# Intel Nehalem Turbo-charges Radeon HD4850 Benchmark



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

*Intel Nehalem Posts Impressive CPU Scores with 3D Benchmarks*

The rather lucky Taiwanese team of Tom's Hardware got their hands on an Intel Bloomfield engineering sample that has a clock-speed of 2.93 GHz, running on a Intel X58 chipset based motherboard made by Foxconn called Renaissance to evaluate a Gainward Radeon HD4850 sample. System details are provided below.



 




Of course, the benchmark lacks the advantage NVIDIA PhysX gives to the CPU score in 3DMark Vantage, but for a CPU alone, it is a more than decent score. The system secured P7182 at default settings with a CPU score of 17966. In 3DMark06, it churned out 12786 3DMarks with a CPU score of 5183. In the Crysis CPU benchmark, scores of 33.70 and 18.29 were recorded at 1280x1024 resolution with no anti-aliasing.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jul 2, 2008)

Nice results, but is it getting more punch out of the 4850? In fact, not really sure what this has to do with a 4850 at all. Could you put <ANY GPU> into the title and say the same thing?


----------



## freaksavior (Jul 2, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Nice results, but is it getting more punch out of the 4850? In fact, not really sure what this has to do with a 4850 at all. Could you put <ANY GPU> into the title and say the same thing?



i have to agree, what exactly does the point out?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

lemonadesoda said:


> Nice results, but is it getting more punch out of the 4850? In fact, not really sure what this has to do with a 4850 at all. Could you put <ANY GPU> into the title and say the same thing?



The fact that it's bringing out good CPU scores that affect this bench, and that this is perhaps one of the first published benchmarks of a video-card on a Nehalem derivative causes me to use that. So you get a glimpse of how Nehalem affects a HD4850 bench versus other benches using other CPU's that are all over the internet.

Another reason why 'HD4850' was used in the title was to show there's no latest NVIDIA card that could affect CPU score and that there are pure CPU scores in the benchmark.


----------



## tvdang7 (Jul 2, 2008)

with me e6600 runnining 3.3ghz and my 4850 running 725/1025  my crysis bench runs at 31 frames. so that cpu does matter it beats me be 2 frames at default settings probably 4 or 5 frames overclocked.or more!!


----------



## DOM (Jul 2, 2008)

well in 06 it gets 200 more points on the cpu vs mine at 3GHz


----------



## Recoba (Jul 2, 2008)

Better than my system: Q6600@3.6Ghz & ASUS EAH4850 score P7079 in Vantage. But why they run dual Channel ?


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jul 2, 2008)

I'm not that impressed. 

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=823121&postcount=319

Sure I have 8 actual cores, though a lower clock, crap memory bandwidth and an inferior architecture.
Harpertowns at the same clock would perform a lot better. ie current generation can keep up easily.


----------



## Cold Storm (Jul 2, 2008)

I can't believe that they used VGA monitor for the bench! You'd think they would use the DVI feature?


----------



## mullered07 (Jul 2, 2008)

Cold Storm said:


> I can't believe that they used VGA monitor for the bench! You'd think they would use the DVI feature?



how will that affect the performance, you could argue there would be a negligable visual increase (dependant on your eyes lol) but nothing further


----------



## Cold Storm (Jul 2, 2008)

mullered07 said:


> how will that affect the performance, you could argue there would be a negligable visual increase (dependant on your eyes lol) but nothing further



I was just saying that you would think of them as using a DVI type monitor instead of having to use the VGA extension.. That's all I was pointing out..


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 2, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> I'm not that impressed.
> 
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=823121&postcount=319
> 
> ...



We're still a ways away from it's release, and I believe these boards are still very new. It will likely speed up a decent amount before it's release.


----------



## mullered07 (Jul 2, 2008)

Cold Storm said:


> I was just saying that you would think of them as using a DVI type monitor instead of having to use the VGA extension.. That's all I was pointing out..



it has no relevance, at least no more than using a optical mouse vs a lazor mouse  

also bear in mind this is on an engineering sample cpu and mobo, not too bad overall at stock clocks


----------



## w2richwood (Jul 2, 2008)

it's on first chipset i'm sure there will be more to come
Rich


----------



## WarEagleAU (Jul 2, 2008)

Its still pretty amazing either way. Records and benchmarks have been using ATI hardware lately. Impressive!


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 2, 2008)

Looks like we are seeing diminishing returns.  I would have expected a higher score.  The Nehalem 2.93GHz is an 8 core cpu right?


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 2, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Looks like we are seeing diminishing returns.  I would have expected a higher score.  This is an 8 core cpu right?



No, it's a 4-core cpu w/ hyper-threading, giving it 8 logical cores in window's. I'm not sure what the difference is performance-wise, but I feel like 8 logical cores is probably not the same as 8 real cores.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 2, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> No, it's a 4-core cpu w/ hyper-threading, giving it 8 logical cores in window's. I'm not sure what the difference is performance-wise, but I feel like 8 logical cores is probably not the same as 8 real cores.



I see, well that would explain the results then.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 2, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> I see, well that would explain the results then.



It would, really when you think about it, not only is the board and cpu not fully developed, but windows and vantage may be just warming up to the tech new. So many things working together, at this stage in the game I think those scores are just based on raw architecture power, and seem pretty nice.


----------



## trt740 (Jul 2, 2008)

what socket will N use 775 and if so will it only be for ddr3 based boards?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Jul 2, 2008)

farlex85 said:


> It would, really when you think about it, not only is the board and cpu not fully developed, but windows and vantage may be just warming up to the tech new. So many things working together, at this stage in the game I think those scores are just based on raw architecture power, and seem pretty nice.



Lets see what develops this time.  HT has always been a nice feature, even during the P4 days but it was never really utilized to it's full potential.  If we see better support from the OS (Win7), games and other apps things will get very interesting indeed.


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 2, 2008)

trt740 said:


> what socket will N use 775 and if so will it only be for ddr3 based boards?



No they got a whole new socket, and the architecture of the chipset has a ddr3 memory controller built in eliminating the fsb, so I'm assuming it's ddr3 exclusive. There was talk at one point of some of the lower models being compatible w/ 775, but that won't be till next year if at all. I don't see how it could w/ the way it operates though. Totally different way of clocking.


----------



## HTC (Jul 2, 2008)

btarunr said:


> The rather lucky Taiwanese team of Tom's Hardware got their hands on an Intel Bloomfield engineering sample that has a clock-speed of 2.93 GHz, running on a Intel X58 chipset based motherboard made by Foxconn called Renaissance to evaluate a Gainward Radeon HD4850 sample. System details are provided below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Correct me if i'm wrong but i think they're highlighting the CPU score of the respective benchmarks.

Against other quad CPUs @ the same speed, aren't those scores very high?

EDIT

This is, ofc, without the physX thing.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

Yes, the postmortem of my news post is in post #4 in this thread. Dan's 2x 2-core Xeon murders it.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jul 2, 2008)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Looks like we are seeing diminishing returns.  I would have expected a higher score.  The Nehalem 2.93GHz is an 8 core cpu right?



Don't forget that the Renaissance\X58 is still in it's infancy, so the BIOS is most likely _really_ immature and hindering the performance of both the CPU and therefore bringing the 4850 down. Could explain why they're running in Dual Channel and not Tri-Channel. So, for an early, initial look at a Nehalem it's pretty promising really. I would really like to see them repeat this test once Foxconn give them a BIOS update, I expect we'd see pretty different results. 

As for the 2.93GHz Bloomfield, I thought that this chip was only a quad-core but would handle 8-threads.

Translated version of the original link.


----------



## lemonadesoda (Jul 2, 2008)

Nehalem manages between 0% and 40% performance increase clock-for-clock compared to penryn.  But with a power consumption cost of 10% for the whole system, which is driven by about 20% extra power for the CPU.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3326&p=7

So, Nehalem, TODAY, is not impressive at all. You can get the same performance per watt by just overclocking a penryn.  However, I'm sure the figures will improve once they optimise mainboard, BIOS, memory channels, and final (non-engineering sample) CPUs will have low power requirements. Or rather, lets hope so, otherwise Nahelem is a flop, and NOTHING like the mammoth win when Intel moved to Core 2 architecture.


----------



## Mattgal (Jul 2, 2008)

who did this review is a dumb person! such a high-end cpu with a peace of crap vga! why wouldn't they tested it with a gtx280 or GX2? that way there will be no bottleneck


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jul 2, 2008)

Mattgal said:


> who did this review is a dumb person! such a high-end cpu with a peace of crap vga! why wouldn't they tested it with a gtx280 or GX2? that way there will be no bottleneck



Well, while we're calling people dumb people I would read the text again. It's the CPU score they're mainly talking about, so the GPU doesn't matter much. Then again, not being dumb, you already knew that.


