Nehalem benchmarks

[WuShock]

[Vinvin]

With 1 core, the core i7 965 (3.2 Ghz) is 30% faster than the QX9770 (3.2 Ghz too), great achievement by Intel !

[ernest]

great achievement by Intel !

If this was obtained with HT (hyperthreading) the real value for chess is questionable...

[Ovyron]

If this was obtained with HT (hyperthreading) the real value for chess is questionable...

0?

[hgm]

How many cores has this thing? It seems the benchmark gives the combined performance of all cores, as I don't see any duals amongst equally clocked quads.

[Vinvin]

great achievement by Intel !

If this was obtained with HT (hyperthreading) the real value for chess is questionable...

Hmm , may be i made a mistake ... I though it was Fritz 11 but it's more probably Deep fritz 11 !!

Sorry for my mistake !

[Erik Roggenburg]

How many cores has this thing? It seems the benchmark gives the combined performance of all cores, as I don't see any duals amongst equally clocked quads.

the i7 family discussed each have 4 cores. only the top extreme version has
an unlocked multiplier.

as you might guess, these things are pricey. the lowest model of the three is expected to be out at somewhere around $300 USD.

for most people that do not poop gold, upgrading to a i7 920 from a 9550 doesn't make much sense. you'll need a new mobo - and those things (for now) are as expensive (if not more expensive) than the i7 920. if, however, you are struggling along with something slow, and it has been a couple of years since your last upgrade, it might be worth it. it is a lot of money to spend for a 12% increase (i7 920 v. 9550, which is the closest in price, IIRC).

[Karmazen & Oliver]

If this was obtained with HT (hyperthreading) the real value for chess is questionable...

0?

NO. HT is not similar real cores, but is better that nothing... except in games... in other software is good. it´s a patch, but intel = patch. = sale.

it is better for cache... if you have a lot of aplications runs in cpu.

[M ANSARI]

Nehalem will only be interesting to upgrade once it goes to 8 cores or is available in Xeon form with a dual socket Skulltrail type motherboard. Although by quickly looking at the chart it looks like the Corei7 cleans the clocks of a Q6600 ... you have to realize that most people that are running Q6600's have them clocked at 3.2 Ghz to 3.8 Ghz. I am not sure how the Corei7's are clocking in their non multiplier unlocked forms ... but with only 4 cores on the Corei7 the Q6600 are definetely still good.

[hgm]

The best machine I have is 'just' an E6600, and I have been postponing buying a new one already for quite some time in the hope I could have an octal core. I as severly tempted last week to buy an HP box of very nifty design, based on the Q9300 (a Core 2 Quad from the Penryn family). It tured out the Q9300 has only 6MB L2-cache, though (3MB per core pair), while in princple Penryns should have 6MB per core pair. And anything below 4MB would make it unsuitable to run the EGTB generator I am developing.

I guess I can still wait; I just started writing an engine that is suitable for implementation of SMP (on my exiting engines that would be quite hopeless), abnd before I am at the stage where it even runs on a single core will take some time.