, 2 (Q&F) Samsung 22X DVD Burners LS, yes a Floppy. Beyerdynamics 770+Mic, Harmon Kardon 247 and DIYer 5.1 speakers that RAWCs! MS Ergo 4000 KB and 6000 Laser Mouse. Tril Booted with Win64 Ultimate, Windows 7 64bit and WinXP Home 32bit. Acer 22" LCD and 19" GW VX900T CRT.
__________________ For all of your Watercooling needs, head over to Petra's Tech Shop. "Never skimp on the Power Supply"-Me (HEAT)
Do your senses a favor, get the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 sound system. Build
E8400 @4.0(for now) | DFI LT X38-T2R | 4x1GB Ballistix PC8500 @Stock(for now) | HD3870 | PCP&C 610 | Creative X-Fi | NEC 1970GX LCD | Heavily modded Aspire X-Cruiser Watercooling
MCP655 -> Swiftech MicroRes v1 -> Dtek FuZion v1 -> BIP 2X120 [suspended off case DIY] ->MCW-60 -> PA160 w/shroud [Inside of case ] ->MCP655 Tygon 5/16, PT_Nuke + Pentosin, Yate Loon D12SM-12's for rad's.
wow. This seems to be contrary to what the Anand Results seemed to point towards in singlethreaded performance... any speculation as to the disparity?
I think what you will find is different apps seeing some healthy gains, others seeing none or little to nothing. On the whole I suspect healthy overall but not overwhelming single threaded jumps in performance (similar to K8 to Phenom). There are examples where, clock for clock (IPC), Phenom showed moderate to very slight gains, and in other apps nice 15-20% improvements.
In this case, SP1M -- there is info on the web that Intel buffed up loop prediction, as SP1M is inherently recursive I would postulate that the benefit we see here is coming some from that architectural improvement. Speculation on my part though....
Just looking at the SP1M, roughly 13% gain clock for clock -- which is healthy for single threaded performance ... not quite a jaw dropping as the Conroe leap over Netburst, but still healthy.
Jack
__________________
".. an ounce of honest data is worth a pound of marketing hype." - Spec.Org
Last edited by JumpingJack; 06-10-2008 at 10:56 PM.
edit: I shall call Bloomfield by another name, BOOMFIELD
__________________
"To exist in this vast universe for a speck of time is the great gift of life. Our tiny sliver of time is our gift of life. It is our only life. The universe will go on, indifferent to our brief existence, but while we are here we touch not just part of that vastness, but also the lives around us. Life is the gift each of us has been given. Each life is our own and no one else's. It is precious beyond all counting. It is the greatest value we have. Cherish it for what it truly is."
I think what you will find is different apps seeing some healthy gains, others seeing none or little to nothing. On the whole I suspect healthy overall but not overwhelming single threaded jumps in performance (similar to K8 to Phenom). There are examples where, clock for clock (IPC), Phenom showed moderate to very slight gains, and in other apps nice 15-20% improvements.
In this case, SP1M -- there is info on the web that Intel buffed up loop prediction, as SP1M is inherently recursive I would postulate that the benefit we see here is coming some from that architectural improvement. Speculation on my part though....
Just looking at the SP1M, roughly 13% gain clock for clock -- which is healthy for single threaded performance ... not quite a jaw dropping as the Conroe leap over Netburst, but still healthy.
Jack
Speculation of course, but seems fairly grounded
Makes sense, hehe, but 13% on something already impressive is no small feat either. I was worried that these would only have 1-3% improvements on singlethreaded, and shine in the multithreading scenario, but seeing this, is well, very promising indeed
__________________
Laptop For now. New Build soon
"This Business is Binary, your either a 1 or a 0, alive or dead." - Gary Winston ^^
I think what you will find is different apps seeing some healthy gains, others seeing none or little to nothing. On the whole I suspect healthy overall but not overwhelming single threaded jumps in performance (similar to K8 to Phenom). There are examples where, clock for clock (IPC), Phenom showed moderate to very slight gains, and in other apps nice 15-20% improvements.
In this case, SP1M -- there is info on the web that Intel buffed up loop prediction, as SP1M is inherently recursive I would postulate that the benefit we see here is coming some from that architectural improvement. Speculation on my part though....
Just looking at the SP1M, roughly 13% gain clock for clock -- which is healthy for single threaded performance ... not quite a jaw dropping as the Conroe leap over Netburst, but still healthy.
Jack
waits for amd fainboys to pick this up and say nehalem is only optimized for benchmarks (just like core2)
16% performance improvement on SPi1M is good. But nobody is looking at the CPUz screen. The OP was using only one module(1GB) of RAM. I guess his mainboard was running the RAM with crappy timings too, like Anand's mainboard. So, we can expect some better numbers with the retail products.
__________________
1) Gaming: P6T Deluxe|Ci7 920 D0@4.4GHz(21x210MHz) turbo=premanent on/HT=on|CM Aquagate MAX + custom Cu block|3x2GB OCZ Gold DDR3 @1.68GHz CL7 7-7-20 1T|Sapphire 5870 @1000/1325|X-Fi xTremeMusic|3xHitachi 1TB RAID0 + WD 1TB for storage|CM Real Power 1KW|CM CosmosS|Samsung T240 + 37" full HD
2) Alternative: Asus P5K|E7400 @3.8GHz (9.5x400MHz)|2x2GB Corsair DDR2 @1GHz CL5 5-5-15|Asus 9500GT @700/1750/570|2xWD 250GB|Asus VB191T
3) Mobile: HP 6830s|T3400 @2.17GHz|4GB DDR2-800|320GB|Radeon 3430
4) Media: Asus M2N-MX|X2 4200+|2x1GB DDR2 @800|Asus 7131H|Asus 8500GT|Tsunami MJR2|DVD-RW x18|Excelstor 250GB
I think what you will find is different apps seeing some healthy gains, others seeing none or little to nothing. On the whole I suspect healthy overall but not overwhelming single threaded jumps in performance (similar to K8 to Phenom). There are examples where, clock for clock (IPC), Phenom showed moderate to very slight gains, and in other apps nice 15-20% improvements.
In this case, SP1M -- there is info on the web that Intel buffed up loop prediction, as SP1M is inherently recursive I would postulate that the benefit we see here is coming some from that architectural improvement. Speculation on my part though....
Just looking at the SP1M, roughly 13% gain clock for clock -- which is healthy for single threaded performance ... not quite a jaw dropping as the Conroe leap over Netburst, but still healthy.
Jack
You know very well that Core and especially Penryn ( with its improved latencies for some instructions ) are the pinnacle of single thread performance.
With the advanced prefetchers , very large and extremly low latency L2 they keep the large number of execution units busy and offer superb single thread performance.To improve on that with a completely different cache structure ( inferior IMO for single threaded apps ) and a CPU designed for scalability and multithreading is nothing short of astounding.
People expect Nehalem to improve dramatically over Penryn , but they fail to realize how hard that is as the Core/Penryn uarch simply loves single threaded apps.
AMD K10 has a full 3 pages of improvements over K8 and can't touch Core even with a 10 foot pole in single threaded apps.Imagine what work went into Nehalem to offer even that measly 2% in Cinebench.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupholder2.0
For 3 years AMD beat Intel, all it did was made Intel get a bloody nose. In one year, AMD ended up in the intensive care unit.
You know very well that Core and especially Penryn ( with its improved latencies for some instructions ) are the pinnacle of single thread performance.
With the advanced prefetchers , very large and extremly low latency L2 they keep the large number of execution units busy and offer superb single thread performance.To improve on that with a completely different cache structure ( inferior IMO for single threaded apps ) and a CPU designed for scalability and multithreading is nothing short of astounding.
People expect Nehalem to improve dramatically over Penryn , but they fail to realize how hard that is as the Core/Penryn uarch simply loves single threaded apps.
AMD K10 has a full 3 pages of improvements over K8 and can't touch Core even with a 10 foot pole in single threaded apps.Imagine what work went into Nehalem to offer even that measly 2% in Cinebench.
I will not argue against this.... just in studying the emperical data -- what we have seen so far, I would also speculate that Intel started the Conroe/Penryn design cycle with a philosophy of 'let's amp up single threaded and provide good multithreaded'.... in this approach they addressed the majority of the code base in the current market while providing incentive to start transitioning to multithreaded. The dynamic allocation of shared cache is a huge singlethreaded advantage while maintaining good multithreaded performance (i.e. coherency is not an issue in shared caches).
In fact, I am quite pleased personally at the progress software has made to going multithreaded overall, many apps which 2 years ago were single are now working on more cores... games (recent contemporary games) are also showing that trend. My investment in a quad core was not wasted
As such, the timing for a focus on multithreaded is about right....
In short, it would appear to me that Intel delivered in terms of architecture boosts in areas exactly where they needed it to be successful on the current state of the code base....
This is one of many aspects microarchitects must design for.... i.e. what current and future code will be running on the HW.
Jack
__________________
".. an ounce of honest data is worth a pound of marketing hype." - Spec.Org
] ->MCP655 Tygon 5/16, PT_Nuke + Pentosin, Yate Loon D12SM-12's for rad's.
Linear Mode
