Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Didn't they only become available to the public yesterday?

 

From everything published on it, it looks fast. I think you should get one, do some testing and let us know if that's true. Or if you want to save yourself some work, you could just send me one, and a motherboard for it, and I'd be happy to do the testing for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Or if you want to save yourself some work, you could just send me one, and a motherboard for it, and I'd be happy to do the testing for you.

 

don't forget the RAM.... a comment in the article makes it sound like it needs a new style RAM.... but it didn't say anything more about it. Must have something to do with the memory controller being moved to the CPU.

 

the one line that really caught my attention though was that Intel is bringing back hyperthreading. Will be interesting to see some benchmarks with that enabled and disabled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no 8-core yet, but there are 6 and 8 cores in the pipeline.

 

BTW, compare those Cinebench scores to:

 

Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.7GHz XP64: 11088

Core Duo (Macbook Pro) 2.16GHz OSX32: 3720

 

The i7 920 has a slightly lower clock speed than my Q6600 but is a fair bit faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still fail to see the point of Skulltrail. Dual CPUs! We already had that technology. Runs on Core2 instead of Xeon! Yeah, but it's a special extra expensive Core2 with the same pinout as a Xeon. It's for gamers, not workstations! You say tomato...

 

Also don't get too excited about the Hyperthreading. Remember that in Netburst chips it only gave something like 10% improvement, and even that only worked because it didn't already have an assload of cores, and because Netburst was the most inefficient microarchitecture ever conceived. It had a 34 step pipeline. HT wasn't a feature so much as a bug fix. Put it in a CPU with 4 cores that get utilized well and have something like an 11 step pipeline and it's not nearly as exciting as it used to be (which is to say, about 10% as exciting as a Barry Manilow concert).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the 540 is 578$

 

I have done this too much started with the low end with the intention of upgrading it later from 1 233pii on a dual board to eventually 2 333's and now I am on a 6600 quad core with the ability to upgrade to..

 

and if i was to enter i7 the same way, i just don't want to again go this route

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so the i7 is still a Core, but i'll wait for the Xeon "Nahalem" as i've asked one of my local Dell guys and he told me the i7 will never outperfrom the Xeon haha, is it true?

 

Depends what you want to do. A dual-quad xeon would be more cores but each core is slower than an i7's core. So for things that multithread very well the xeons would probably be faster but if you're not using all the cores at once the i7 is faster. The dual-quad will probably run renders faster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and the 540 is 578$

 

I have done this too much started with the low end with the intention of upgrading it later from 1 233pii on a dual board to eventually 2 333's and now I am on a 6600 quad core with the ability to upgrade to..

 

and if i was to enter i7 the same way, i just don't want to again go this route

 

Judging from the benchmarks, the i7 920 outperforms the most powerful of the previous desktop processors, and at an excellent price point. If I were in the market for a new desktop, it's what I'd choose without even considering upgrade paths. Things in CPU Land change too fast nowadays. I build something that I plan to be happy with for a year or two and figure I got my money's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things in CPU Land change too fast nowadays. I build something that I plan to be happy with for a year or two and figure I got my money's worth.

 

Very true... If its a lot faster than what I currently use, and not a bad price, its gonna be a benefit and increase productivity.. Well.. allow me to make my scenes even more complex..!;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea, i dont get whats with the dual-CPU systems neither.. i mean, havent these ppl heard of Render Farms? (kinda reminds me of all those kids buying Quad-Cores for gaming:rolleyes:)

 

think about it:

sure the i7 920 outperforms the QX9770, but this is only true for multi-threaded environments.. which means the i7 920 will NOT outperform the QX9770 up until u press the Render button..

looking at this example u can easily see what a waste a dual-CPU system would be during all the work u do that precedes the Rendering stage..

by this measure it is more productive to have a top-of-the-line C2D as a WorkStation.. n having "the-best-bang-for-the-buck" in mind, a dual-CPU system will never outperform a bunch of networked Q6600's..

 

my 2 cents..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...