Nehalem is officially ftw (absolutely <3 for gaming too)

2008-11-04 09:47:36

#1

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

Oh man I was shocked when I saw these tests from many review sites....

Nehalem gives about 20% more performance to games compared to Core 2 Quad. But were it really starts to shine is multi-gpu use.

Now guys you think your E8500 is as fast as quad core in games? With two HD 4870 the difference can be as smoking as 50%!

And the Core i7 920 costs no more than the Q9550. Of course the mobos are expensive for a while but wow... Core i7 pwns really hard.

I just GOTTA get a Core i7 rig next year. And that is a promise.

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-m … -review/10

and btw almost 150fps in CoD 4 with max image quality at 2560x1600 is now possible

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-m … -review/19

*gets in Core i7 boat*

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-11-04 09:55:40

#2

max: Vela Incident; +1,652|6834|NYC / Hamburg

i7 + GT200b should be great

*waits impatiently*

_{once upon a midnight dreary, while i pron surfed, weak and weary, over many a strange and spurious site of ' hot xxx galore'. While i clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning, and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my dear amour, " 'Tis not possible!", i muttered, " give me back my free hardcore!"..... quoth the server, 404.}

2008-11-04 09:59:28

#3

Bull3t: stephen brule; +83|6568

I will have to buy one.

2008-11-04 10:01:10

#4

mikkel: Member; +383|6868

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Now guys you think your E8500 is as fast as quad core in games? With two HD 4870 the difference can be as smoking as 50%!

What do you base this on? I didn't see anything to cooperate this in the articles, though admittedly I just skimmed through them.

2008-11-04 10:04:35

#5

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

mikkel wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
Now guys you think your E8500 is as fast as quad core in games? With two HD 4870 the difference can be as smoking as 50%!
What do you base this on? I didn't see anything to cooperate this in the articles, though admittedly I just skimmed through them.

you should payt some attention to the pics tbh. here is one example of the HD 4870 crossfire E8400 vs 965

http://www.guru3d.com/article/core-i7-m … -review/10

usuallly it is around 25-35% but in some games it can be upto 50%.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-11-04 10:05:44)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-11-04 10:51:43

#6

mikkel: Member; +383|6868

So you're comparing an older chip to a newer chip and attributing the performance improvements exclusively to parallelism? Isn't it more likely that the performance gain is largely down to the difference in chips, and not the extra cores? Of course games written with parallelism in mind will benefit from additional cores, but in the classic examples of games in which the difference between two and four cores is neglible, this still holds true.

Last edited by mikkel (2008-11-04 10:52:05)

2008-11-04 11:16:17

#7

Bell: Frosties > Cornflakes; +362|6816|UK

Am still concerned about this whole tied voltage thing with the memory. 32nm refresh is apparantly on fast track for a Q2 release 09. Me thinks I'll wait for that.

2008-11-04 11:30:16

#8

The_Sniper_NM: Official EVGA Fanboy; +94|6380|SC | USA |

Until DDR3 Prices equal Current DDR2 and a Nehalem refresh for me.

Last edited by The_Sniper_NM (2008-11-04 11:30:38)

2008-11-04 11:35:12

#9

CrazeD: Member; +368|6939|Maine

mikkel wrote:
So you're comparing an older chip to a newer chip and attributing the performance improvements exclusively to parallelism? Isn't it more likely that the performance gain is largely down to the difference in chips, and not the extra cores? Of course games written with parallelism in mind will benefit from additional cores, but in the classic examples of games in which the difference between two and four cores is neglible, this still holds true.

I think he's referring to quads as in, the existing quads like the QX9xxx series and such, not as in the amount of cores.

2008-11-04 11:39:53

#10

mikkel: Member; +383|6868

CrazeD wrote:
mikkel wrote:
So you're comparing an older chip to a newer chip and attributing the performance improvements exclusively to parallelism? Isn't it more likely that the performance gain is largely down to the difference in chips, and not the extra cores? Of course games written with parallelism in mind will benefit from additional cores, but in the classic examples of games in which the difference between two and four cores is neglible, this still holds true.
I think he's referring to quads as in, the existing quads like the QX9xxx series and such, not as in the amount of cores.

Sure doesn't read like it.

