Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Lenovo sees huge increase in PC sales as rest of industry declines
Though not many details were allowed to be disclosed, we do know that a new CPU corresponding to the current quad-core Core i7 875K (the K refers to an unlocked multiplier) was overclocked and tested running Cinebench R11.5. With only air cooling, the processor managed to run at 4.9GHz (Intel requested that the original speed of the CPU before overclocking not be disclosed), and apparently outperformed a 12-core AMD Opteron "by a pretty healthy chunk." Considering the Opteron in question easily beats a Core i7 960 CPU on the Cinebench benchmark, this is quite good news for Intel.
The second generation of Intel Core processors definitely looks impressive based on this single result (remember: this wasn't a pre-production chip), though we'll have to wait to get some independent benchmark scores before we can really see how much of a difference Sandy Bridge will make for the upcoming Core i3s, i5s, and i7s, overclocked or not. Expect the first evaluation processors to be benchmarked very soon!
User Comments: 27
Got something to say? Post a comment-
That's the Intel 2600K @ 3.4 GHz overclocked to 4.9GHZ the guy didn't do a good job blurring it
it has 4 cores and 8 threads
and they are running it on windows 7 64bit ultimate edition
with a 460GTX
LOL he zoomed in lol nice job guy thanks didn't notice that
-
LOL...excellent detective work, seronx.
-
LOL...excellent detective work, seronx.
and here I was thinking I had good eyes lul!
It also doesn't look like they actually overclocked the CPU that's at stock speed the losers lol
-
Yeah, but can it run Crysis 2?
-
wow, really?
-
So much for that NDA hahaha. I love how he goes in for the close up of what the guy said to blur out.
@seronx apparently Cinebench won't report the correct reading of anything that uses a multi higher than 25.
-
princeton said:
So judging by this Intel is still running far ahead of AMD.
-
So much for that NDA hahaha. I love how he goes in for the close up of what the guy said to blur out.
@seronx apparently Cinebench won't report the correct reading of anything that uses a multi higher than 25.
Not really you can go beyond that but what it says is weird
If you had an AMD Processor and overclocked it to 7.299GHz it would show
AMDAuthenticated CPU @ 7.299GHz
Intel's way of doing that is
IntelGenuine CPU @ 4.9012GHz
Both the model of the cpu would be unknown and the stock speed would be unknown
So judging by this Intel is still running far ahead of AMD.We have yet to see Bulldozer in action yet or any other fusion/CMT cpu from AMD
Cinebench loves Intel's SMT tech
also it isn't very impressive beating a amd 12-core server cpu that's clock at what 2.2GHz?
Yeah, but can it run Crysis 2?Yeah, It can
-
We have yet to see Bulldozer in action yet or any other fusion/CMT cpu from AMD
There's an old sporting adage; You can only beat what's put in front of you.
Bulldozer is ~1 year away..and it is (hopefully) competition not for LGA1155, but LGA 2011 and Ivy Bridge on 22nm
Cinebench loves Intel's SMT tech...also it isn't very impressive beating a amd 12-core server cpu that's clock at what 2.2GHz?
While Cinebench will utilise each and every thread/core available it will tend to favour the CPU offering the fastest single thread speed, so it probably isn't the best indicator of CPU productivity. It is, however, a reasonable indication that AMD PR and shareholders might need to have a supply of new underwear close to hand.
Yeah, It can
-
There's an old sporting adage; You can only beat what's put in front of you.
Bulldozer is ~1 year away..and it is (hopefully) competition not for LGA1155, but LGA 2011 and Ivy Bridge on 22nm
While Cinebench will utilise each and every thread/core available it will tend to favour the CPU offering the fastest single thread speed, so it probably isn't the best indicator of CPU productivity. It is, however, a reasonable indication that AMD PR and shareholders might need to have a supply of new underwear close to hand.
Yeah, It canNo where do I see the i7 2600k in that benchmark so how can I trust their word?
and if you look really closely
The Opteron beats the i7 960 thats at 3.2GHz debunking your theory
but if you look at the 8C/16T Xeon cpus
running at 2.0Ghz and 2.2GHz ofcourse they beat the Opteron
actually that Opteron is dual cpu
[link]
2435 is only a six-core
[link]
A real 12-core is in the 6000 range
there is so many inconsistencies in that benchmark
I indeed mistook that the .6 as a 2.2 GHz when in acutallity that is 2 cpus running at 2.6GHz
include the XEONs they are also 2 cpus
----
This is not including that the fact that the benchmark closes instantly the test is done....
