- Joined
- Oct 11, 2008
- Messages
- 34 (0.01/day)
**UPDATED** Don't wait for new Nehalem processors. Read why. Screenshots Posted!!
The new Nehalem processors' main feature is that is does not have an FSB rather a memory controller onboard. "Bloomfield" the first Nehalem release will be running on an Intel X58 chipset. This requires Triple Channel DDR3 RAM. So this is supposed to "trick" system builders. So it's kinda confusing but i will try to explain it as best as I can.
So our theoretical mobo has 6 slots.
Here are our slots, the ones with dashes under their name means they're in the same channel.
So if you had 6x1GB ram you would put one DIMM in each slot.
If you had 3x2Gb you would put them in 1,3,5 correct?
In dual channel if you had 2x4gb you would put them in 1,3
But in triple channel, you would put them in 1,2 because if the third slot isnt occupied, apparently it dosent run as fast as it should.
Also even though the Bus speed is 4.8GHz/s it isn't as good a gaming processor as a workstation processor. Why?
The "Bloomfield" series have 4 physical cores and 2 threads each. Equaling 8 threads.
Most games are single threaded meaning that in the Penryn series more GHz+FSB+Cache meant speed. This here is not the case. Since there are so many threads, this will slow the game down a lot.
Here are my two benchmarking systems:
Core i7 Machine:
Intel Core i7 940 @ 3.2GHz on air
12GB DDR3 1066
ATI HD 4870 X2
MSI Eclipse
32GB SSD
Core 2 Quad Machine:
Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 4GHz On liquid
8GB DDR3 1600 Crucial
ATI HD 4870 X2
ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe
750GB HDD SATA II
In Crysis:
At 1024x768:
Core i7 got: 36fps MIN 74.6fps MAX
Core 2 Quad got: 43fps MIN 88.4fps MAX
At 1280x1024:
i7 got: 24fps MIN 53.9fps MAX
C2Q got: 12fps MIN 65.5fps MAX
At 1920x1200:
i7 got: 9.3fps MIN 33.6fps MAX
C2Q got: 18fps MIN 51.6fps MAX
As you can see, the fps gap at smaller resolutions are smaller. In the first one, it was a matter of a few frames. But as the going got tougher, the i7 skipped out. I also realised in task manager that while I was running the benchmark one thread was on 100% and the others were on 3-7% idling doing nothing.
It will be a matter of many years before games are multithreaded. Until then stick with your C2Q.
The graphics card in both machines were the same. Not overclocked. Stock.
Thanks to iSkytech for letting me borrow the processor/mobo.
The Core 2 Quad Gaming Rig is mine so if you have any questions on overclocking just post them here.
Thanks!!
The new Nehalem processors' main feature is that is does not have an FSB rather a memory controller onboard. "Bloomfield" the first Nehalem release will be running on an Intel X58 chipset. This requires Triple Channel DDR3 RAM. So this is supposed to "trick" system builders. So it's kinda confusing but i will try to explain it as best as I can.
So our theoretical mobo has 6 slots.
Here are our slots, the ones with dashes under their name means they're in the same channel.
So if you had 6x1GB ram you would put one DIMM in each slot.
If you had 3x2Gb you would put them in 1,3,5 correct?
In dual channel if you had 2x4gb you would put them in 1,3
But in triple channel, you would put them in 1,2 because if the third slot isnt occupied, apparently it dosent run as fast as it should.
Also even though the Bus speed is 4.8GHz/s it isn't as good a gaming processor as a workstation processor. Why?
The "Bloomfield" series have 4 physical cores and 2 threads each. Equaling 8 threads.
Most games are single threaded meaning that in the Penryn series more GHz+FSB+Cache meant speed. This here is not the case. Since there are so many threads, this will slow the game down a lot.
Here are my two benchmarking systems:
Core i7 Machine:
Intel Core i7 940 @ 3.2GHz on air
12GB DDR3 1066
ATI HD 4870 X2
MSI Eclipse
32GB SSD
Core 2 Quad Machine:
Core 2 Quad Q9650 @ 4GHz On liquid
8GB DDR3 1600 Crucial
ATI HD 4870 X2
ASUS P5Q3 Deluxe
750GB HDD SATA II
In Crysis:
At 1024x768:
Core i7 got: 36fps MIN 74.6fps MAX
Core 2 Quad got: 43fps MIN 88.4fps MAX
At 1280x1024:
i7 got: 24fps MIN 53.9fps MAX
C2Q got: 12fps MIN 65.5fps MAX
At 1920x1200:
i7 got: 9.3fps MIN 33.6fps MAX
C2Q got: 18fps MIN 51.6fps MAX
As you can see, the fps gap at smaller resolutions are smaller. In the first one, it was a matter of a few frames. But as the going got tougher, the i7 skipped out. I also realised in task manager that while I was running the benchmark one thread was on 100% and the others were on 3-7% idling doing nothing.
It will be a matter of many years before games are multithreaded. Until then stick with your C2Q.
The graphics card in both machines were the same. Not overclocked. Stock.
Thanks to iSkytech for letting me borrow the processor/mobo.
The Core 2 Quad Gaming Rig is mine so if you have any questions on overclocking just post them here.
Thanks!!
Attachments
Last edited: