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

Nehalem vs Core 2 Club - Brolloks comparison

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

Brolloks

Benching Senior on Siesta, Premium Member #8
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Location
Land of Long Horns
I'm sure a lot of people wants to know how Nehalem's Core i7 will stack up against a Penryn (Yorkfield and Wolfdale). So I'll use the same set of benchmarks I used to compare P45 vs X48/X38 in x-fire to see just what it looks like on a home setup, no Extreme Edition or LN2 or crazy GTX 280 tri-SLI, just setups regular folks use for gaming ;)

Setups will be:

Core i7 - Bloomfield

Mobo - Asus P6T Deluxe X58
CPU - Intel i7 940/i7-920
GPU - GTX 280 SLI

Core 2 - Penryn

Mobo - Abit IX38 QuadGT
CPU - Intel Q9650 ES
GPU - GTX 280 SLI



Benchmarking will commence this weekend, Nehalem setup will be up and running this weekend or early next week
 

Attachments

  • P6T.JPG
    P6T.JPG
    169.6 KB · Views: 4,938
Last edited:
OP
Brolloks

Brolloks

Benching Senior on Siesta, Premium Member #8
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Location
Land of Long Horns
Pics of Asus P6T Deluxe X58 and i7-940
 

Attachments

  • Box.JPG
    Box.JPG
    133.9 KB · Views: 7,383
  • Board.JPG
    Board.JPG
    149.6 KB · Views: 7,379
  • i7 940.JPG
    i7 940.JPG
    93.4 KB · Views: 7,016
  • i7 940-2.JPG
    i7 940-2.JPG
    103 KB · Views: 6,984
Last edited:
OP
Brolloks

Brolloks

Benching Senior on Siesta, Premium Member #8
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Location
Land of Long Horns
As can be seen from these results the i7-940 setup had no improvement on gaming benchmarks, so all in all it seems that only synthetic benchmarks, encoding and other CPU intensive applications will benefit from the Nehalem platforn thus far. If you want to game, do everyday stuff with your PC, stay with LGA 775 daulies and quads.
 

Attachments

  • i7 vs q9650.JPG
    i7 vs q9650.JPG
    50.3 KB · Views: 6,378
Last edited:
OP
Brolloks

Brolloks

Benching Senior on Siesta, Premium Member #8
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Location
Land of Long Horns
Comparisons with GTX 280 SLI, both the i7 and Q9650 at 4 Ghz
 

Attachments

  • i7vsq9650.JPG
    i7vsq9650.JPG
    58.3 KB · Views: 5,818
Last edited:
OP
Brolloks

Brolloks

Benching Senior on Siesta, Premium Member #8
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Location
Land of Long Horns
X264 Encoding Benchmark : 720P HD

Core i7-940 at 4 Ghz

Results for x264.exe v0.58.747
encoded 1442 frames, 95.14 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 99.45 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 100.21 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 100.64 fps, 3904.94 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.73 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.95 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.98 fps, 3974.08 kb/s
encoded 1442 frames, 33.81 fps, 3974.08 kb/s


System Details
--------------
Name Intel Processor
Codename Bloomfield
Specification Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 940 @ 2.93GHz
Core Stepping
Technology 45 nm
Stock frequency 2933 MHz
Core Speed 4004.0 MHz (22.0 x 182.0 MHz)

Northbridge Intel X58 rev. 12
Southbridge Intel 82801JR (ICH10R) rev. 00

Memory Frequency 1456.0 MHz ()
Memory Type DDR3
Memory Size 3064 MBytes

Windows Version Microsoft Windows XP Professional Service Pack 3 (Build 2600)

max VID 0.825 V
Voltage sensor 0 1.40 Volts [0xAF] (CPU VCORE)
Number of processors 1
Number of threads 8
Number of threads 8 (max 16)
L2 cache 4 x 256 KBytes, 8-way set associative, 64-byte line size
Instructions sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, EM64T
Package Socket 1366 LGA (platform ID = 1h)

Temperature sensor 0 29°C (84°F) [0x1D] (SYSTIN)
Temperature sensor 1 57°C (133°F) [0x71] (CPUTIN)
Temperature sensor 2 32°C (88°F) [0x3F] (AUXTIN)
Temperature sensor 0 69°C (156°F) [0x24] (core #0)
Temperature sensor 1 70°C (157°F) [0x23] (core #1)
Temperature sensor 2 68°C (154°F) [0x25] (core #2)
Temperature sensor 3 65°C (148°F) [0x28] (core #3)
Temperature sensor 0 35°C (94°F) [0x23] (GPU Core)
 
Last edited:
OP
Brolloks

Brolloks

Benching Senior on Siesta, Premium Member #8
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Location
Land of Long Horns
Some runs on the 940 and 920
 

Attachments

  • ScreenHunter_05 Nov. 25 16.04.gif
    ScreenHunter_05 Nov. 25 16.04.gif
    103.4 KB · Views: 5,118
  • 920 at 4.4.gif
    920 at 4.4.gif
    68.4 KB · Views: 5,075
  • CPUZ at 4.5.gif
    CPUZ at 4.5.gif
    101.2 KB · Views: 5,087
  • 940 at 4.gif
    940 at 4.gif
    107.2 KB · Views: 5,062
  • 940 at 4.4.gif
    940 at 4.4.gif
    128.3 KB · Views: 5,054
Last edited:

Evilsizer

Senior Forum Spammer
Joined
Jun 6, 2002
thanks brolloks!!

i have to ask though are you going to be doing sli/cf or just single card per clock? i think that single card isnt going to work to compare the two platforms. as we can see per clock i7 is faster. even assuming at 16.7% increase in i7 as a low side number for clock to clock comparsion. [email protected] = [email protected], if you move i7 up to the same clock(ie 3.2ghz) then it equals 3.73ghz C2Q. im waiting to see if the number % wise matches up to what i figured. since we had to figure the % difference for core2 to equal a Amd setup. looks like we need to do the same agian.... i still say the biggest draw back gaming wise for i7 is the 256k L2 vs 4/8mb,6/12mb L2 on "core 2" quads.
 
OP
Brolloks

Brolloks

Benching Senior on Siesta, Premium Member #8
Joined
Dec 26, 2006
Location
Land of Long Horns
I'm planning to do one card and with clocks that Jason suggested actually in another thread.

i7 940 ~ 3.6-3.8 Ghz
Q9650 ~ 4-4.2 Ghz
E8500 ~ 4.3-4.5 Ghz

I do not want to go SLI/CF just yet, will see how these results turn out before I embark on dual cards, my aim is to keep it closer to what most folks use.

I'm open to more suggestions on how to make the comparsion more realistic, so thanks Dr Evil for your comments/suggestions :)
 

don'tknow

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
This will be good.

I'd also suggest to list the approximate price of each setup but I guess we could just calculate that ourselves (depending on availability/location).
 

don'tknow

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Well, I'd say from an overclocking standpoint it would be fair to compare the max OC of each. But since it might take a long time to find and stabilize the highest OC for each system, the initially planned clocks by Brolloks seem ok to me. Maybe do those clocks and then also do an 'even overclock number' between all of them like the 3.8ghz proposed above.

Power Consumption comparisons would also be cool.