Thus making everything they say a BS'ed lie
-
A pic
No where do I see the i7 2600k in that benchmark so how can I trust their word?
and if you look really closely
The Opteron beats the i7 960 thats at 3.2GHz debunking your theory
but if you look at the 8C/16T Xeon cpus
running at 2.0Ghz and 2.2GHz ofcourse they beat the Opteron
actually that Opteron is dual cpu
[link]
2435 is only a six-core
[link]
A real 12-core is in the 6000 range
there is so many inconsistencies in that benchmark
I indeed mistook that the .6 as a 2.2 GHz when in acutallity that is 2 cpus running at 2.6GHz
include the XEONs they are also 2 cpus
----
This is not including that the fact that the benchmark closes instantly the test is done....
Thus making everything they say a BS'ed lie
First of all the score is only added after the test is finished running thats why the i7 2600 is not displayed, if you run the bench you would see this for yourself, the reason it closes right away is to attempt to hide the score, so nothing is being "BS'ed" and they are not liars. That being said having freeze framed the video just as its closing I can clearly, or almost clearly see a score of 9.57 pts which beats the Opteron by a healthy margin. So no inconsistency's there at all, just a really bad attempt at covering up whats going on and someone has no idea what NDA means. That said, my current i7 920 @ 4.0 GHz scores only 6.73 pts which is in itself not bad but not even close to this i7 2600. Lastly being a pre-release motherboard and CPU its very possible that the clock speed is not being read properly. But thats just what I can make of this video.
-
First of all the score is only added after the test is finished running thats why the i7 2600 is not displayed, if you run the bench you would see this for yourself. That being said having freeze framed the video just as its closing I can clearly, or almost clearly see a score of 9.57 pts which beats the Opteron by a healthy margin. So no inconsistency's there at all, just a really bad attempt at covering up whats going on. That said, my current i7 920 @ 4.0 GHz scores only 6.73 pts which is in itself not bad but not even close to this i7 2600.
screen shot plox?
-
Pictured for seronx.
And to compare to what the actual scores are for the other CPUs
If the links don't work they're in the Techspot Gallery. For some reason the links only work when your in forum mode not the comment view mode...
-
Thanks it works for me oddly
looks like it can be either 8.57 or 9.57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_F
Socket F = AM2(Server)
just a reminder that the amd cpu is not a 12 core but 2 six-cores
Socket C32/G34 are AM3(Server) which is the 12 cores
-
No where do I see the i7 2600k in that benchmark so how can I trust their word?
So, rather that take the demo as a possibility...you would automatically believe that the benchmarking is dishonest? Does this go for every public demonstration? How about the behind-the-stage-and-no-we-wont-show-you Ontario demo AMD recently publicised? Will we see your comments on that thread decrying foul play?
and if you look really closelyThe Opteron beats the i7 960 thats at 3.2GHz debunking your theory
but if you look at the 8C/16T Xeon cpus
running at 2.0Ghz and 2.2GHz ofcourse they beat the Opteron
Hey, dont take my word for it then how about Johan De Gelas:
[link]actually that Opteron is dual cpu...there is so many inconsistencies in that benchmark...I indeed mistook that the .6 as a 2.2 GHz when in acutallity that is 2 cpus running at 2.6GHz....include the XEONs they are also 2 cpus...This is not including that the fact that the benchmark closes instantly the test is done....Thus making everything they say a BS'ed lieWhatever. Life is too short to decipher that train of thought.
But how this is at odds (since you've quoted my post) with what I said regarding Cinebench 11.5 probably not being the most accurate representation of CPU performance seems to be nonsensical at the very least.
But of course you've managed to uphold the proud troll tradition of sidestepping my original point...that Bulldozer is NOT (or will not be) competition for Sandy Bridge LGA 1155.
-
seronx said:
Thanks it works for me oddly
looks like it can be either 8.57 or 9.57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_F
Socket F = AM2(Server)
just a reminder that the amd cpu is not a 12 core but 2 six-cores
Socket C32/G34 are AM3(Server) which is the 12 cores
It has to be 9.57, not to go to technical but if you look at the math its very simple to calculate. 10.33 - 7.95 = 2.38 so theres 2.38 pts between the two points on the graph, if you go exactly half way between those two points it would be 9.14. But the i7 2600 clearly is further past the half way point between the Opty and the Xenon that much you can make out so it has to be more than 9.14, and lastly because you can see the .57 its without question 9.57. Just wanted to point that out.
-
divided by zero you obviously mistook what I said...
How dare you call me a troll....!
"So, rather that take the demo as a possibility...you would automatically believe that the benchmarking is dishonest? Does this go for every public demonstration? How about the behind-the-stage-and-no-we-wont-show-you Ontario demo AMD recently publicised? Will we see your comments on that thread decrying foul play?"
All benchmarks are to some degree dishonest they totally void Image Quality for Performance or Processing speed over core amount..blah blah..I have yet to see an AMD Cinebench of the new Fusion APUs so I can't say...I never called out foul play....
"Whatever. Life is too short to decipher that train of thought."
