Benchmarks: Intel Core i7 (Nehalem)

Everest 4.60: memory performance
The memory tests show how quickly the processors communicate with their environment. Besides the pure bandwidth, what's interesting here are the access times. The fewer clock cycles it takes to access a memory cell (a measure known as latency), the faster the cell can be read. With large database applications a low latency can have a positive impact on overall performance.

Whereas AMD processors, with their integrated memory controller, could match Intel chips of the Core-2 era for memory access, and even offer advantages, things have changed with the arrival of the Nehalem architecture. These new chips, with their outstanding memory transfer performance and memory access, are clearly the top performers.

Memory performance (GB/s): longer bars are better.

Memory latency (nanoseconds): shorter bars are better.

Everest 4.60: CPU & FPU performance
In the synthetic Everest benchmark tests, Intel's new Nehalem architecture emerges impressively as the top performer. In some tests the 2.66GHz Core i7 920, thanks to its hyperthreading technology, even beats the 3.2GHz Core 2 Extreme QX9775. Nehalem's lead is particularly apparent in the floating-point benchmark SinJulia, which makes full use of hyperthreading.

CPU performance: longer bars are better.

Floating-point performance: longer bars are better.

Advertisement

Talkback 4 comments

    Charts Marc -- 12/11/08

    The charts that accompany this article are difficult to read because the order of the bars and the legends keep changing. What's up with that?

    Charts 2nd Anonymous -- 10/02/09 (in reply to #320116144)

    Below one of the rendering charts it says shorter bars are better. Where instead the longer bars are better. Mixed that up with the audio chart above.

    Results Anonymous -- 21/11/08

    Quite impressed with the "phenom x4 9950", esp. since it was around $250 on a few months before our currency crashed. pity its back up to 300.

    Power Consumption Chart - CPU full load! Ludovic -- 13/02/09

    I have a Q9650 and Core i7 920. Let me tell you that this chart is not giving accurate information. I am not Einstein but logically speaking, a 150 watt-CPU at full load will eat more watts compare to Core i7 965 at TDP 130. It should be around 20-30 watts of noticeable difference. I did few test at home and notice that once Q9650 OC to 3.6, it can take up to 110 watts. But i7 920 if OC to same 3.6, it will need 150 watts. Please be careful as I am talking only about CPU load nothing else. I used a clip-on ammeter from university lab *hope they don`t get mad.

Add your opinion

Reviews by category

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • David Braue All I want for Xmas is Telstra pricing
    Five consecutive days without broadband has led me to what seemed at the time to be an act of desperation: contemplating signing up for Telstra's 100Mbps cable modem service.
  • Array Sick of broken tender sites
    Some of the state governments desperately need to invest in more user-friendly tender sites so that looking for information on government tenders doesn't have to be a game of blind man's bluff.
  • Array Cyberwar: What is it good for?
    In this week's episode, Cyberwar. What is Australia's place in the world of digital warfare? What are the implications for the NBN?
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured