Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Strange Core i7 bench

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 4, 2008 8:56:58 PM

http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/components/0,100000...

Quote:
In the test, two virtual machines (VMs) running Windows XP were tested using Content Creation Winstone (CCWS). In each case, the VMs have two CPU cores at their disposal. A test using Cinebench R10 was also conducted in the virtualised environment. Both Intel's EPT and AMD's RVI direct memory access technologies are supported. However, neither the new Nehalem processors nor the AMD Phenom work faster in this mode of operation. According to these tests, the fastest chip for virtualisation is the Core 2 Extreme QX9775, which only supports Intel VT.






This is very strange indeed. These virtualization results are interesting, as we can see how new Intel Core i7 pit against QX9770 and AMD on where Intel was weak. It seems that AMD's older chips are still very good at the type of test done here. Maybe after a few months later, when softwares are more optimized to Core i7, we'll see the power of Nehalem unleashed. We'll see how AMD's Shanghai would perform.

It also shows that Agena Phenoms are nothing more than Barcelona with HT3. AMD apparently didn't bother redesign and tune the chip for desktop applications, and hoped that HT3 can hold performance against C2D. Obviously, it doesn't work as expected.

More about : strange core bench

November 5, 2008 1:26:56 AM

Well, when I upgraded from an X2 4600+ on a 690V board to an 8750 on a 780G board, I was happy. I just compared AMD architecture to architecture. It was a decent improvement. It will be interesting when Deneb arrives.

Nehalem looks to improve upon Core 2 in non-game applications. It's unusual seeing any benchmarks where it falls flat, but how often do people virtualize? I also don't think many will be upgrading to it until budget models arrive once Core 2's been milked for all it's worth.

Looks like we're seeing server processors on the desktop from both AMD and Intel's newest.
Related resources
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 2:09:24 AM

I'm sorry, where is it performing poorly? I'm seeing 100+ FPS and 60+ FPS across the board, I don't know what you're seeing.
November 5, 2008 2:15:41 AM

randomizer is right. The tests posted by dagger uses only one 4870 512MB on 1680 and 2560 resolutions. It is essentially GPU limited. Tests done by Tom's and Guru3D all showed that when it's CPU limited, Core i7 wins big time. For CPU-intensive games such as Supreme Commander and Far Cry 2, Core i7 destroy them all.
November 5, 2008 2:16:45 AM

randomizer said:
I'm sorry, where is it performing poorly? I'm seeing 100+ FPS and 60+ FPS across the board, I don't know what you're seeing.


I meant relatively poorly, especially considering i7's performance on other tasks, such as encoding. At the same clock rate, performance is slightly below previous generation quad. A small step back in one type of task.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 2:19:12 AM

It seems to be the case only with single cards, probably due to the reduced cache. Throw in 2-4 cards and it often outpaces the QX9770.
November 5, 2008 2:26:25 AM

chaohsiangchen said:
randomizer is right. The tests posted by dagger uses only one 4870 512MB on 1680 and 2560 resolutions. It is essentially GPU limited. Tests done by Tom's and Guru3D all showed that when it's CPU limited, Core i7 wins big time. For CPU-intensive games such as Supreme Commander and Far Cry 2, Core i7 destroy them all.


Can't find Supreme Commander, but here's Far Cry 2.
http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=786&p=9
http://www.techspot.com/review/124-intel-core-i7-920-94...

November 5, 2008 2:29:26 AM

randomizer said:
It seems to be the case only with single cards, probably due to the reduced cache. Throw in 2-4 cards and it often outpaces the QX9770.


Yep, that's right on mark. It's a little weaker than previous generation quads at the same clock for single cards, but significantly faster per clock for quad gpu.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 2:35:49 AM

So really, Core i7 is a gamer's chip if you're talking the hardcore gamer with the big wallet. But then Core i7 is not made purely for gamers, it's made for everybody. It certainly doesn't disappoint in most tasks.

I see the E6700 is doing well to keep up in that graph, makes me feel more comfortable sitting on my E6600.
November 5, 2008 3:26:04 AM

randomizer said:
But then Core i7 is not made purely for gamers, it's made for everybody.


Everybody? Does it come with flowers for your hair?

a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 3:37:57 AM

Ok, everybody except crazy hippies, CEOs and the Irish.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
November 5, 2008 4:13:22 AM

dagger said:
Yep, that's right on mark. It's a little weaker than previous generation quads at the same clock for single cards, but significantly faster per clock for quad gpu.


Not only quad GPUs. I have seen benches with dual GPUs and 9800GX2/4870X2s that benefit from a Core i7. In Crysis there was a 35% performance increase clock per clock with a 9800GX2 with a 965 vs a QX9770.
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 1:13:21 PM

Funny thing is, for gaming, the jump from Quad to i7 is less than the jump from a 9800GTX to a 4870X2.

Sure, it wrecks in core optimized tasks (encoding), but i've been saying for months that the i7 is not worth upgrading for just for gaming, unless you have tri/quad GPU setups.
November 5, 2008 1:39:40 PM

gamerk316 said:
Funny thing is, for gaming, the jump from Quad to i7 is less than the jump from a 9800GTX to a 4870X2.

