Compare your CPU to a 4Ghz Core i7 965 EE Nehalem!

[Dopekitten]

I doubt the gaming benchmarks will ever come, and if they do, we will see very little improvement in performance. I mean, as we have seen, nehalem appears to be about 10% faster clock for clock in single core apps. While i agree that if games were optimized for 16 cores (8 core nehalem w/ HT), then nehalem would pwn. But as it is now, games can only use for the most part 2 cores, and at the max 4 (exception: FSX).

Thus since nehalem will only be bringing more cache and 10% faster clock, we should see miniscule performance increases, certainly not enough to merit getting a 2k USD i7 965 and overclocking it to 4.0ghz.

(I know that the 920 can OC to 4.0ghz, but they use ultra high voltages, don't want to have now do we)

Seems to me that getting a Q9650 and overclocking it to 4.0ghz would be a better choice than getting the i7 965 (cheaper)

 

[Tempered81]

Gaming benchmarks:

http://xtreview.com/addcomment...re-i-7-940-review.html

"Associates used the engineering model core i 7-940 (2.93 GHz), based on B0 stepping. It is completely possible that the series processors will show a higher speed level ; therefore results in question should not be assumed as final. "

"For gamer as show the picture above , CPU's do no play a big role ( it is better to update the video card for better gaming ) . But let us note the small boost from nehalem CPU in some games , Note Core i7 loose over older Yorkfiled in 2 Games ."

 

[Dopekitten]

Yep, like i said, little improvement, some negative even. Look at the other benchmarks though, some get massive performance increases, that's because of 8 virtual cores.

So it appears that it only brings more multithreading to the table. As for: "Associates used the engineering model core i 7-940 (2.93 GHz), based on B0 stepping. It is completely possible that the series processors will show a higher speed level ; therefore results in question should not be assumed as final. "

This is bullshit, it will be the same when it comes out, no stepping will increase speed by an measurable amount. Maybe power consumption/price to manufactor/overclocking ability, but not the speed.

 

[SSChevy2001]

Q9300 3.45ghz 460FSB

6m 25s

 

[Ika]

let me know when SuperPi 1m scores get to below 10s. again

 

[elmer92413]

9mins 2secs for my e2180 @ 3.0ghz

 

[Tempered81]

Originally posted by: Aflac
let me know when SuperPi 1m scores get to below 10s. again

Six seconds here

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Dopekitten
I doubt the gaming benchmarks will ever come, and if they do, we will see very little improvement in performance. I mean, as we have seen, nehalem appears to be about 10% faster clock for clock in single core apps. While i agree that if games were optimized for 16 cores (8 core nehalem w/ HT), then nehalem would pwn. But as it is now, games can only use for the most part 2 cores, and at the max 4 (exception: FSX).

Thus since nehalem will only be bringing more cache and 10% faster clock, we should see miniscule performance increases, certainly not enough to merit getting a 2k USD i7 965 and overclocking it to 4.0ghz.

(I know that the 920 can OC to 4.0ghz, but they use ultra high voltages, don't want to have now do we)

Seems to me that getting a Q9650 and overclocking it to 4.0ghz would be a better choice than getting the i7 965 (cheaper)

I'm going to be laughing my ass off if Deneb turns out to be the sleeper of the year.

 

[Dopekitten]

Yea, that would be great

 

[waffleironhead]

Turion ultra zm-80 2.1 18m35.961 secs

 

[rge]

Originally posted by: Idontcare


I'm going to be laughing my ass off if Deneb turns out to be the sleeper of the year.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,8195.html

as would I, especially if i7 does not overclock well at 24/7 usable voltages

 

[Tempered81]

It's looking like deneb will reach 4.0-4.3ghz. 4 cores with 15-20% IPC improvements over Agena @ 45nm & lower TDP put it neck / neck with Yorkfield & Wolfdale. If you can get an E8400 for 150 and oc it to 4.3, or get a quad core deneb for $xxx and oc it to 4.3g - and you get similar performance from both, AMD could be getting back into the "game". heheh Just need to make sure they price it right. It's also going to take a full system transition from 775. bah.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: jaredpace
It's also going to take a full system transition from 775. bah.

