| Wednesday, July 9 2008 |
ChipHell carried out the first comprehensive evaluation of the Intel Bloomfield 2.66 GHz processor, a derivative of the eagerly anticipated Nehalem architecture, which already has fan-sites mushrooming all over the internet.
The most prominant benchmarks used by enthusiasts and overclockers, 3DMark Vantage (CPU Tests), Super Pi 1M, Cinebench and SANDRA were run on this processor.
In the 3DMark Vantage test, the processor secured a CPU score of 16294. It crunched Super Pi 1M in 15.475 seconds. With the Cinebench, it secured 3048 with a single thread, the multi-threaded bench belted out 12627 CB-CPU hinting at the processor's high multi-core efficiency. And finally, Bloomfield takes SANDRA out on a date. You have to look at the red dot compared to a QX9770 yourself.
I'm appetised and looking forward to a great processor architecture and so could you.
Source: ChipHell
The most prominant benchmarks used by enthusiasts and overclockers, 3DMark Vantage (CPU Tests), Super Pi 1M, Cinebench and SANDRA were run on this processor.
In the 3DMark Vantage test, the processor secured a CPU score of 16294. It crunched Super Pi 1M in 15.475 seconds. With the Cinebench, it secured 3048 with a single thread, the multi-threaded bench belted out 12627 CB-CPU hinting at the processor's high multi-core efficiency. And finally, Bloomfield takes SANDRA out on a date. You have to look at the red dot compared to a QX9770 yourself.
I'm appetised and looking forward to a great processor architecture and so could you.
Source: ChipHell
User comments
I want this one :)
Sure it'll overclock well like Wolfsdale
Sure it'll overclock well like Wolfsdale
Those mean nothing. Get the games rolling!
superpi is a good, simple, crappy benchmark for games... faster superpi=better game performance (usually). But yeah, some game benchies would be great.
the way processors are going these days, it may be better to save up money for a kickass gpu, and just get the budget processor with this architecture and overclock.
the way processors are going these days, it may be better to save up money for a kickass gpu, and just get the budget processor with this architecture and overclock.
Must get...when is it out...plz let it be out now...plz...plz :D
The Super Pi for the stock processor is great and all & the vantage score kills all comers too. Intel better not charge 2 arms & a leg for this too since its basically eating through the QXs even at stock.
The Super Pi for the stock processor is great and all & the vantage score kills all comers too. Intel better not charge 2 arms & a leg for this too since its basically eating through the QXs even at stock.
This is were having HT capable applications will show the strength of the Bloomfield. Or else it's the P4 all over again. In the sense that the P4 had the potential to perform better if developers support HT.
The only thing I find important with these CPUs isn't the CPU itself but, the plans Intel have to get developers to use HT. The only game that I know of that uses HT is Quake 4. I am sure there are others like Lego but they are hardly CPU demanding.
The only thing I find important with these CPUs isn't the CPU itself but, the plans Intel have to get developers to use HT. The only game that I know of that uses HT is Quake 4. I am sure there are others like Lego but they are hardly CPU demanding.
by: phanbuey;877352
the way processors are going these days, it may be better to save up money for a kickass gpu, and just get the budget processor with this architecture and overclock.
This is not a budget processor price ofthis cpu starts at 350 us dollar
It looks like a great work horse CPU. But I'll second (or third, etc) the game benches. I'd definately take it in my work computer!
by: ShadowFold;877351i agree. that, and some extreme overclocking
Those mean nothing. Get the games rolling!
by: ShadowFold;877351They go hand in hang to a point.
Those mean nothing. Get the games rolling!
Because its faster there and has the same instruction set you will deffinetely be faster, how much is questionable, especially being most games wont use quad cores.
well thats nice intel has managed to exceed 100% scaling accross 4 cores look at the cinebench test 4.14x processor speed up.....
by: Morgoth;877378
This is not a budget processor price ofthis cpu starts at 350 us dollar
So I should be able to upgrade for about $750 then? That's figuring $350 for the cpu, $200 for a good mid-line motherboard like I have now, and $200 for ddr3(hopefully even less by then). Not bad considering the performance gain showed by the benches.
by: phanbuey;877352Not entirely though, the size of the L2 cache for example isnt too important in gaming but makes quite a difference in superPI, for example an E6850 that I had at 4gig was almost 1.5 secs slower than my E8200 at 4gig :eek:
superpi is a good, simple, crappy benchmark for games... faster superpi=better game performance (usually). But yeah, some game benchies would be great.
the way processors are going these days, it may be better to save up money for a kickass gpu, and just get the budget processor with this architecture and overclock.
by: Tatty_One;877551same example my phenom @2.8ghz with a big ol' L3 cache is as fast as my 5000BE @3.35ghz
Not entirely though, the size of the L2 cache for example isnt too important in gaming but makes quite a difference in superPI, for example an E6850 that I had at 4gig was almost 1.5 secs slower than my E8200 at 4gig :eek:
Is this the extreme version or the mainstream version?
Lets not forget that Cinebench R10 takes full advantage of HT. When you compare the results to current quad core CPUs the difference can be contributed to the use of HT.
I find the 1 volt very appealing :D
Those results are AWFUL.
It is ONLY 20% faster than my Q6600@2.66 on DDR1 and AGP.
Intel should be embarassed!
It is ONLY 20% faster than my Q6600@2.66 on DDR1 and AGP.
Intel should be embarassed!
by: lemonadesoda;877612
Those results are AWFUL.
It is ONLY 20% faster than my Q6600@2.66 on DDR1 and AGP.
Intel should be embarassed!
Ah, the Q6600 ES @ 2.40 @ 1.176 volts.
This ES CPU is clocked at 2.67GHz @ 1.075 volts, a .101 volt difference. We will know soon enough what the retail version will be like. But when you now plug in that 20% difference (using less power) then we see that Intel is on the right path.
by: lemonadesoda;877612it did 22% better in single threading than my phenom @2.8ghz and 18% better than my 5000BE @3.2ghz but multithreading...that chip did 41% better than my phenom @2.8ghz :twitch: thats almost two more damn cores.
Those results are AWFUL.
It is ONLY 20% faster than my Q6600@2.66 on DDR1 and AGP.
Intel should be embarassed!
now this made sense to me maybe not you but i took that score and cut it in half to give a DC version a comparo with my 5000BE @3.2ghz its a lot less of a beat you into the floor difference of 27%
Lookin good. Looks like these won't be too much faster core for core than penryn maybe, the real advantage will likely be the qpi and the ht. Once all that gets rolling good we'll see I guess, pretty nice preliminary scores though.
Let me explain why I think the results are VERY VERY disappointing.
1./ Bloomfield = 4 cores and "new" HT = 8 threads
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architectural tweaks other than HT
Yet it is only able to score 4.14x multiplier on CB10 compared to 3.55 on the Q6600. So that means a gain of about 15% due to HT'ing 8 threads over 4 cores. That's not too exciting, because that 15% gain for 4 "extra" hyperthreads is RUBBISH compared to, e.g., a 355% gain for 4 cores instead of 1.
15% vs. 355%? Find me a dual socket Core 2 Quad for the 355%, thanks.
But if 15% gain is coming from HT, and the performance over my Q6600 AGP DDR1 is 20%, the net is 5% for all the other features.
WTF? 5% from:
1./ ...
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architecte tweaks other than HT
If that's really true, those 4 additional "developments" can only win 5%, then Intel has failed with the new architecture and AMD is in with a chance.
*CAVEAT, all commentary based on CB10 and superpi results shown.
1./ Bloomfield = 4 cores and "new" HT = 8 threads
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architectural tweaks other than HT
Yet it is only able to score 4.14x multiplier on CB10 compared to 3.55 on the Q6600. So that means a gain of about 15% due to HT'ing 8 threads over 4 cores. That's not too exciting, because that 15% gain for 4 "extra" hyperthreads is RUBBISH compared to, e.g., a 355% gain for 4 cores instead of 1.
