 |  |  |  |  |
Intel Bloomfield clock for clock 45% faster in 3DMark Vantage CPU Test
| |||||||||
|
Intel Bloomfield clock for clock 45% faster in 3DMark Vantage CPU Test
| | |||||||
 |
 |
| | Thread Tools |
3rd June 2008, 21:41
| #1 |
| Madshrimp  Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,022
 |  Intel Bloomfield clock for clock 45% faster in 3DMark Vantage CPU Test Another interesting hunt over at Computex is definitely the Intel Nehalem and we managed to get our hands on a 2.66GHz Bloomfield running on a X58 Tylersburg board. Its 3DMark Vantage CPU score is pretty remarkable at 16334 which is about 45% faster than a similarly clocked Yorkfield. http://www.vr-zone.com/articles/Inte...rked/5825.html
__________________  |
|  |
|
3rd June 2008, 21:41
| #2 |
| Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,022
| mostly due to the hyperthreading though 
__________________ |
|
| |
|
3rd June 2008, 22:04
| #3 |
|
Posts: n/a
| But it is still 45% better performance. So if I run 8 versions of F@H I would see measurably higher performance than only 4 versions of F@H... |
| |
|
3rd June 2008, 23:12
| #4 |
| Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,022
| what I meant is that the performance increase will be directly related to the application you are using. F@H is an example. Single threaded applications however won't see any improvement from HT
__________________ |
|
| |
|
4th June 2008, 01:33
| #5 |
|
Posts: n/a
| True enough. But if still using single-threaded programs, then they have no reason to be using a Quadcore Nehalem anyway, no? |
| |
|
4th June 2008, 09:57
| #6 |
| Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium
Posts: 79,022
| not much choice since CPU race is over and all our going multicore on us :/
__________________ |
|
| |
|
4th June 2008, 18:02
| #7 |
|
Posts: n/a
| No reason to not buy a dual-core, most programs are at least dual-threaded. Or there is always single-core 1.8GHz Conroe-L for $40 |
| |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| |
