热点科技

标题: i 7 ,NEHALEM处理器 测评 越来越多了,准备入手的朋友看看玩玩 [打印本页]

---

作者: lloovveerr    时间: 2008-11-4 13:14
标题: i 7 ,NEHALEM处理器 测评 越来越多了,准备入手的朋友看看玩玩
Two summers ago, Intel helped change all we thought we knew about processors with the launch of their Core 2 micro-architecture. At a time when we thought processor development was beginning to slow down, Core 2 forced our minds to be changed, as the improvements over previous NetBurst products were rather significant.
Since that time, the CPU landscape has changed dramatically. At the time Core 2 first launched, Dual-Cores were still considered to be more of a novelty, and some still were unsure why they were even necessary. For those lucky enough to own one, however, the benefits became clear, and the multi-core revolution was quickly born.
At the same time, the thought of Quad-Core processors did little more than spawn laughter. After all, if most people couldn't take advantage of a Dual-Core, where did a Quad-Core fit in? Well, thinking about it didn't last too long, as Intel quickly followed up their initial Core 2 launch with a Quad-Core model in the fall of the same year.
As the amount of developers writing multi-threaded applications grows, the benefits of a Quad-Core CPU is better seen now than ever before. In fact, we posted a list just earlier this week that proves it. Whether you are a multi-tasker, media buff or someone who simply loves having a lot of headroom, Quad-Cores make an excellent addition to any new PC build.
Welcome to Core i7Core i7 is almost here, but that will come as a surprise to no one, as potential release dates have been hovering around rumor-ville for months. The official response came last month, during IDF Taipei. There, Intel told the world that we would see Core i7 before the end of November, although no definitive street date was given.
Today's article will serve as a preview into what to expect from Core i7 from a performance perspective. This will become the first of a few different articles that we'll be posting in the weeks to come, which will target more specific areas of Nehalem and its platform. So, consider today's look as a good way to whet your appetite. There'll be more good stuff en route.

Core i7, or Nehalem as we've been calling it for the past year, becomes part of Intel's "Tock" step, which denotes a brand-new micro-architecture built on the current process node. "Tick" will come next year in the form of Westmere, a 32-nm shrink of Nehalem. If you are not up to speed on everything that the new micro-architecture brings to the table, the next page in this article was made for you.
When Core i7 hits the street, three models will become immediately available. This is a little different than most other Intel launches, which normally see the highest-end part released first. Instead, this launch will also see the release of both the mainstream and mid-range parts. This is a great thing for obvious reasons, so now the only thing to worry about is stock.

Processor Name	Cores	Clock	Cache	QPI/FSB	TDP	1Ku Price
Intel Core i7 Extreme 965	4	3.20GHz	8MB	3200MHz	150W	$999
Intel Core i7 940	4	2.93GHz	8MB	2400MHz	130W	$562
Intel Core i7 920	4	2.66GHz	8MB	2400MHz	130W	$284
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775	4	3.20GHz	2 x 6MB	1600MHz	150W	$1,499
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770	4	3.20GHz	2 x 6MB	1600MHz	136W	$1,399
Intel Core 2 Extreme Q9650	4	3.00GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	130W	$530
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550	4	2.83GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$316
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450	4	2.66GHz	2 x 6MB	1333MHz	95W	$316
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400	4	2.66GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300	4	2.50GHz	2 x 3MB	1333MHz	95W	$266
Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200	4	2.33GHz	2 x 2MB	1333MHz	95W	$193

The top-of-the-line i7 processor will be the Extreme 965, at 3.20GHz. As is typical of all newly-launched Intel Extreme editions, this one will be sold at a price of $999 in quantities of 1,000. This means that you can expect a price of closer to $1,100 if you wish to own one. Moving downwards, the 2.93GHz model will sell for $562, while the mainstream 920 will be sold at $284.
Like previous Extreme products, the 965 will be a fully-unlocked chip with a Turbo multiplier capable of hitting 40x, the default being 24x. The 940 and 920 are capped at their stock multipliers (22x and 20x, respectively) and can only be overclocked by increasing the Base Clock, or BCLK for short. That tells us right away that these processors are going to be more of a challenge to overclock than anything from the Core 2 line-up, and we'll get into the specifics of why later.
We won't be covering overclocking to a great extent in this initial article, but stay tuned as we're preparing a dedicated article about it which will be posted at some point this week. Without getting too far off-track, let's take a look at Intel's latest baby, shall we?