15% vs. 355%? Find me a dual socket Core 2 Quad for the 355%, thanks.
But if 15% gain is coming from HT, and the performance over my Q6600 AGP DDR1 is 20%, the net is 5% for all the other features.
WTF? 5% from:
1./ ...
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architecte tweaks other than HT
If that's really true, those 4 additional "developments" can only win 5%, then Intel has failed with the new architecture and AMD is in with a chance.
*CAVEAT, all commentary based on CB10 and superpi results shown.
Interesting…
A Wolfdale/Yorkfield must be operating at approximately 3.05 GHz to match that 1M SuperPi time and at approximately 2.80 GHz to match that single-thread Cinebench 10 score (according to tests run personally).
In other words, (again, as I personally tested, moments ago) a Wolfdale/Yorkield @ 2.66 GHz achieves a 1M SuperPi time of approximately 18.274 sec. (versus 15.475 sec.) and a single-thread Cinebench 10 score of approximately 2936 (versus 3048). This suggests Bloomfield is 15.3% and 3.8% faster in SuperPi and single-thread Cinebench 10, respectively.
That doesn't say much. However, it does look like Bloomfield's strength will be how well it scales in multithreaded scenarios. But, in terms of single-thread performance, the increase is evolutionary, and very similar to the gains experienced from K8 to K10 (and certainly not comparable to the 40% or so clock-for-clock average gains seen from Presler to Conroe).
A Wolfdale/Yorkfield must be operating at approximately 3.05 GHz to match that 1M SuperPi time and at approximately 2.80 GHz to match that single-thread Cinebench 10 score (according to tests run personally).
In other words, (again, as I personally tested, moments ago) a Wolfdale/Yorkield @ 2.66 GHz achieves a 1M SuperPi time of approximately 18.274 sec. (versus 15.475 sec.) and a single-thread Cinebench 10 score of approximately 2936 (versus 3048). This suggests Bloomfield is 15.3% and 3.8% faster in SuperPi and single-thread Cinebench 10, respectively.
That doesn't say much. However, it does look like Bloomfield's strength will be how well it scales in multithreaded scenarios. But, in terms of single-thread performance, the increase is evolutionary, and very similar to the gains experienced from K8 to K10 (and certainly not comparable to the 40% or so clock-for-clock average gains seen from Presler to Conroe).
by: lemonadesoda;877702
Let me explain why I think the results are VERY VERY disappointing.
1./ Bloomfield = 4 cores and "new" HT = 8 threads
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architectural tweaks other than HT
Yet it is only able to score 4.14x multiplier on CB10 compared to 3.55 on the Q6600. So that means a gain of about 15% due to HT'ing 8 threads over 4 cores. That's not too exciting, because that 15% gain for 4 "extra" hyperthreads is RUBBISH compared to, e.g., a 355% gain for 4 cores instead of 1.
15% vs. 355%? Find me a dual socket Core 2 Quad for the 355%, thanks.
But if 15% gain is coming from HT, and the performance over my Q6600 AGP DDR1 is 20%, the net is 5% for all the other features.
WTF? 5% from:
1./ ...
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architecte tweaks other than HT
If that's really true, those 4 additional "developments" can only win 5%, then Intel has failed with the new architecture and AMD is in with a chance.
*CAVEAT, all commentary based on CB10 and superpi results shown.
Both the benches your focusing on are single-threaded. Look at the sandra, there's your feature improvements, and huge ones at that.
by: lemonadesoda;877702
Let me explain why I think the results are VERY VERY disappointing.