Sure, it wrecks in core optimized tasks (encoding), but i've been saying for months that the i7 is not worth upgrading for just for gaming, unless you have tri/quad GPU setups.


You're comparing gpu to cpu, that's just not fair. :p 
November 5, 2008 2:38:49 PM

randomizer said:
Ok, everybody except crazy hippies, CEOs and the Irish.


Well, I'm an old hippie who's Scotch-Irish on my mother's side. Not a CEO though.

Unless that stands for Completely Economics Oblivious.

gamerk316 said:


Sure, it wrecks in core optimized tasks (encoding), but i've been saying for months that the i7 is not worth upgrading for just for gaming, unless you have tri/quad GPU setups.


What I can't wait to see is Deneb vs. the upcoming budget i7's. The CPU's might not be much lower than $266, but there should be some budget motherboards by then.

Tri/quad GPU setups needed for i7 (along with a 30" LCD) is still kind of steep for high level gaming. It makes my last gen dual GPU card seem positively mainstream.

November 5, 2008 7:58:06 PM

yipsl said:
Well, I'm an old hippie who's Scotch-Irish on my mother's side. Not a CEO though.

Unless that stands for Completely Economics Oblivious.



What I can't wait to see is Deneb vs. the upcoming budget i7's. The CPU's might not be much lower than $266, but there should be some budget motherboards by then.

Tri/quad GPU setups needed for i7 (along with a 30" LCD) is still kind of steep for high level gaming. It makes my last gen dual GPU card seem positively mainstream.


Don't expect much of Deneb. It's the same Phenom architecture, after all. But hopefully I'm wrong, then we'll actually get some competition. It's been a while. :p 
a b à CPUs
November 5, 2008 7:58:51 PM

gamerk316 said:
Funny thing is, for gaming, the jump from Quad to i7 is less than the jump from a 9800GTX to a 4870X2.

Did you expect it to be? That's one GPU against two, Core i7 has the same number of physical cores as the Core 2 Quad, and games are barely using two half the time.
November 5, 2008 11:49:35 PM

Well, I think this just may be another case of the AM2/65nm Fanboy BS.

Some people expected far more from AM2 and AMD 65nm than AMD delivered. That wasnt AMDs fault. AMD delivered what they said they would, but people were dissapointed because fantards had hyped AM2 and 65nm so much that they had those people conviced that both AM2 and AMD 65nm were going to be the second coming of Athlon 64.


In the case of i7, aside from that one kiddies blog that linked to some obscure site that said 'a confidential intel paper said 57thousand% gain in gaming" ((but failed to provide any proof of said document)), I havent seen anthing from Intel stating huge gains in gaming. The fanboys.....well thats a different deal...some were expecting another Core 2 jump.

Now, If anyone has anthing LEGITIMATE from Intel claiming huge gains in gaming, please, by all means, post evidence/links. Otherwise, this seems to be a case of kiddies hyping a product, not the companies hype.

First, an ACTUAL release from Intel. NOT BillyBobBoingos blog and honey barbecue site (might just as well be quoting sharipoopoo)



Now, some actual Intel slides from an Anand artical dated MARCH of this year. Nowhere did Intel claim 56% in gaming, Just as AMD did not make the astrotarded claims some of our fanboys were promoting on AM2 or 65nm.

From Anandtech








Quote:
Nehalem allows for 33% more micro-ops in flight compared to Penryn (128 micro-ops vs. 96 in Penryn), this increase was achieved by simply increasing the size of the re-order window and other such buffers throughout the pipeline.

With more micro-ops in flight, Nehalem can extract greater instruction level parallelism (ILP) as well as support an increase in micro-ops thanks to each core now handling micro-ops from two threads at once.

Despite the increase in ability to support more micro-ops in flight, there have been no significant changes to the decoder or front end of Nehalem. Nehalem is still fundamentally the same 4-issue design we saw introduced with the first Core 2 microprocessors.






Quote:
Nehalem effectively includes the only remaining advantages AMD held over Intel with respect to memory performance and interconnect speed - you can expect a tremendous performance increase going from Penryn to Nehalem because of this. Intel is expecting memory accesses to be around twice the speed in Nehalem as they are in Penryn, which thanks to its aggressive prefetchers are already incredibly fast. If you think Intel's performance advantage is significant today, Nehalem should completely redefine your perspective - AMD needs its Bobcat and Bulldozer cores if it is going to want to compete.




No quotes from Intel here, from Hardware Secrets, but a good read about : Note the 60% gain in VIRTUALIZATION, not gaming



Quote:
Nehalem is the codename of the new Intel CPU with integrated memory controller that will reach the market next month and that will be called Core i7; this architecture will also be used on CPUs targeted to servers (Xeon) and, a few years from now, it will also be used on entry-level CPUs. CPUs based on this architecture will have an embedded memory controller supporting three DDR3 channels, three cache levels, the return of HyperThreading technology, a new external bus called QuickPath and more. In this tutorial we will explain what’s new on this architecture.

Below we summarized a list of Nehalem main features, and we will explain what they mean on next pages:

Based on Intel Core microarchitecture.
Two to eight cores.
Integrated DDR3 triple-channel memory controller.
Individual 256 KB L2 memory caches for each core.
8 MB L3 memory cache.
New SSE 4.2 instruction set (seven new instructions).
HyperThreading technology.
Turbo mode (auto overclocking).
Enhancements to the microarchitecture (support for macro-fusion under 64-bit mode, improved Loop Stream Detector, six dispatch ports, etc).
Enhancements on the prediction unit, with the addition of a second Branch Target Buffer (BTB).
A second 512-entry Translation Look-aside Buffer (TLB).
Optimized for unaligned SSE instructions.
Improved virtualization performance (60% improvement on round-trip virtualization latency compared to 65-nm Core 2 CPUs and 20% improvement compared to 45-nm Core 2 CPUs, according to Intel).
New QuickPath Interconnect external bus.
New power control unit.
45 nm manufacturing technology at launch, with future models at 32 nm (CPUs codenamed “Westmere”).
New socket with 1366 pins.



Heres a good one from back in March




Quote:
The first TPC benchmarks for the "tick" generation of Penryn architecture actually delivered a bit more performance than even independent observers were expecting. No explicit performance data or projections for Nehalem were released today, though the early word on the street is to plan not to use the word "astounding" too many times in one paragraph.


Maybe Intel did claim huge gains, but I havent seen a single legitmate copy of any such claim, so, 'Be the first to proveIntel made the claim!!!'

November 6, 2008 12:05:25 AM

lol @ fantards. You are absolutely correct though on both accounts. AMD nor Intel did the over-hype or grossly exaggerated "leaks". It was all pure BS from janky, baseless sites. Deneb may be everything that is being dreamed up but AMD never made that claim. i7 delivered what Intel said it would and dont expect anything different from AMD. A die shrink resulting in better thermals and maybe a little more headroom in overclocking.
November 6, 2008 12:16:35 AM

dagger said:
Don't expect much of Deneb. It's the same Phenom architecture, after all. But hopefully I'm wrong, then we'll actually get some competition. It's been a while. :p 


Keep in mind that the biggest problem with the current Phenom processors is low clock speed, which won't be a problem with Deneb if the reports of a 3 Ghz model are correct. In my opinion at least Deneb isn't going to touch Nehalem, but at the same time it will cost significantly less. If AMD prices a 3Ghz Deneb at around $250 I'd probably buy one before an i7 920 even if the i7 920 was somewhat faster due to the lack of reasonably priced (less than $200) motherboards for Core i7 and the plethora of inexpensive motherboard options for AMD.
November 6, 2008 12:16:49 AM

No, AMD did make claims of much higher performance, including IPC. Theyd better deliver this time. The overall perf difference was or is supposed to be 25%, and thats quoted by someone highup at AMD
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 12:29:49 AM

Barcelona will beat Clovertown by 40% I tell you.
November 6, 2008 12:32:32 AM

Randomizer is performing his standup routine again.
November 6, 2008 12:49:56 AM

randomizer said:
Barcelona will beat Clovertown by 40% I tell you.


:sarcastic: 

a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 12:53:32 AM

Here, have some toast, courtesy of Hector.
November 6, 2008 1:11:20 AM

Just_An_Engineer said:
Keep in mind that the biggest problem with the current Phenom processors is low clock speed, which won't be a problem with Deneb if the reports of a 3 Ghz model are correct. In my opinion at least Deneb isn't going to touch Nehalem, but at the same time it will cost significantly less. If AMD prices a 3Ghz Deneb at around $250 I'd probably buy one before an i7 920 even if the i7 920 was somewhat faster due to the lack of reasonably priced (less than $200) motherboards for Core i7 and the plethora of inexpensive motherboard options for AMD.


Phenom's problem isn't just low clock speed. A 2.66ghz 9950be performed below a 2.4ghz q6600, the oldest Intel quad. They'll need to do better than just get higher clock rate for Deneb to compete with Kentsfield/Yorkfield, not to mention Nehalem.
November 6, 2008 2:04:22 AM

randomizer said:
Here, have some toast, courtesy of Hector.


November 6, 2008 2:25:40 AM

dagger said:
Phenom's problem isn't just low clock speed. A 2.66ghz 9950be performed below a 2.4ghz q6600, the oldest Intel quad. They'll need to do better than just get higher clock rate for Deneb to compete with Kentsfield/Yorkfield, not to mention Nehalem.


You probably want to check the Far Cry 2 bench you posted earlier.
a b à CPUs
November 6, 2008 2:31:13 AM

Turpit, you win Hector's stamp of approval.

November 6, 2008 11:27:56 AM

chaohsiangchen said:
You probably want to check the Far Cry 2 bench you posted earlier.


Lol, yeah I know, but that's only one game. Far Cry 2 is a console port and behave strangely anyway. :p 
!