Tuesday, July 1st 2008
Intel Nehalem Turbo-charges Radeon HD4850 Benchmark
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.
Source:
Tom's Hardware
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.
55 Comments on Intel Nehalem Turbo-charges Radeon HD4850 Benchmark
^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".
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.
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.
Something like: "A preview of Nelahem CPU scores, using a HD4850".
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"?
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.
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 :(
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
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.
HT was a waste of resources in the p4 days and it still is.