Hexus.net benchmarks Nehalem

G

Guest

Guest
nice

either way a highly oced core 2 system will survive nehalem :D

its good cause i just got a q9550 and i'm hoping to reach upwards of 3.8 ghz with it
 

piesquared

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
376
0
18,780
Say about what?? You mean you're actually impressed? Sure it's an improvement, but not by as much as the Intel fanboys were frothing at the mouth about. We're talking about 8 threads here. The way this chip was hyped, we should be seeing enormous gains in multithreaded situations.
 

MarkG

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2004
841
0
19,010


So up to 35% faster clock-for-clock vs Intel's current generation in highly threaded applications and absolutely destroying AMD's current chips isn't good enough?

What exactly were you expecting?
 
G

Guest

Guest
500 % increase in speed :D

that way stuff that already doesn't need the full potential of a core 2 duo system can fly at near break-neck speeds :p
 

piesquared

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
376
0
18,780
2 key phrases there: "up to 35%" and "highly threaded applications". There was only one test where Nehalem was 33% faster, povray. And that was 64 bit where Core 2 is crippled, losing 10% in transition. So it's a <20% improvement. However it is a good marketing tactic, i'll give them that.

Cinebench show's decent improvements from 32 bit to 64 bit. However this is a meger 7% in 32 bit and 15% in 64 bit. And this is a multithreaded benchmark, 8 threads vs 4 threads.

Let's move on.

8% slower in Hexus wav.

14% faster in Divx (enhanced multithreading)

Winrar shows a very nice improvement.


Gaming. Well, there seems to be a software issue. Strange though that Intel would set up a demo of their latest and greatest and intentionaly cripple it.
Or do we actually believe that Intel had no knowledge of Hexus getting their hands on this thing. I find that HIGHLY unlikely.

So yeah, I was expecting much more. Can't say i'm dissapointed though, sorry.
 


Keep in mind that all of those numbers you are quoting are a speed comparison between a 3.2GHz QX9770 and a 2.93GHz Nehalem. It isn't slower than the QX6800 (a closer match in clock speed) in anything - it at least matches the current offerings clock for clock in every way (and keep in mind, the 2.93GHz model that was tested is the midrange version - there will be an extreme edition at 3.2GHz).
 

MarkG

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2004
841
0
19,010


There are a bunch of optimizations for 32-bit code in Core2 which aren't implemented for 64-bit code; but which are in Nehalem.

For example, if I remember correctly a 32-bit compare followed by a conditional jump is treated as a single instruction inside the Core2 CPU, but a 64-bit compare followed by a conditional jump is treated as two instructions; Nehalem treats both cases the same.

This is precisely why 64-bit benchmarks are interesting to see, because they're where Nehalem will show the greatest increase over Core2 and Phenom.
 

piesquared

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
376
0
18,780


Well, crippled might be to strong of word. I'm refering to macro-op fusion.

Related or not, the point is c2d dropped from 2878 to 2617 for 64-bit, while Nehelam's drop was insignificant. Which is why the results look more impressive than they are in that particular bench.
 

MarkG

Distinguished
Oct 13, 2004
841
0
19,010


Are you claiming that comparing a 64-bit Core-2 to a 64-bit Nehalem is somehow a defective benchmark? 64-bit is where the majority of software will be going over the next couple of years, so it's far more representative of the difference between the CPUs than 32-bit code.
 
No you have to remember he is primarily a AMD fan and even a nice boost like Nehalem is showing seems insignificant.

AMD fans used to rely on memory bandwidth for server apps but if it is DOUBLING the bandwidth for a Phenom 9950 then its going to do some hurting in the server arena.

Heck People were saying that QPI is fast but that fast....dude thats INSANE bandwidth right there.... and its using only 1066MHz DDR3.....I wounder what 1333 or even 1600MHz DDR3 would provide.....
 

piesquared

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
376
0
18,780


Nope, what i'm saying is, although Nehelam appears to show a significant improvement moving from 32-bit to 64-bit in povray, that increase is entirely due to C2E's decrease in said benchmark.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


I'm not sure what you were expecting (miracles? cure for cancer? :p) but keep in mind this is the $530 2.93GHz model trouncing the currently $1500 3.2GHz QX9770 in MT, whilst holding its own in ST. The 3.2GHz Nehalem EE will 'only' cost $999 (hey, its all relative right?) and boost performance a further ~9% over the 2.93GHz model tested here. So on a clock for clock basis it looks like a 5 - 10% jump in ST, and 20 - 40% jump in MT.

Finally, its not final production silicon and thus most likely not fully optimised at this point, the reviewer seems confident we'll see even higher numbers by release, at the very least for gaming, well I hope so anyway! ;)
 
When it comes to apps and such, it also comes to OS. Whats Windows 7? Exclusively 64bit? Its good to see theyre pushing ahead in 64bit, but until its used, the same 32bit increase would be nice to see. I think thats his point. I somewhat agree, tho it is progress in the right direction
 

gallag

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
127
0
18,680


Are you saying that it does not matter that nehelem is faster because core2 was slower. I dont get it. Only thing that matters is that it is faster.
 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


piesquared sure has an uncanny knack of turning a positive into a negative. ;)

You'd think Nehalem improving on 64bit performance would be greatly welcomed, especially since its the way of the future. But instead he focuses on the fact that Core 2 lacks macro-ops fusion in 64bit and somehow turns it into an 'excuse' why Nehalem is substantially faster in 64bit! Amazing.

 
Also, they say : "Nehalem won't matter much if you play games that are limited by the graphics subsystem, usually at higher resolutions and image-quality settings, but it's always nice to have extra power under the hood, we suppose." But looking at those numbers, its under the prefered 60 fps http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=15015&page=8 So basically their statement and observations are invalid . Its well known that current cpus become a slowdown even at higher res with todays graphics cards, and this is a poor showing by Nehalem

 

epsilon84

Distinguished
Oct 24, 2006
1,689
0
19,780


Selective reading much? It's clearly a driver issue. The numbers for gaming are meaningless at this stage.

We alluded to the fact that it wasn't all roses in the Nehalem garden, as far as the test box was concerned. One look in Device Manager showed that not all the correct drivers had been installed, which did little to hinder 2D performance, but played a part in sub-optimal 3D results.

A table has been included to highlight the results we observed, but it is abundantly clear that something was awry in the test box.