- Joined
- Aug 30, 2006
- Messages
- 7,228 (1.07/day)
System Name | ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH |
---|---|
Processor | Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472 |
Memory | 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM |
Video Card(s) | HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400 |
Display(s) | 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200 |
Audio Device(s) | Audigy 2 |
Software | Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets. |
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.
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.