You mean life is to long
Cinebench is not an accurate method of showing cpu performance...as it is meant for intel cpus
http://www.virgilioborges.com.br/hyperpi/
would be a better benchmark
There is many names for the Fusion APU series so many that it is confusing Bulldozer has two sockets FM1 and AM3+
Bobcat also has two sockets which are based on the mobile series of FM1 and AM3+
-
How is a hyper pie a better test? The overclocked CPU will trash the stock clock CPU any day, Benchmarks like that are single core performance benchmarks, at least Cinebench used all the cores to create one final score. The only way to truly test the performance of a CPU is with a barrage of test not a single test that may or may not favor one CPU maker over another.
-
So let me get this straight. AMD had no answer for 2008's Nehalem, they have no answer for Sandy Bridge and they are hoping to tackle Intels Ivy Bridge 22nm processors with Bulldozer on 32nm in 12 months? Seriously stick a fork in em people they're done, they will never be able to compete with Intel again.
It's no wonder everytime I see something AMD related I think of that "Yesterdays Hero" song, cause really thats what they are, they are Yesterdays Hero, looking to relive their Athlon glory days as they fall further and further behind and their fanboys slip further and further away from reality.
-
It's no wonder everytime I see something AMD related I think of that "Yesterdays Hero" song, cause really thats what they are, they are Yesterdays Hero, looking to relive their Athlon glory days as they fall further and further behind and their fanboys slip further and further away from reality.
Yes, I often can be found sitting on the beach with a tear in my eye....for alas....the unrequited die shrink that haunts my very soul.....
Being a little dramatic, don't ya think?
what I don't understand if you are the Intel fan-boy you appear to be, why you come across as so bent out of shape about it. you should be on the front line cheering and hoping AMD does not make a Cyrix/IBM like demise . Because if they don't, your Ivy Bridge mid CPU is going to be about $400.00
-
If you're attaching some amount of pride to a two-bit computer chip and its brand which really doesn't care if you live or die, you need new life priorities.
-
@Guest September 19, 2010 8:45 PM
Mate, you really are a twit, aren't you.
Laugh it up. If AMD goes down you'll be the one that fed the bullying monster that is Intel and you'll be crying, paying twice as much for a range of CPUs that only get slightly better each year.
I'll happily keep buying AMD-centred systems that have 80% performance of an Intel one, for 50% of the cost and feel good about myself while I'm doing it. If and when VIA steps up and does a decent multi-core processor, I'll consider them too.
No fanboyism here. I simply detest Intel.
-
@ red1776, Not really. Perhaps a fanboi would find it dramatic. Anyway all i did was call it as I see it. If you get your knickers in a knot over it thats not my problem. Although I do agree the demise of AMD would be terrible, the fact is that this is a possiblilty especially if Bulldozer flops Phenom style. I hope this doesn't happen (I dont want to pay $400+ for mid range cpu's) but with AMD's track record of late the fanbois on both sides need to face up to this possibility. kthxbai.
-
@ red1776, Not really. Perhaps a fanboi would find it dramatic. Anyway all i did was call it as I see it. If you get your knickers in a knot over it thats not my problem. Although I do agree the demise of AMD would be terrible, the fact is that this is a possiblilty especially if Bulldozer flops Phenom style. I hope this doesn't happen (I dont want to pay $400+ for mid range cpu's) but with AMD's track record of late the fanbois on both sides need to face up to this possibility. kthxbai.
that does not even make any sense. My knickers are not now, nor ever were in a knot, talk about rolling your own. What exactly was it in my post that pointed to "my knickers being in a knot? Your the one with the anger and dramatic melancholy.I think you should not get your bloomers in a bunch.
The dramatic:
It's no wonder everytime I see something AMD related I think of that "Yesterdays Hero" song, cause really thats what they are, they are Yesterdays Hero, looking to relive their Athlon glory days as they fall further and further behind and their fanboys slip further and further away from reality.
and the anger:
Seriously stick a fork in em people they're done, -
The intel/amd rivalry has gotten so boring that I've resulted in upgrading stupid ssd drives. I gasp at the thought of AMD not making a comeback. Yeah that's right, intel fanboys should be happy their yangs(amd fanboys) are still around.
Clearly amd fanboys are going to rage and push price vs performance and intel fanboys, well... They just twiddle their thumbs around in circles hoping their 4.5ghz oc will post smashing down on the delete key if they dont get the all might "single beep,"
Rage all you want but every 3-4 years the Ghz war switches hands. Soon it will be the amd fanboys waiting for that black screen to post.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
-
GeForce GTX 780 Review: The Titan Descendant
-
OCZ Vertex 450 Review: Vector-like Performance For Less
-
Xbox One: Entertainment hub first, gaming console second - but can it disrupt TV?
-
Apple claims Samsung violates Siri patents with Google Now
-
Study suggests majority of Windows 8 users ignore Metro apps
Featured on Cases
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.