----------



## Mattgal (Jul 2, 2008)

i already sad why. there s a bottleneck and a pc cannot perform its best. talking from my own experiance


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

Peace of Crap: That which exists between the United States and North Korea. 

^Doesn't fit in your sentence. 

Looking at a pair of dual Xeons  just a couple of hundred points behind this and the fact that even with dual-channel, this chip is expected to have insanely low memory latency owing to an IMC, this chip can do a lot better than this, only time will tell.

That bench is just for you to look at the CPU scores in 3D benches, the 'HD4850' in the headline is merely to show there's no latest NVIDIA GPU that alters CPU score. And that I believe this is a fast bench for HD4850 compared to other reviewers using mid/mid-high range CPUs for evaluating a HD4850, this bench is just a novelty for "yay we were the first to do it".


----------



## Mattgal (Jul 2, 2008)

i dont like ATi + nvidia GTX280 or GTX280 sli or even TRI-SLI is LOADS better than that thing! atleast a HD4870 !


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

Whether you use a GeForce 6200 TC or GeForce GTX 280, the CPU scores will come the same. That's what you're expected to look at.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jul 2, 2008)

I think you're missing the point (that btarunr is point out) Mattgal.


----------



## Mattgal (Jul 2, 2008)

about a cpu score yes. but i still say that its bottlenecked. (tough for benches i dont think it will make a big difference) but in fps ecc HELL YESS


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

You have zero clue what you're talking about.

This is a bench merely to show you what impact a Nehalem derivative has on the bench, of what CPU score it churns out. Is that hard to understand? A VGA will never bottleneck a CPU benchmark, only the reverse is possible.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jul 2, 2008)

I think you're expecting too much from such an early example of Nehalem and (especially) the 4850, don't forget it's not a high-end card, it's mid-range.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

InnocentCriminal said:


> I think you're expecting too much from such an early example of Nehalem.



No, he expects the CPU score to cross a gazzillion billion after using better _graphics_ hardware.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Jul 2, 2008)

hmm in 06 it's only 300pts faster than my quad at 3GHZ. I was expecting much more. oh well I guess it means i can save my money for a gpu.


----------



## InnocentCriminal (Jul 2, 2008)

People are forgetting this is a really early look at a Nehalem based set up. Give it a month and if they repeat this but with a updated motherboard [BIOS] I expect it'd be a completely different story. No, it _will_ be a completely different story.


----------



## HTC (Jul 2, 2008)

I would suggest a modification to the OP title: it's favoring the 4850 when it should be favoring the Nelahem CPU scores.

Something like: "A preview of Nelahem CPU scores, using a HD4850".


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

HTC said:


> I would suggest a modification to the OP title: it's favoring the 4850 when it should be favoring the Nelahem CPU scores.
> 
> Something like: "A preview of Nelahem CPU scores, using a HD4850".



The video-card doesn't affect CPU score. The only reason the card is mentioned there is to show the scores are pure CPU scores and no possibility of NVIDIA adding PhysX score to the CPU score. I'm not the only one using this kind of title, even the likes of  Nordic Hardware are, Google out to find more.


----------



## HTC (Jul 2, 2008)

btarunr said:


> *The video-card doesn't affect CPU score.* The only reason the card is mentioned there is to show the scores are pure CPU scores and no possibility of NVIDIA adding PhysX score to the CPU score. I'm not the only one using this kind of title, even the likes of  Nordic Hardware are, Google out to find more.



Yes, i know.

It's still hyping the VGA when it should be hyping the Nehalem CPU scores (i'm referring to the title: nothing else), wouldn't you say?

I'm aware that physX adds a LOT to the CPU score which is why they used an ATI card.

Personally, if any physX thing were to be used (Ageia card or those modified CUDA drivers (?) that showed a 3850 with a CPU score of 22K+ in a Vantage P score), the CPU score would be WAY higher then 17996.

How about "Nehalem benchmarks: CPU scores using a HD4850"?


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

HTC said:


> Yes, i know.
> 
> It's still hyping the VGA when it should be hyping the Nehalem CPU scores (i'm referring to the title: nothing else), wouldn't you say?
> 
> ...



Alright, the user always comes first. Changed title, vBulletin limitation shows old title, new one on the main page. Your feedback is always welcome.


