Well,... i'm going to be insulted anyway by sub-humans without any arguments( which they could present 1, just 1 f..k tiny winy argument)... about this...
... and so i'll be compelled to present some **FACTS** anyway ...
Why is important to ear many opinions, why is important to think...
WHY IS ANANDTECH NEHALEM BENCH DELIBERATELY FALSE
Anand conclusion:
[quote]
First keep in mind that these performance numbers are early, and they were run on a partly crippled, very early platform. With that preface, the fact that Nehalem is still able to post these 20 - 50% performance gains says only one thing about Intel's tick-tock cadence: they did it.
We've been told to expect a 20 - 30% overall advantage over Penryn and it looks like Intel is on track to delivering just that in Q4. At 2.66GHz, Nehalem is already faster than the fastest 3.2GHz Penryns on the market today. At 3.2GHz, I'd feel comfortable calling it baby Skulltrail in all but the most heavily threaded benchmarks. This thing is fast and this is on a very early platform, keep in mind that Nehalem doesn't launch in Q4 of this year.
[/quote]
Anand numbers for the Nehalem comparitive:
[anand]
Interestingly enough, ***none of our standard CPU benchmarks are single threaded at all*** - even the most benign ones are multithreaded (including the games). I did run some single thread Cinebench numbers though:
Cinebench R10 - 3D
Nehalem - 3015
*Q9450 - 2396*
[ /anand ]
Anand numbers in a previous comparitive:
[anand]
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3153
Cinebench R10 - 3D
*Q9450 - 2944*
???
[ /anand ]
According to these benchmarks, "old" Penryn beats "new" Penryn by about 17% in multi-threaded Cinebench... you Anand dirty roach!...
Why Anand wants to deceive people with multithreading benchmarks for Nehalem, when almost **none** of the applications out there out of server and HPC can take advantage of more then 4 threads ??
Good question ??... (perhaps Intel pay them!?)
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/nehalempreview_060508030 043/17014.png
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/nehalempreview_060508030 043/17023.png
Base on those 2 images of benches nehalem is superior over C2 in single thread performance, that is about 90% of all software out there, of only **3%** for core-to-core performance from Penryn to Nehalem at the same clock speed. Which is logic because outside of the memory architecture and HT tweaks to the core, Nehalem's list of improvements are very specific., i. e., faster unaligned cache accesses.
By others numbers of other tests including Anand of course, "old" Penryn beats "new"(on this Nehalem test) Penryn by about 38% in single-threaded Cinebench and 17% in multi-threaded Cinebench!!... lol
Other opinion from and enthusiast forum about this Anand job:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showpost.php?p=303856 9&postcount=38
[quote]
If you do the Cinebench math based on my stock result then 2.66Ghz Nehalem = 2.91Ghz Penryn. If you do it based on Anand's result then 2.66Ghz Nehalem = 3.29Ghz Penryn. So maybe this is why he said it was faster than any stock Penryn?
However it begs the question what the hell kind of screwed up mess did he use to get those Penryn benchmarks. They are terrible but he obviously knows what he is doing, so I could only think he lowballed the Penryn results on purpose to make the story more sensational and dramatic.
[/quote]
So discounting at the conclusion of 20-50% gain, its more likely to be 12%- 32%,... which already seems inflated... So what to expect!???
in another forum http://www.amdzone.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=135 197&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=25
[quote]
***according to Anands own numbers***
Cinebench R10, 1 Thread, N-Threads, Speedup
Nehalem (2.66GHz), 3015, 12596, 4.18x
Penryn - (2.66GHz), 2931, 10445, 3.56x
The delta between a Penryn quad core (4 logical) vs a Nehalem quad core (8 logical) is only 17.3%
Adding one more real core to the Penryn i.e. Quint core (5 logical) would basically equal the Nehalem using HT. What we end up having on a per core scalability boils down to.
1. The Nehalem core logic changes equate to about a 4% per core increase.
2. The hyperthreading gives the Nehalem about a 2% per thread increase.
3. Some combination of A & B
Either way this hardly seems a killer, and does seem to be more like a rehash of the old P4 hyper threading games. Weather it will suffer form the same stalls that the P4 did remains to be seen, but so far the Nehalem looks less and less impressive.
No wonder AMD is going six core(K10.5 derivative), it will beat the Nehalem 4 core / 8 thread by 10-20% clock for clock
[/quote]
Gives to wonder ABOUT BENCHMARKS!!...
That is that "Wonder Thought" i gived in here Xbit, in this thread,... that at synthetics the Penryn C2duo beats clearly the Phenom X3, but REAL APPLICATIONS the X3 wins most of the benchs... that many people that don't think, didn't get it...
[
Posted by: CONSCIOUS BUYER
|
Date: 07/04/08 04:32:44 PM]
Make Home Page
Add to Favorites
XbitLabs is using Twitter
Windows Live Alerts