1./ Bloomfield = 4 cores and "new" HT = 8 threads
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architectural tweaks other than HT
Yet it is only able to score 4.14x multiplier on CB10 compared to 3.55 on the Q6600. So that means a gain of about 15% due to HT'ing 8 threads over 4 cores. That's not too exciting, because that 15% gain for 4 "extra" hyperthreads is RUBBISH compared to, e.g., a 355% gain for 4 cores instead of 1.
15% vs. 355%? Find me a dual socket Core 2 Quad for the 355%, thanks.
But if 15% gain is coming from HT, and the performance over my Q6600 AGP DDR1 is 20%, the net is 5% for all the other features.
WTF? 5% from:
1./ ...
2./ Quick path
3./ DDR3
4./ Bigger cache
5./ Some architecte tweaks other than HT
If that's really true, those 4 additional "developments" can only win 5%, then Intel has failed with the new architecture and AMD is in with a chance.
*CAVEAT, all commentary based on CB10 and superpi results shown.
idiot quikpath and ht and multi cores doest play a role in Super PI
Guys, remember that intel removed ALL limits on overclocking (the FSB wall, etc)... :D
well lets find out the limit of quikpath ;)
MY 6700 @ 3.6ghz does super Pi 1Mil in 15 seconds... so is my proc slow or is the nehalem fast.
Either way, this architecture is not a step back, and the new hyperthreading has shown (in initial benchmarks) to be more effective the P4 HT. The processor has very low voltage, will scale to 8 cores easily, and frankly Video Editing will take full advantage of it (which I love... plus gaming isn't going to be hurt).
Either way, this architecture is not a step back, and the new hyperthreading has shown (in initial benchmarks) to be more effective the P4 HT. The processor has very low voltage, will scale to 8 cores easily, and frankly Video Editing will take full advantage of it (which I love... plus gaming isn't going to be hurt).
by: tkpenalty;877790well not completly true now you have the limits of intels integrated memory controller remember AMD's 1st try with that on clawhammer and s754?
Guys, remember that intel removed ALL limits on overclocking (the FSB wall, etc)... :D
by: cray86;878009Actually, when I had a GO Q6600 @ 3.6 GHz, I was regularly obtaining 1M SuperPi times in the arena of 13.8 seconds. Are you sure nothing else is sapping your CPU cycles (or that your memory isn't operating at extraordinarily slow frequencies)?
MY 6700 @ 3.6ghz does super Pi 1Mil in 15 seconds... so is my proc slow or is the nehalem fast.
Your processor is not particularly slow, and Bloomfield is not significantly faster. However, your SuperPi times -- which seem particularly slow -- may be exacerbating your perception of Bloomfield's performance advantage.
first of all... the chip is running stock speeds... wait till you see it overclock before you start to complain.
second... this is the mid range bloomefield chip. it has 4 cores and NOT the 8 core's that the high end chips will have. the 8 core 16 threaded bloomefield will not perform 2x as good on single threaded apps but in multi-threaded apps... LOOK OUT! especially if these overclock anything like the 45nm wolfdale and yorkfields. people are quick to dismiss anything new for some unknown reason. perhaps it's jealousy? IDK... i know i cant wait to get one. i'll save my monies for the big daddy 8 core chip and whatever x58 board asus comes out with that has the best features. i'll have my phase done by then too so this outta be interesting.
second... this is the mid range bloomefield chip. it has 4 cores and NOT the 8 core's that the high end chips will have. the 8 core 16 threaded bloomefield will not perform 2x as good on single threaded apps but in multi-threaded apps... LOOK OUT! especially if these overclock anything like the 45nm wolfdale and yorkfields. people are quick to dismiss anything new for some unknown reason. perhaps it's jealousy? IDK... i know i cant wait to get one. i'll save my monies for the big daddy 8 core chip and whatever x58 board asus comes out with that has the best features. i'll have my phase done by then too so this outta be interesting.
by: fitseries3;878074$10 says these are coldbugged like a mofo ;)
first of all... the chip is running stock speeds... wait till you see it overclock before you start to complain.
second... this is the mid range bloomefield chip. it has 4 cores and NOT the 8 core's that the high end chips will have. the 8 core 16 threaded bloomefield will not perform 2x as good on single threaded apps but in multi-threaded apps... LOOK OUT! especially if these overclock anything like the 45nm wolfdale and yorkfields. people are quick to dismiss anything new for some unknown reason. perhaps it's jealousy? IDK... i know i cant wait to get one. i'll save my monies for the big daddy 8 core chip and whatever x58 board asus comes out with that has the best features. i'll have my phase done by then too so this outta be interesting.
but i have to say look at the scores next to my AMD's with an oc i'm running higher than any released AMD phenom by 200mhz and i can't come close to it performance wise
by: fitseries3;878074This is true -- it is performing at stock speeds. But, even if/when it does overclock to Wolfdale/Yorkfield speeds of 3.8 to 4.0 GHz, it will still have the same relative speed advantage (in this case 15.3% and 3.8% faster in SuperPi and single-thread Cinebench 10, respectively). I don't think posters are dismissing it as much as they are comparing.
first of all... the chip is running stock speeds... wait till you see it overclock before you start to complain.
Overall, those who have had a chance to play with Nehalem suggest a 20% IPC average advantage over Penryn, across a variety of applications (that's a 20% increase with slightly lower power requirements). And, I was excited enough to snag Wolfdale/Yorkfield for its average 6% IPC advantage over its 65nm cousins (not to mention the significantly reduced voltage requirements).
by: fitseries3;878074Yep, expect a multithreading monster the world has never seen!
second... this is the mid range bloomefield chip. it has 4 cores and NOT the 8 core's that the high end chips will have. the 8 core 16 threaded bloomefield will not perform 2x as good on single threaded apps but in multi-threaded apps... LOOK OUT!
by: Rash-Un-Al;878034Yeah, I just love hardware engineering and am looking with anticipation towards the new architecture. I am no fan boy and just love good chips :D
Actually, when I had a GO Q6600 @ 3.6 GHz, I was regularly obtaining 1M SuperPi times in the arena of 13.8 seconds. Are you sure nothing else is sapping your CPU cycles (or that your memory isn't operating at extraordinarily slow frequencies)?
Your processor is not particularly slow, and Bloomfield is not significantly faster. However, your SuperPi times -- which seem particularly slow -- may be exacerbating your perception of Bloomfield's performance advantage.
As for my own performance, I had nothing else running besides uTorrent. I could try with it off but I love The Office too much :rolleyes:
Once Sony Vegas (FINALLY) gets a 64-bit version that can scale up to 16 rendering threads, Watch out!
by: cray86;878009Considering SuperPi is single threaded and is a pure math bench, you can assume that it takes a 3.60 GHz Core architecture prorcessor to beat a 2.66 GHz Nehalem.
MY 6700 @ 3.6ghz does super Pi 1Mil in 15 seconds... so is my proc slow or is the nehalem fast.
by: btarunr;878210Actually, not quite, as I discovered and pointed out earlier...
Considering SuperPi is single threaded and is a pure math bench, you can assume that it takes a 3.60 GHz Core architecture prorcessor to beat a 2.66 GHz Nehalem.
by: Rash-Un-Al;877721(Note: Yorkfield is only about 6% faster than Kentsfield)
A Wolfdale/Yorkfield must be operating at approximately 3.05 GHz to match that 1M SuperPi time and at approximately 2.80 GHz to match that single-thread Cinebench 10 score (according to tests run personally).
In other words, (again, as I personally tested, moments ago) a Wolfdale/Yorkield @ 2.66 GHz achieves a 1M SuperPi time of approximately 18.274 sec. (versus 15.475 sec.) and a single-thread Cinebench 10 score of approximately 2936 (versus 3048). This suggests Bloomfield is 15.3% and 3.8% faster in SuperPi and single-thread Cinebench 10, respectively.
by: Rash-Un-Al;878262And that speed difference at the same clock speeds is due to the increased L2 cache and some architectural efficiency tweaks.