----------



## HTC (Jul 2, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Alright, the user always comes first. Changed title, vBulletin limitation shows old title, new one on the main page. Your feedback is always welcome.



You didn't have to remove the "HD4850" from the title but, personally, i think it's better now as opposed to before.

Plus, in theory, it should avoid more posts saying something like "the graph card should have been another one because this ... or that ..."


IMHO, when you trying to enphasize something (in the body of the post) and hype (wrong word: can't think of a better one, right now) another on the title, it *may get* confusing and something similar to the "Mattgal thing" is bound to occur.


----------



## btarunr (Jul 2, 2008)

HTC said:


> You didn't have to remove the "HD4850" from the title but, personally, i think it's better now as opposed to before.
> 
> Plus, in theory, it should avoid more posts saying something like "the graph card should have been another one because this ... or that ..."
> 
> ...



Mattgal is using a flawed logic that the 'GPU(s) will 'bottleneck' CPU score and that they should've used some el-fatto graphics hardware and obtained better scores.


----------



## HTC (Jul 2, 2008)

btarunr said:


> *Mattgal is using a flawed logic that the 'GPU(s) will 'bottleneck' CPU score* and that they should've used some el-fatto graphics hardware and obtained better scores.



Yes, but i was referring to him/her as an example only.

Please re-read posts #2 and #3 of this thread: a classical example of confusion between what *was* in the title and what is in the body of the OP.


Too bad vBulletin limitations still show the old title, instead of the new one but, as far as i know, that can't be helped


----------



## Morgoth (Jul 2, 2008)

hmm wierd i posted this in ati grapics section and non post
and here its gets flooded and complaining abouth the score :S
bloomfield eats your Penry clock for clock!
btw for that nvidida fan boy thats talking abouth the bottleneck
There is still no infomation if Nvidia is allowed to make chipsets for bloomfield


----------



## HTC (Jul 2, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> hmm wierd *i posted this in ati grapics section* and non post
> and here its gets flooded and complaining abouth the score :S
> bloomfield eats your Penry clock for clock!
> btw for that nvidida fan boy thats talking abouth the bottleneck
> There is still no infomation if Nvidia is allowed to make chipsets for bloomfield



You mean this post: i had seen it, yes.

It's all because of the title. Right now, HD48x0 are "on fire", so to speak, and they attract many viewers. Bloomfield is still somewhat unknown to many, myself included.


----------



## Steevo (Jul 2, 2008)

HT only works well if you have the on die cache to feed the actual core, or enough memory bandwidth to supply data, but if you have that then the program in wait state is either poorly coded or the amount of time spent switching tasks and getting the data for the next task in line will be greater than the amount of time spent getting the current tasks data.


HT was a waste of resources in the p4 days and it still is.


----------



## Morgoth (Jul 2, 2008)

no its still not ht works great on my p4


----------



## Steevo (Jul 2, 2008)

Compared to a dual core processor? HT ≠ DC


----------



## Morgoth (Jul 2, 2008)

Dont compare a single core  + ht to a dual core
compare your Dual to dual core  + ht (nahelem ARchitecture)


----------



## Mattgal (Jul 2, 2008)

ok got the point that tere are individual scores and that the GPU dont effect CPU score BUT, i still say that they used a bottle necked settup. (no need to re-telling me that the gpu dont effect the cpu in benchmarks lol)

bdw i'm a "him", (if you took a look at the profile... i'm male)


----------



## Morgoth (Jul 2, 2008)

so what is bottlenecking the system?
the cant run triplle channel atm


----------



## farlex85 (Jul 2, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> so what is bottlenecking the system?
> the cant run triplle channel atm



The undeveloped motherboard and unsupported software seem to currently be the the bottleneck, although I have now idea what mattgal was referring to. Also guys, take into account this is using ~.84vcore (based on other threads I've seen) to put up these numbers. You talk, core for core, volt for volt, watt for watt, this thing crushes the penryn w/o even being optimized yet.


----------



## cdawall (Jul 2, 2008)

Mattgal said:


> i dont like ATi + nvidia GTX280 or GTX280 sli or even TRI-SLI is LOADS better than that thing! atleast a HD4870 !



hey look how little my cpu score changed from *DUAL* 3850s to a single 6200TC 128mb obviously VGA's dont affect the cpu score to much! the slight difference is because i had Trillian/FF running in the background


----------

