Intel Nehalem Preview/Benches - Slaughters Core2

MR.B · 5 Jun 2008 at 09:25

Anandtech has a preview on Nehalem with benches.

They have a Core 2 and a Nehalem, both at 2.66GHz. The performance increase seen with Nehalem is similar to that seen with Core 2 over Pentium 4. So it's big.

Keep in mind the benches were done on a very early board, that had it's problems:

We had access to a 2.66GHz Nehalem for the longest time, unfortunately the motherboard it was paired with had some serious issues with memory performance. Not only was there no difference between single and triple channel memory configurations, memory latency was high. We know this was a board specific issue since our second Nehalem platform didn't exhibit any issues. Unfortunately we didn't have access to the more mature platform for very long at all

..Yet the memory performance (and everything else) is still vastly better than Core 2!

Strife212 · 5 Jun 2008 at 09:31

Crazy :S

Greebo · 5 Jun 2008 at 09:43

Might be still worth buying a multi/fsb locked cpu then. If you can buy a 2.66Ghz Nehalem which is 20%-50% faster than a 2.66Ghz Q9450 then why sweat about overclocking when you have a system running at above a 3.2Ghz q9450 speed?

Still a shame they won't overclock though. I think I would spend £300-£400 on a 2.66Ghz unlocked Nehalem if I thought under decent cooling I could get it up to 3.6 - 3.8Ghz.

Bonjour · 5 Jun 2008 at 10:07

When are these due out?

Is it next year?

I was just about to place an order to upgrade my Opteron setup, but may postpone for this..

Plasmoid · 5 Jun 2008 at 10:36

I'm calling BS on these... no way Intel can pull off this twice. I mean given how good the Core 2 is why push everyone to DDR3 now when they don't make money on DDR3. I guess there is the mobo upgrade element... but not much. What next... Nvidia release yet another upmarked 8800 derivative...

... oh

I'll be quite annoyed if Nehalem destroys my new Core 2 system (whenever i get it) and I can't find a cheap Nehalem build.

Strife212 · 5 Jun 2008 at 10:37

Plasmoid said:
I'm calling BS on these... no way Intel can pull off this twice. I mean given how good the Core 2 is why push everyone to DDR3 now when they don't make money on DDR3. I guess there is the mobo upgrade element... but not much. What next... Nvidia release yet another upmarked 8800 derivative...

... oh

I'll be quite annoyed if Nehalem destroys my new Core 2 system (whenever i get it) and I can't find a cheap Nehalem build.

So they can truly bury AMD? It's also not out for a fairly long time. The memory controller is on board the CPU so they have to make it DDR3 or it will become outdated fast.

NickK · 5 Jun 2008 at 10:48

Not that impressive to be honest.

If you look at the graphs they imply a large difference but if you look at the figures.. 3 seconds better? Not really ground shattering is it?

Richie P · 5 Jun 2008 at 10:50

Plasmoid said:
I'm calling BS on these... no way Intel can pull off this twice. I mean given how good the Core 2 is why push everyone to DDR3 now when they don't make money on DDR3. I guess there is the mobo upgrade element... but not much. What next... Nvidia release yet another upmarked 8800 derivative...

... oh

I'll be quite annoyed if Nehalem destroys my new Core 2 system (whenever i get it) and I can't find a cheap Nehalem build.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was quicker clock for clock, but the real interesting topic will be overclocking.

There were obviously the rumours that you can only overclock the top CPU, but I think that Intel putting a memory controller is going to limit overclocks just like AMD.

If a Nehalem system can only oc between 3-4Ghz (a la AMD) then the hardcore overclockers amongst us will not be that impressed, even if the clock for clock performance is there.

MR.B · 5 Jun 2008 at 11:54

Plasmoid said:
I'm calling BS on these... no way Intel can pull off this twice.

Err AnandTech isn't exactly the Inquirer or FUDzilla. They played with these CPU's and tested them thereself. I have no reason to doubt there results.
They were one of the first to test the Core 2 exactly two years ago at the same show, and those results were right aswell. You're just annoyed it kills your new Core 2 system, so you say crap like that. It's really pathetic and immature.

NickK said:
Not that impressive to be honest.

If you look at the graphs they imply a large difference but if you look at the figures.. 3 seconds better? Not really ground shattering is it?