Actually, not quite, as I discovered and pointed out earlier...
(Note: Yorkfield is only about 6% faster than Kentsfield)
by: fitseries3;878074the 8 cores version comes around q2 2009
first of all... the chip is running stock speeds... wait till you see it overclock before you start to complain.
second... this is the mid range bloomefield chip. it has 4 cores and NOT the 8 core's that the high end chips will have. the 8 core 16 threaded bloomefield will not perform 2x as good on single threaded apps but in multi-threaded apps... LOOK OUT! especially if these overclock anything like the 45nm wolfdale and yorkfields. people are quick to dismiss anything new for some unknown reason. perhaps it's jealousy? IDK... i know i cant wait to get one. i'll save my monies for the big daddy 8 core chip and whatever x58 board asus comes out with that has the best features. i'll have my phase done by then too so this outta be interesting.
first 8 cores nehalem cpu wil be the server version Beckton
Bloomfield is the overclock EE version
Lynnfield is the budget posible not overclock posible like bloomfield does
by: Morgoth
Lynnfield is the budget posible not overclock posible like bloomfield does
Translation (correct me if I'm wrong) - Lynnfield is the budget offering, possibly not overclockable, unlike Bloomfield.
bloomfield got Unlocked Multiplyer and not lynnfield i think
whoa, having an unlocked multi...does that mean that it will be like previous extreme intel CPUs? (i.e. having MSRP of $999+)
by: farlex85;877728
Both the benches your focusing on are single-threaded. Look at the sandra, there's your feature improvements, and huge ones at that.
WRONG. CB10 multithread scores, and the CB10 multipler, are NOT single-threaded statistics. LOL. Is school out?
by: Morgoth;877782
idiot quikpath and ht and multi cores doest play a role in Super PI
OMG what a rude fool. Read the post. The post was based on stats based on CB10. And FYI memory speeds affect superpi, and quickpath reduces latency, improves superpi. LOL. Is school out?
by: lemonadesoda;879380
WRONG. CB10 multithread scores, and the CB10 multipler, are NOT single-threaded statistics. LOL. Is school out?
OMG what a rude fool. Read the post. The post was based on stats based on CB10. And FYI memory speeds affect superpi, and quickpath reduces latency, improves superpi. LOL. Is school out?
Ok cinebench is multi-threaded, my bad. Your math is still way off in your last post, your deriving conclusions that don't really make sense so you can bash the stuff. QPI reduces increases bandwidth, but it's still in it's early stages. Still no triple-channel also, in fact, I believe they are running in 64-bit still (not sure, but previous threads indicated this). And you can't say the others w/o looking at sandra too.
Sorry, I could not see the Sandra scores. So my comments dont include those results. If they are positive, then great!
PS. If the results are majorly handicapped for any reason, I'm sure that would have been stated up front. But lets say it was forgotten. TODAY, the results for bloomfield are luke warm if not tepid. Those are the facts.
The stats are objective. Wishful thinking about what might be achieved later down the road has no place in denying those results we've just seen.
I find that is actually a pretty good take on the situation.
QPI reduces increases bandwidth
PS. If the results are majorly handicapped for any reason, I'm sure that would have been stated up front. But lets say it was forgotten. TODAY, the results for bloomfield are luke warm if not tepid. Those are the facts.
The stats are objective. Wishful thinking about what might be achieved later down the road has no place in denying those results we've just seen.
lemonsoda you deserve a headschot
What's that?
Headshot!
by: lemonadesoda;879438
Sorry, I could not see the Sandra scores. So my comments dont include those results. If they are positive, then great!
I find that is actually a pretty good take on the situation.
PS. If the results are majorly handicapped for any reason, I'm sure that would have been stated up front. But lets say it was forgotten. TODAY, the results for bloomfield are luke warm if not tepid. Those are the facts.
The stats are objective. Wishful thinking about what might be achieved later down the road has no place in denying those results we've just seen.
