Thursday, July 10th 2008
Bloomfield 2.93 GHz Performance Data Disclosed
Benchmarks of Nehalem derivatives are on a roll. We had seen the Bloomfield 2.66 GHz scores and thought it was great. A couple of days ago, Tom's Hardware showed off their newest toys to the world in which was a 2.93 GHz Bloomfield we covered here. Interestingly, they had then stated that Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) prevented them from releasing any benchmark data, though following ChipHell's publication, they thought they would disclose theirs as well.
They carried out their tests on the Foxconn Renaissance X58 motherboard with dual-channel Crucial Ballistix 2x 1GB DDR3 1600 MHz, ATI Radeon HD 4850, Windows Vista SP1 and hotfix_vista32-64_dd_ccc_hd4800series_64906 patch. A 750GB Seagate SATA II hard drive was used.
In 3DMark 06, it secured a CPU score of 5183. In PCMark 05, a CPU score of 9583 with a memory score of 9010 was noted. In 3DMark Vantage, the CPU score was 17966 (CPU Test1: 2515.1 Plans/S, Test2: 23.08 Steps/S). 2.93 GHz Bloomfield had a Mere 11% performance advantage over a QX6800 (that clocks at 2.93 GHz). It is also said that this 2.93 GHz chip is 23% faster than a Phenom X4 9950.
Source:
Tom's Hardware
They carried out their tests on the Foxconn Renaissance X58 motherboard with dual-channel Crucial Ballistix 2x 1GB DDR3 1600 MHz, ATI Radeon HD 4850, Windows Vista SP1 and hotfix_vista32-64_dd_ccc_hd4800series_64906 patch. A 750GB Seagate SATA II hard drive was used.
In 3DMark 06, it secured a CPU score of 5183. In PCMark 05, a CPU score of 9583 with a memory score of 9010 was noted. In 3DMark Vantage, the CPU score was 17966 (CPU Test1: 2515.1 Plans/S, Test2: 23.08 Steps/S). 2.93 GHz Bloomfield had a Mere 11% performance advantage over a QX6800 (that clocks at 2.93 GHz). It is also said that this 2.93 GHz chip is 23% faster than a Phenom X4 9950.
15 Comments on Bloomfield 2.93 GHz Performance Data Disclosed
When are these slated to hit retail distribution and what kinda price tag will they (speculatively? sorry for spelling) come with?
K
When one takes into considering AMD's Shanghai K10.5 45nm processors will boast significantl IPC increases, are said to be able to launch at 2.8 to 3.0 GHz (with faster variants to follow), are expected to operate below current-generation TDP, with 6MB of L3 cache (versus the current 2MB), and a future native octal-core (Sandtiger), Intel simply must release its new architecture, just to stay ahead. Otherwise, current Wolfdale/Yorkfield processors would either be par or not enough for Intel to remain on top.
Click here, to view the speed increases in SuperPi and Cinebench (single-thread):
forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=877721#post877721
You'll notice that, against a Wolfdale/Yorkfield, the Bloomfield speed advantage can vary considerably, depending on the application. The increases you've described above display Bloomfield's multithreading power at work, in an optimized-for-multithreading environment (3DMark Vantage), while these performance increases still represent the minority of current compute scenarios (and while not all multithreaded applications will yield the same degree of gains).
Also look at 3dmark06. A Q6600 at 2.93Ghz scores 4,680 on DDR1. The bloomfied is getting 5183 according to Toms. That's only a 10% increase on the same clocks. Not a very big gain given new CPU, Quickpath and DDR3!
"Snatching?", pot calling kettle black.
It's pretty clear that results so far indicate bloomfield is luke warm. That's all we've got to go on. Don't you think it's wishful thinking to ignore that and just blow the bloomfield trumpet? Let's hope things change, but until they do, GO WITH THE FACTS.
There you've got 8 real cores. If you look at the CB10 results, or media encoding results, for such a monster it blows bloomfield. www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/top.php
But I guess bloomfield will be a lot cheaper than the workstation/server solution to über-power.