Seems your've just hunted for the worst increase there and mentioned it. Nearly all the results are vastly better, even the memory access speed and bandwidth - on a very early board with poor/broken memory performance.

---------------------------------- Memory Read --- Memory Write --- Memory Copy --- Memory Latency
Nehalem (2.93GHz) --------------- 13.1 GB/s ------- 12.7 GB/s ------- 12.0 GB/s ------- 46.9 ns
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (3.00GHz) - 7.6 GB/s ------- 7.1 GB/s -------- 6.9 GB/s -------- 66.7 ns

Trunks9486 · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:01

The question is how well this is going to translate into real world performance.

I am pretty sure its going to slaughter everything in synthetics. Real world performance is another case. Clock for clock it wont be that much of an improvement, and Core 2 was made to cope with the memory latency, why do you think Yorkfields have 12MBs of L2 Cache?

MR.B · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:10

Trunks9486 said:
The question is how well this is going to translate into real world performance.

I am pretty sure its going to slaughter everything in synthetics. Real world performance is another case. Clock for clock it wont be that much of an improvement, and Core 2 was made to cope with the memory latency, why do you think Yorkfields have 12MBs of L2 Cache?

There were P4's with a ton of cache, but Core 2 still completely outperformed them in real-world tests.

And did you read the article? Because most of the tests are not synthetic.
They test: Xmpeg Encoding, 3D Studio Max, AutoMKV, POV-Ray.... the main thing they lack for now is game tests.

Steedie · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:15

I want!!

When are these due for release?

magpie1966 · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:19

The real issue here is looking at the performance v price issue

because at the end of the day if it is 20% quicker say, ( with all the issues like memory sorted out) than a say a top end cpu and m/board combo now.

and its priced at the prices that the top end stuff is worth.

i.e. top end cpu & m/b costs you 1000 quid.

when it comes out that combo will drop in price, and the new stuff will take its place.

Will it be worth the increase in performance to splash out another 1000 quid for 20% performance ??????

Trunks9486 · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:20

P4 was not exactly a good architecture though, Netburst showed its limits relatively early, when Intel realised that they were hitting clockspeed wall. Netburst was created to hit high clocks and when that happened they couldnt really do a lot. Core 2 is not only efficient but can clock a lot. If intel was operating with the same desperate policy as with the late P4 days we would have for sale 3.6-3.8 Yorkfields and Kentsfields before that.

Anyway, i havent read the article to be honest, its just that i am a sceptic. Miracles don't happen. Both AMd and Intel are facing a tough uphill road to improve single thread performance which is the reason that they push multi cores. And since the vast majority of software is now becoming dual core aware i doubt that the real world increase will all that exciting for someone with a good Core 2.

Time will tell.

RoEy · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:20

Does anyone know when they are coming? It says Q4 but is this true? I want to build my system around Christmas time and I'm holding out for Nehalem. I really hope it does come out then. How much do you think they'll be. I want to spend roughly £2700 on my machine.

RoEy

Greebo · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:23

Plasmoid said:
I'll be quite annoyed if Nehalem destroys my new Core 2 system (whenever i get it) and I can't find a cheap Nehalem build.

Why? There is always something better, faster round the corner. But if you wait then you will wait forever.

And it isn't going to be cheap. New boards, new chips, ddr3 memory. It may slaughter your new core 2 system but in total it may cost you £500 more so probably per pound, the performance won't be worth it.

Just wait 6 months to a year after first release and buy a system then.

Greebo · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:23

RoEy said:
I want to spend roughly £2700 on my machine.

RoEy

That should be enough

Trunks9486 · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:23

RoEy said:
Does anyone know when they are coming? It says Q4 but is this true? I want to build my system around Christmas time and I'm holding out for Nehalem. I really hope it does come out then. How much do you think they'll be. I want to spend roughly £2700 on my machine.

RoEy

With that budget you should be able to afford one, just maybe. Its going to be the extreme processors first i think. expect to spend around £600 on an extreme nehalem at least.

RoEy · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:24

Greebo said:
That should be enough

LOL Greebo, made me chuckle!

RoEy

RoEy · 5 Jun 2008 at 12:25

Do we think it will be on sale Crimbo 08?

RoEy