CPU/Mobo Nehalem: Full - but an early - review

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

hatter

Inactive
Galvanizer
Nehalem's performance is born from taking the Core 2 architecture as a base and adding sensible, performance-enhancing additions such as an integrated memory controller, QuickPath interconnect, tiered cache, and tri-channel memory. Last but not least, SMT (simultaneous multithreading) provides a healthy boost, too.

Looking back through the numbers, the 2.93GHz Nehalem naturally comes into its own when the cores, be they physical or virtual, are pushed by the software. When this happens, it's up to 33 per cent faster than a 3.2GHz Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770, and some 50 per cent quicker than an equivalently-clocked (Kentsfield-based) Core 2 Quad CPU.
Click to expand...

But at gaming Nehalem sux ;)

Find the full review at: HEXUS.net - Review :: Intel Nehalem benchmarked: muscling to victory : Page - 1/9
 
the fact that it is so great at everything but gaming reminds me of this line:

"..........but pappu CAN'T DANCE, sala......."

(other then that pappu/nehalem has everything ;-)
 
dasgupta_arup said:
the fact that it is so great at everything but gaming reminds me of this line:
"..........but pappu CAN'T DANCE, sala......."
(other then that pappu/nehalem has everything ;-)
Click to expand...

watch it dude!! :)
sleep with one eye open
 
morgoth said:
But at gaming Nehalem sux
Click to expand...

racy1 said:
Looks like in the absence of any real competition Intel has again rusted...
Click to expand...

Hmmm... I don't get it. To me, these statement sounds over the top, extreme reactions. Specifically Racy1's comments... Intel, Rusted? Looks at the OVERALL performance gain. So what if little bit of gamin performance is sacrificed, I'm all for performance gain where it matters more. If this thing will give me more performance in video editing, rendering and monstrously sized images, then I don't mind if it drops my FPS from 90 to 70.

Seriously... it's not end of the world guys. Getting 5 FPS more than other guy is just childish. As long as it's playable (not to mention, it matters much more on GPU anyway), what difference does it make?
 
Its likely to be the problem with test system than the processor itself,as the hexus say in there.
 
iGo said:
Hmmm... I don't get it. To me, these statement sounds over the top, extreme reactions. Specifically Racy1's comments... Intel, Rusted? Looks at the OVERALL performance gain. So what if little bit of gamin performance is sacrificed, I'm all for performance gain where it matters more. If this thing will give me more performance in video editing, rendering and monstrously sized images, then I don't mind if it drops my FPS from 90 to 70.

Seriously... it's not end of the world guys. Getting 5 FPS more than other guy is just childish. As long as it's playable (not to mention, it matters much more on GPU anyway), what difference does it make?
Click to expand...

With an integrated memory controller even gaming should not have been neglected... My opinion was solely on the fact that Intel in the absence of serious competition do release lackluster products.. it has done it in the past...

Its not that Nehalem is a shitty processor but its just evolutionary & nothing revolutionary about it...

Do keep in mind most people don't edit videos or render huge images on a daily basis...
 
Come on guys, don't take "sux at gaming" stuff too seriously. These are still early days. There could be tens of quirks and bugs right now in this platform which is new.

My gaming comment was based on two things: One what Hexus experienced and another what AnandTech said. According to AnandTech, Nehalem may not be able to match Penryns in gaming performance because it has slower and drastically lower L2 cache. L2 is something that games love to gobble up.

But these are early days... ;)
 
We can’t help but be excited about Nehalem as the first tock since the Core 2 processor arrived, but we do wonder what’s next. Much of the performance gains with Nehalem are due to increases in bandwidth and HT, we’ll have to wait two more years to find out what Intel can do to surprise us once more. As Pat Gelsinger told me when AMD integrated the memory controller, he said you can only do that once - what do you do to improve performance next?

While Larrabee will be the focus of Intel’s attention in 2009, Sandy Bridge in 2010 is the next tock to look forward to. Until then, Nehalem should do wonders for Intel’s competitiveness in the enterprise market, and actually be a worthy successor to Conroe on the desktop.

The only other concern I have about Nehalem is how things will play out with the two-channel DDR3 versions of the chip. They will require a different socket and as we saw in the days of Socket-940/939/754 with AMD’s K8, it can easily be a painful process. I do hope that Intel has learned from AMD’s early issues with platforms and K8, it would be a shame if initial Nehalem adopters were eventually left out in the cold. If Intel does launch an affordable 2.66GHz quad-core part, I don’t expect that the enthusiast market will be left out but I’m not much of a fortune teller.

So there you have it, a more complete look at Nehalem - the only thing we’re missing is a full performance review. Intel launches in Q4 of this year, so you know when to expect one...
Click to expand...
Shimpi takes a look at Nehalem architecture: AnandTech: Nehalem - Everything You Need to Know about Intel's New Architecture
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom