4 Ghz Core i7 920

[BadTrip]

just saw this over at Anands

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/toppc/I7920/06-3.JPG

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/toppc/I7920/PI4.JPG

http://www.coolaler.com.tw/toppc/I7920/MEM.JPG

http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread.php?t=190809&page=6

 

[someguy7]

Wonder if that chip will make it a week at 1.47 volts.

 

[yomamafor1]

1.47 volt will likely last for a couple months at least, depends on the stepping.

EDIT: But I guess it is established that Nehalem can indeed hit 4.0Ghz on air. Now let's see if Deneb can do the same, like those from AMDzone claimed .

 

[BadTrip]

What really got me was the Everest score

 

[spathotan]

Not try to discredit this, but whats the deal with the asian sites always? Isnt Intel an american company? Why is it always asians that seem to "come across" these chips?

 

[Malovane]

Because most motherboard manufacturers are based in Asia, and they are the ones who get the engineering samples.

 

[spathotan]

Because most motherboard manufacturers are based in Asia, and they are the ones who get the engineering samples.

Well, that completely went past my head.

 

[customisbetter]

7K for a CPU score.

Holy Crap! I think i will get a Deneb upgrade as i bet Intel will milk the $hit out of these chips and motherboards. And frankly, i don't really need all that performance...

I never though i would ever say that. : (

 

[kg4icg]

hey don't forget, that's the lowrange cpu at that

 

[Guest]

whats the need for nehalem...

the pentium to core 2 jump was massive and was needed as it demonstrated a large performance increase in basically everything...

now an oced core 2 processor is still up there... and you won't see any real world advantages to having nehalem over a oced core 2 duo... theres just no reason... especially for people here who like to use their computers for gaming... and so far there has been no proof that the jump from core 2 to nehalem brings anything new to the gaming table

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

So, a dual core at 4.5 will beat out a slowly burning out i7 at 4Ghz in alot of games. Hmmmm

 

[MarkG]

so far there has been no proof that the jump from core 2 to nehalem brings anything new to the gaming table

Aside from a significant increase in performance, anyway.

The only real question is how long games will need to take advantage of being able to run eight threads simultaneously; hopefully newer engines will be able to divide the work into as many threads as the CPU can support.

 

[spathotan]

Considering 99.9% of the games out there dont even take advantage of TWO/FOUR cores yet, 8 is really pushing it.

 

[Malovane]

Aside from a significant increase in performance, anyway.

The only real question is how long games will need to take advantage of being able to run eight threads simultaneously; hopefully newer engines will be able to divide the work into as many threads as the CPU can support.

Actually, some benchmarks floating around seem to indicate that i7 will likely have less performance clock per clock in games than Yorkfield, even in some multi-threaded games. For many other tasks (especially server related which was the focus of the architecture), it should do much better. It's unclear why there may be lower performance, though it could be smaller cache sizes to blame.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thus far, you have to look to find where quads help that much in games, unless its a x2 or sli/cf rig. Thats just because the cpus cant keep up with those setups, and have very litlle to do with gaming performance itself as to how the game "uses" a quad. Eight? Lets see, i7 will be i8 or 9 before we see that happen.

 

[jimmysmitty]

So, a dual core at 4.5 will beat out a slowly burning out i7 at 4Ghz in alot of games. Hmmmm

Thats how it is either way. Faster CPU normaly means better FPS.

And its funny about the games and multicore. DX10 was built around multithreaded gaming hence why DX10 was supposed to be faster. But most game designers are too lazy to use that feature to its fullest, yet Microsoft did it easily in FSX which can use up to 16 cores.

It makes me think the game designers don't wan't to take advantage of the CPU power because they have a deal with the GPU people so that people will buy nw GPUs to play the newest games.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Maybe its nVidia, as we see ATI heading in a multu core gpu direction, which obviously benefits from quads. nVidia has alot of pull when it comes to gaming, as seen by the non use of DX10.1 as well. This could be the woopass being handed out that we dont see, but is there nonetheless

 

[MarkG]

Actually, some benchmarks floating around seem to indicate that i7 will likely have less performance clock per clock in games than Yorkfield, even in some multi-threaded games.

But they seem dubious compared to the performance gains seen elsewhere. It's certainly possible that the real chips running real drivers on real motherboards will end up slower, but it's at least as possible that the graphics drivers are defaulting to old and slow code paths because they don't recognise the CPU, or the motherboards aren't properly optimised yet.

We know the fundamental core performance is significantly higher and that the memory interface is dramatically faster; so unless those games are heavily cache-limited it's hard to see what could legitimately cause lower performance. And if those benchmarks are real, then Intel have seriously stuffed things up; which seems somewhat unlikely given their performance over the last few years.

 

[spathotan]

Considering the launch is a few weeks (?) away, I would damn sure hope that motherboards are "optimized" by now. i7 will die overnight if X58 turns into another 700i, but thats going a little overboard. Maybe.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

And is fairly consistant with what Annand found as well. Maybe 5% at best, nothing big, and its been written time and again, that i7 just doesnt perform in games

 

[yomamafor1]

So, a dual core at 4.5 will beat out a slowly burning out i7 at 4Ghz in alot of games. Hmmmm

If you're purchasing Nehalem, you're either 1. rich enthusiast, or 2. someone who will utilize Nehalem's feature to achieve greater performance.

Other than that I agree with you. Nehalem is simply not a CPU for mainstream gamers and users.

 

[spathotan]

Well, to be honest targeting the gaming community would be a bad decision for Intel, considering PC gaming machines are just a tiny fraction of the market. The bigger consumers are servers, media machines, and home use. However considering the tech/hype and money, i7 should be doing alot better than what these benchmarks are indicating, but its just not.

 

[yomamafor1]

Intel has never marketed Nehalem for the gaming community, but for the enthusiast community - someone who would go out and spend big bucks to get the newest and the latest.

But for mainstream gamers, a fast dual core is plenty enough.

And of course, Nehalem's design is more suitable for server applications, but that would also mean pushing AMD out of its current market. Now the last thing Intel needs is an anti-trust case.

I think Core i7 performed superbly, and even more so when server benchmarks surface.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

To me, i7 is similar to what nVidia is doing with CUDA. Theyre both dependent on the future of how SW will be done. Performance was minilmalized for the sake of heading in each of their respective directions, and improving on that, instaed of traditional areas. I guess if you dont game, and do use multithreaded apps, youre feeling the same nVidia fans do currently. What Im wondering is, what will the next gen bring? nVidia will have its out first, and maybe thatll be a primer as to what to expect from Intel as well. I know it wont be a direct comparison, but both have wondered away from their traditional areas, seeking performance in newer areas, and how they respond going back to their older more traditional areas of performance may be seen as equals IMO. Tho, I suspect Intel has thrown everything into this direction (multicore,multithreading) with little alternative of IPC developement as seen in the past, as well as core speeds.

 

[MarkG]

Well, to be honest targeting the gaming community would be a bad decision for Intel, considering PC gaming machines are just a tiny fraction of the market.

But how many people other than gamers, video editors and 3D animators actually need a quad-core CPU?

Sure, I've been using a dual quad-core server at work, but that's not exactly intended for word processing, email and web browsing; the only real reason for Joe Sixpack to buy anything faster than a dual-core Atom is to play games.