2008-11-04 11:41:14

#11

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

CrazeD wrote:
mikkel wrote:
So you're comparing an older chip to a newer chip and attributing the performance improvements exclusively to parallelism? Isn't it more likely that the performance gain is largely down to the difference in chips, and not the extra cores? Of course games written with parallelism in mind will benefit from additional cores, but in the classic examples of games in which the difference between two and four cores is neglible, this still holds true.
I think he's referring to quads as in, the existing quads like the QX9xxx series and such, not as in the amount of cores.

mikkel you missunderstood what I tried to say.

With Core 2 gen the number of cores ment very little in performance of games. now the architechture of core i7 has made the use of extra cores more efficient. Core i7 has huge potential in multi-threaded applications.

means this: new quads do make difference compared to duals

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-11-04 12:29:43

#12

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6720|The Twilight Zone

I thought you said it sucks 3 days ago.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2008-11-04 12:36:35

#13

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

.Sup wrote:
I thought you said it sucks 3 days ago.

3 weeks ago. but it was because all test systems and drivers were so fail.
.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2008-11-04 12:37:28)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-11-04 12:55:56

#14

mikkel: Member; +383|6868

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
CrazeD wrote:
mikkel wrote:
So you're comparing an older chip to a newer chip and attributing the performance improvements exclusively to parallelism? Isn't it more likely that the performance gain is largely down to the difference in chips, and not the extra cores? Of course games written with parallelism in mind will benefit from additional cores, but in the classic examples of games in which the difference between two and four cores is neglible, this still holds true.
I think he's referring to quads as in, the existing quads like the QX9xxx series and such, not as in the amount of cores.
mikkel you missunderstood what I tried to say.

With Core 2 gen the number of cores ment very little in performance of games. now the architechture of core i7 has made the use of extra cores more efficient. Core i7 has huge potential in multi-threaded applications.

means this: new quads do make difference compared to duals

What specifically is done with Nehalem to make it more efficient at handling multiple theads?

2008-11-04 13:52:25

#15

_j5689_: Dreads & Bergers; +364|6983|Riva, MD

Those benchmarks don't even compare the Core i7 fairly to a Core 2 Quad unless they disabled Hyper-Threading on the Core i7. Otherwise the i7 is functioning like an 8-core processor which will obviously give it an advantage in things like this, even if it is just Hyper-Threaded.

It is really octo core vs quad core

mikkel wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
CrazeD wrote:

I think he's referring to quads as in, the existing quads like the QX9xxx series and such, not as in the amount of cores.
mikkel you missunderstood what I tried to say.

With Core 2 gen the number of cores ment very little in performance of games. now the architechture of core i7 has made the use of extra cores more efficient. Core i7 has huge potential in multi-threaded applications.

means this: new quads do make difference compared to duals
What specifically is done with Nehalem to make it more efficient at handling multiple theads?

By putting all cores on a single die and having them all share an L3 cache in a very organized way. That's seems to be it.

Last edited by _j5689_ (2008-11-04 16:12:29)

2008-11-04 15:06:39

#16

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6464|Winland

_j5689_ wrote:
Those benchmarks don't even compare the Core i7 fairly to a Core 2 Quad unless they disabled Hyper-Threading on the Core i7. Otherwise the i7 is functioning like an 8-core processor which will obviously give it an advantage in things like this, even if it is just Hyper-Threaded.

It is really octo core vs quad core

HT isn't really an extra core, nowhere near. You could look at it like an extra lane on a highway. It enables larger feeds, but isn't a highway of it's own.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-11-05 08:52:55

#17

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6681|Finland

Freezer7Pro wrote:
_j5689_ wrote:
Those benchmarks don't even compare the Core i7 fairly to a Core 2 Quad unless they disabled Hyper-Threading on the Core i7. Otherwise the i7 is functioning like an 8-core processor which will obviously give it an advantage in things like this, even if it is just Hyper-Threaded.

It is really octo core vs quad core
HT isn't really an extra core, nowhere near. You could look at it like an extra lane on a highway. It enables larger feeds, but isn't a highway of it's own.

yeah HT is just another way to make the use of available resourses more efficient. It gives nowhere near as much performance as a real core.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

BF2S Forums Nehalem is officially ftw (absolutely <3 for gaming too)

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

mikkel wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

mikkel wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

mikkel wrote:

.Sup wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

mikkel wrote:

mikkel wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

_j5689_ wrote:

Board footer