Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tom's Benchmarked Nehalem + 4850!!!

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • GPUs
  • Vantage
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 2, 2008 2:16:31 PM

http://www.tomshardware.tw/590,news-590.html

Quote:
PCMark Vantage: PCMark score 5632
Memories score 4692
TV and Movies score 4760
Gaming score 7520
Music score 5121
Communications score 4964
Productivity score 4201
HDD score 3301

PCMark 05: System PCMark 9852
Memory 9010
Graphics 17511
HDD 4975

3DMark Vantage: 1280x1024 noAA
3DMark Score P7182
GPU Score 5984
GPU TEST1 17.04 FPS
GPU TEST2 18.04 FPS

3DMark 06: 1280x1024 noAA
3DMark Score 12786
SM2.0 Score 4605
HDR/SM3.0 Score 5600

3DMark 05: 1280x1024 noAA
3DMark 05 Score 20300

SupremeCommander: 1280x1024 noAA/AF 64.697


lol.

More about : tom benchmarked nehalem 4850

July 2, 2008 2:36:47 PM

Interesting!

Best,

3Ball
Related resources
July 2, 2008 2:42:17 PM

3Ball said:
Interesting!

Best,

3Ball


Yeah. Unfortunately, just the usual Futuremark's crap.

Oh, there's a SupCom bench there! Is that 64k FPS?!?!?! :lol:  :pt1cable:  :lol:  :pt1cable:  :lol: 
a b à CPUs
July 2, 2008 2:59:58 PM

I want to read, really I do, but even the translation is such hard work...
July 2, 2008 3:14:47 PM

at that resolution do really need AA
July 2, 2008 7:18:40 PM

Anyone has a comparable core2 set... without overclocking... so the result can be compared.
July 2, 2008 8:10:00 PM

hannibal said:
Anyone has a comparable core2 set... without overclocking... so the result can be compared.


HOLY DISCLOSURE BATMAN

If you use the benchmarks shown... and the graphics card shown.... and this isn't fake...

You can figure out that this 2.93Ghz Nehalem is currently giving about the same results as a Current Intel 45nm Quad of about 3.4Ghz. About 16% faster than current offerings clock per clock than current 45nm processors.

A CPU score of about 14000 in 3dMark Vantage would get you that P score with that video card. (HINT: You must search with ALL video drivers not just WHQL.) A Q9450 at 3.4Ghz scores about the same CPU score.
July 2, 2008 8:55:17 PM

Thanks for information. Nehalem seems to be good architecture when comparing clock to clock.
Let's hope that competition works so that the prizes won't be sky high...
July 3, 2008 6:40:32 PM

Honestly, I felt that the SupCom "benchmark" (!) was kinda disappointing. The others look "just fine", but I wouldn't call it a "Penryn Killer".

Too early to tell, though. Anyway, I'll wait for Westmere and a mobo that supports PCIe 3.0 and USB 3.1.
July 3, 2008 8:15:43 PM

Well the new memory interface is very usefull when you really puch all your four or more cores... And now when most programs use one to two cores, the memory bandwide has not been big problem. (That's why Core2 has not have any problems with Phenoms...)
Nehalem is for future multicore aplications. With those it will wipe the floor with Core2's... maybe ;-)
July 4, 2008 2:20:09 AM

dattimr said:
Honestly, I felt that the SupCom "benchmark" (!) was kinda disappointing. The others look "just fine", but I wouldn't call it a "Penryn Killer".

Too early to tell, though. Anyway, I'll wait for Westmere and a mobo that supports PCIe 3.0 and USB 3.1.


And if you keep waiting for the "next best thing"... you'll be waiting forever.
July 4, 2008 1:16:38 PM

Zoron said:
And if you keep waiting for the "next best thing"... you'll be waiting forever.


I agree with you. However, it's not like I have any reason to upgrade "right now" (almost, actually). If a Wolfdale/Yorkfield can handle anything we can throw at them, why would I jump into the Nehalem bandwagon during its initial release, probably plagued with tons of crappy motherboard designs and so on? Besides, a new USB standard doesn't show up ever year. How long have we had our USB 2.0? I care a lot about "devices" and it's not as if a 10x faster standard didn't matter to me. I'm not talking about 10 or 20 FPS in a game that scores 100 already.

Besides, who knows what AMD can do with AM3, if they don't paper-launch it?

I'll upgrade when something shows me at least 50-70% in performance gains for a reasonable price. Until then, I think it's worth waiting for the 'next big thing'.
July 8, 2008 2:17:23 PM

"If a Wolfdale/Yorkfield can handle anything we can throw at them, why would I jump into the Nehalem bandwagon during its initial release, probably plagued with tons of crappy motherboardhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherboard designs and so on?"

Truer words were never spoken, personally I am waiting for a minimum 8 or 16 core unit at a reasonable price before I even think of upgrading, even then I'II have to look at the software landscape.
July 8, 2008 5:34:05 PM

Lol, thats a interesting point of view. It all depends on peoples budget.
!