X58 is a full system transition as well. At least Deneb lets you use your piles of DDR2.

 

[demiurge3141]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: Dopekitten
I doubt the gaming benchmarks will ever come, and if they do, we will see very little improvement in performance. I mean, as we have seen, nehalem appears to be about 10% faster clock for clock in single core apps. While i agree that if games were optimized for 16 cores (8 core nehalem w/ HT), then nehalem would pwn. But as it is now, games can only use for the most part 2 cores, and at the max 4 (exception: FSX).

Thus since nehalem will only be bringing more cache and 10% faster clock, we should see miniscule performance increases, certainly not enough to merit getting a 2k USD i7 965 and overclocking it to 4.0ghz.

(I know that the 920 can OC to 4.0ghz, but they use ultra high voltages, don't want to have now do we)

Seems to me that getting a Q9650 and overclocking it to 4.0ghz would be a better choice than getting the i7 965 (cheaper)

I'm going to be laughing my ass off if Deneb turns out to be the sleeper of the year.

lol

 

[Zapper48]

My E8400 @3.6ghz and 8gb of ram does it in 6 min 36 sec.

 

[Emo]

Just tried it on my E8400@4.2Ghz (9x467Mhz) with 4Gb ram and got 5m 33s.

 

[bryanW1995]

6m29.984s with my x3350 @ 3.4

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: rge

Originally posted by: Idontcare


I'm going to be laughing my ass off if Deneb turns out to be the sleeper of the year.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,8195.html

as would I, especially if i7 does not overclock well at 24/7 usable voltages

You mean like AMD did to Nvidia with 4870?
:Q

i'd love it

intel needs to be taken down a solid notch

 

[Zapper48]

Went back to 4 gb of RAM and upped the clockspeed to 4.0ghz and pulled a time of

5min 59 sec.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: jaredpace


Q6600 @ 3.3ghz: 8 min 10 sec
Q6600 @ 3.3ghz: 7 min 29 sec

ahhh, is the top 1 a Q66 @ 3ghz?

 

[FiLeZz]

Well here are the results for my cpu

q9650 @ 4050mhz

000h 05m 53.692s [ 16mb]

 

[ghost recon88]

Originally posted by: Aflac
let me know when SuperPi 1m scores get to below 10s. again

I break 10 seconds all the time with my E8400. I have a delidded E7200 here and a lapped TRUE on the way, I should have a 4.5GHz Super Pi 16M run up by the end of the week.

 

[Diogenes2]

Q9650 @ 3.6 = 6min 55.281 sec

If I set affinity for 1 core it knocks about 4 seconds off ...

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: rge

Originally posted by: Idontcare


I'm going to be laughing my ass off if Deneb turns out to be the sleeper of the year.

http://www.nordichardware.com/news,8195.html

as would I, especially if i7 does not overclock well at 24/7 usable voltages

You mean like AMD did to Nvidia with 4870?
:Q

i'd love it

intel needs to be taken down a solid notch

Penryn would still smoke Deneb even if i7 doesnt overclock to 4ghz regularly. Im not seeing your logic?

 

[Dopekitten]

Yea, if Deneb has similar performance to i7, (and measurable increase in performance over my Q9450), i might get it, because have you seen the prices or the X58 boards?
X58 boards
http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=9782&Itemid=1

DDR3 Triple Channel (WTF seriously)
http://www.fudzilla.com/index....=view&id=9783&Itemid=1

Not like i need 6gb, but im not gonna get 3. I don't think forcing people to use DDR3 was a smart choice on intel's part, espically triple channel because it is a new tech.
Im not an AMD fanboy, but still, i wouldn't mind intel getting owned for once. Maybe we'll finally get some price competition.