I don't find the results lukewarm at all. As such, it can't be stated as a fact. I was happy to jump on the 6% increase offered by the 45nm quad over my 65nm quad. This looks even more promising.
But still, I'll hold my final judgment until I see how they OC. The on die mem controller makes me a little nervous.
by: Wile E;879966Why d'you say that, it can only help right?
The on die mem controller makes me a little nervous.
by: InnocentCriminal;879969Look how it effects AMD overclocking.
Why d'you say that, it can only help right?
I wouldn't have thought it'd hinder them that much, maybe it does with the Phenoms but before that I've never seen it as a major issue.
by: InnocentCriminal;879974Well, considering that AMDs don't clock nearly as far as Intel cpus (whether by percentage or just raw MHz), I'd be inclined to disagree.
I wouldn't have thought it'd hinder them that much, maybe it does with the Phenoms but before that I've never seen it as a major issue.
Fair enough, but I wouldn't just put that down to the integrated memory controller, it's a load of other crap as well. You do have a point though, when comparing a Phenom to the Core 2 it makes sense, but back when AMD first released the Athlon64 it pissed all over the Pentium 4's in memory intensive applications (and the rest).
All I'm saying is, I don't think the integrated memory controller is the main reason to blame the bad performance and overclockablity of the Phenoms. It's a factor.
Going back to Bloomfield, I can see that having the memory controller integrated can bring only be a benefit, but we'll see, it may not be as efficient as I'm hoping.
All I'm saying is, I don't think the integrated memory controller is the main reason to blame the bad performance and overclockablity of the Phenoms. It's a factor.
Going back to Bloomfield, I can see that having the memory controller integrated can bring only be a benefit, but we'll see, it may not be as efficient as I'm hoping.
by: InnocentCriminal;879993I wasn't denying the performance capabilities of the IMC at all. Of course it will be more efficient, all else being equal. I'm only worried from an overclocking standpoint. Even back when the A64's were crushing P4, the A64's still didn't clock as far.
Fair enough, but I wouldn't just put that down to the integrated memory controller, it's a load of other crap as well. You do have a point though, when comparing a Phenom to the Core 2 it makes sense, but back when AMD first released the Athlon64 it pissed all over the Pentium 4's in memory intensive applications (and the rest).
All I'm saying is, I don't think the integrated memory controller is the main reason to blame the bad performance and overclockablity of the Phenoms. It's a factor.
Going back to Bloomfield, I can see that having the memory controller integrated can bring only be a benefit, but we'll see, it may not be as efficient as I'm hoping.
It didn't need to, but I see your point.
by: Wile E;879995i pointed this out in another one of these threads i'm thinking this 1st batch will look a lot like clawhammer on s754 i'm thinking HUGE limit on ram oc's to start
I wasn't denying the performance capabilities of the IMC at all. Of course it will be more efficient, all else being equal. I'm only worried from an overclocking standpoint. Even back when the A64's were crushing P4, the A64's still didn't clock as far.
by: cdawall;880417
i pointed this out in another one of these threads i'm thinking this 1st batch will look a lot like clawhammer on s754 i'm thinking HUGE limit on ram oc's to start
Yeah, and not just ram, but the overall OC as well. I believe the IMC is a big factor in why we don't see many extreme clocks on AMD chips.
by: Wile E;881640i'm thinking that to bet these new chips top out lower than the AMD's to maybe 3.4ghz max
Yeah, and not just ram, but the overall OC as well. I believe the IMC is a big factor in why we don't see many extreme clocks on AMD chips.
these cpu's easly hit 4ghz ;)
by: Morgoth;881862no the unlocked multi ES chips hit 4ghz easy you have to remember that these new ones use a 133mhz reference clock and then multi that out so without the unlocked multi you still have to play with the bus speeds which are going to be glitchy. hence all of the rumoprs of no oc'ing these chips
these cpu's easly hit 4ghz ;)