• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

early Intel Nehalem i7 benchmarks

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

JetJam

Registered
Joined
Jan 19, 2001
Location
Maryland
early Intel Nehalem i7 benchmarks, and now purchased

here are some early Intel Nehalem i7 benchmarks,

read here: http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/31/intel-core-i7-benchmarks-make-core-2-extreme-look-like-a-washed/
and here: http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=75088
and here: http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=2700
and here: http://www.hwbox.gr/showthread.php?t=2715

happy reading, enjoy.

(added 11-02-08)
Here is a link to someone that purchased an Intel i7 and Asus P6T and benched it, but then may have Intel stepped in.:eek:
read here: http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/406091-i7-out-wild.html
and here:http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206570

copy of pic that was removed:
 

Attachments

  • intel-corei7-motherboard.jpg
    intel-corei7-motherboard.jpg
    61.4 KB · Views: 458
Last edited:
NDA isn't lifted until November 2nd ;) Yea its Sunday, but leaking benches even a day early will get you screwed in the long run.
 
Notice the voltage at 4.5 ghz.... ouuuuuchhh. 1.592 in one screenshot, 1.584 in the other.

Most of their benches were at 3.7 ghz, some at 4 ghz, because they couldn't get 4.5 stable. Why does Tri-channel seem so pointless though? Is there some kind of benefit to it other than speed? Because the speed gets 0 improvement.
 
well considering those 4ghz perform better than the qx9770 at 5.7Ghz or at least give better bench results i would say it's quite impressive.. on the voltage i wouldn't worry.. there will be good batches and crappy ones like my q6600 that to be stable at 3.2 needs 1.4+V
 
is this for real? it looks like the 920 is putting up numbers comparable to a QX9770. everything i've seen so far puts the 920 at ~$285. I understand the oc potential of the QX but i can't believe that intel would put the 920 on the market at such a low price. Who would buy a 9770 when you could get the 920 for 1/5 the price?
 
is this for real? it looks like the 920 is putting up numbers comparable to a QX9770. everything i've seen so far puts the 920 at ~$285. I understand the oc potential of the QX but i can't believe that intel would put the 920 on the market at such a low price. Who would buy a 9770 when you could get the 920 for 1/5 the price?

Add the x58 mobo and RAM, then say it's a low price. You can't just pop it in your board and go.
 
The CPUZ screen show people pulling of the multi to higher value like 29 and not getting the QPI high enough ~150 . I wouldnt like it if the boards dont stable higher QPI , else all most of us can get is 3-3.2 Ghz with the 920 :bang head

Now that the NDA is over, do we have some more exclusive reports ?
 
PCPer, Legion Hardware and [H]OCP
Guru3D in multi-SLI/Crossfire.

Pun aside, the 3.2 GHz Core i7 processor used in this article seems to be a very good match for heavy weight Multi-GPU environments, whatever your preference is: 3-way SLI or QuadFire. You will not likely run into CPU bottlenecks anytime soon. That's of course until ATI and NVIDIA release faster cards again, which is bound to happen anyway.
 
i7 is new architecture.

We're going to be talking about i7 Nehalem MHz which is not the same MHz as it used to be.
 
i7 is new architecture.

We're going to be talking about i7 Nehalem MHz which is not the same MHz as it used to be.

We can only hope so. Would you prefer higher clocks or more work done per clock? Personally, 5ghz (nothing less) + lots of work done each clock.
 
New architecture. No question about it. Apple's to Oranges.

Get ready for this to be repeated ad nauseam. Every day, in every thread there'll be a new guy comparing old MHz with the new. Not the same thing.
 
That Guru3D review was, um half-informative I guess. We already know the i7 is better in memory bandwidth/etcetc, but that's the first time I saw game benchmarks with xfire/sli. At stock speeds the i7 is better, and at OC speeds an e8k/q9k will be about equal in games to an OC'd i7 (but they did not show that, for obvious reasons). On a single GPU I'm also betting it'll be about equal, at stock speeds.
 
Would you prefer higher clocks or more work done per clock? Personally, 5ghz (nothing less) + lots of work done each clock.
The lower the clock the cooler it will run(assuming transisitor count doesnt increase greatly) I would love it if it could match a 5 Ghz Yorkfield with a 2Ghz of clock, but thats more likely to happen with Sandy Bridge/Bulldozer. Not that this architecture is bad, but it will take time before SMT/Tri-Channel actually gives improvement. Good thinking they put a Turbo Mode idea, it'll at least fetch them a good advertising line
 
Back