Comprised of 731 million transistors on a surface area of 263mm^2, Intel's latest processor is a little bit of a strange beast, since it's larger in areal density than its predecessor (214mm^2), but uses less transistors. Why that's the case exactly, I'm unsure.
In the above image, you can see a direct comparison of the QX9770 (left) sitting next to the Core i7 965 (right), but contrary to what you may believe, the reason for the larger overall CPU isn't entirely attributed to the physically larger die. Rather, because of all of Nehalem's enhancements, additional pins were required, and by additional, I mean many additional, as you can see in the below photo:

Each of the i7 processors to be launched later this month have identical pin and filter cap layouts on the back, which leads us to believe that each is identical inside, with the obvious multiplier and model code changes. In previous architectures, some of the filter caps would be laid out differently, or some would be missing on the smaller models, but not here. We could assume that smaller models, when eventually released, will look slightly different on the back.
As mentioned above, today's article is a preview, not a review, as there is a lot more testing that needs to be conducted that couldn't yet be focused on due to time. So, we'll be following-up with more specific content over the course of the next few weeks, including a deeper look at gaming performance and overclocking. We'll finish it all off with a proper "review" nearer to the official launch.
Today's article will be focusing primarily on two things. First will be simple performance scaling between the three new processors and three top processors from Intel's Kentsfield line-up, including the QX9770 and Q9450. The second will be a performance look at Core i7's new features, including Turbo and HyperThreading. I can assure you... these are results you won't want to skip over.
For a recap of the most important features of Nehalem, turn to the next page. Afterwards, we'll cover all considerations you should bear in mind if you plan to build a new machine with a Core i7 processor at the... uhh, core.



Test SystemThe table below lists the hardware for our two current machines, which remains unchanged throughout all testing, with the exception of the processor. Each CPU used for the sake of comparison is also listed here, along with the BIOS version of the motherboard used. In addition, each one of the URLs in this table can be clicked to view the respective review of that product, or if a review doesn't exist, you will be led to the product on the manufacturer's website.

Component	Core i7 Test System
Processors	Intel Core i7 Extreme 965 - Quad-Core, 3.20GHz, 1.30v Intel Core i7 940 - Quad-Core, 2.93GHz, 1.30v Intel Core i7 920 - Quad-Core, 2.66GHz, 1.30v
Motherboard	Intel DX58SO - X58-based, 2624 BIOS (10/23/08)
Memory	DDR3: Qimonda 3x1GB - DDR3-1066 7-7-7-20-1T, 1.56v
Graphics	Palit Radeon HD 4870 512MB (Catalyst 8.9)
Audio	On-Board Audio
Storage	Intel X-25M 80GB SSD Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7200.11
Power Supply	SilverStone DA1200
Chassis	SilverStone TJ10 Full-Tower
Display	Gateway XHD3000 30"
Cooling	Thermalright TRUE Black 120
Et cetera	Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

Component	Core 2 Test System
Processors	Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770 - Quad-Core, 3.20GHz, 1.30v Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 - Quad-Core, 3.00GHz, 1.30v Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450 - Quad-Core, 2.66GHz, 1.30v
Motherboard	ASUS Rampage Extreme - X48-based, 0501 BIOS (08/28/08)
Memory	DDR3: Corsair XMS3 DHX 2x2GB - DDR3-1333 7-7-7-15-1T, 1.91v
Graphics	Palit Radeon HD 4870 512MB (Catalyst 8.9)
Audio	On-Board Audio
Storage	Intel X-25M 80GB SSD Seagate Barracuda 500GB 7200.11
Power Supply	Corsair HX1000W
Chassis	SilverStone TJ10 Full-Tower
Display	Gateway XHD3000 30"
Cooling	Thermalright TRUE Black 120
Et cetera	Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit

When preparing our testbeds for any type of performance testing, we follow these guidelines:

Because the game runs well on all current mid-range GPUs at reasonable graphic settings, we max out what's available to us, which includes enabling 4xAA and 8xAF, along with choosing the highest available options for everything else.

A few weeks ago, performance reports were leaked regarding gaming on i7, and it was found that two particular titles suffered a bit here when compared to Core 2 processors. Ironically enough, those exact two titles are the same ones we've been using in our motherboard and processor reviews for some time, so sadly, things don't look so good today.
As you can see, Core 2 is a better processor for gaming with CoD4, and I'm not exactly sure as to why. I do have to stress that all testing was done using 3GB of RAM, while the Core 2 machine had 4GB, so I'm afraid I can't conclude on anything quite yet. There are a few factors that came into play during testing that lead me to believe the lack of 4GB of RAM did play a role, but I won't discuss it until I can better test it out. I'd rather spew out fact rather than FUD if at all possible.
Half-Life 2: Episode TwoThe original Half-Life 2 might have first seen the light of day close to four years ago, but it's still arguably one of the greatest-looking games ever seen on the PC. Follow-up versions, including Episode One and Episode Two, do well to put the Source Engine upgrades to full use. While playing, it's hard to believe that the game is based on a four+ year old engine, but it still looks great and runs well on almost any GPU purchased over the past few years.
Like Call of Duty 4, Half-Life 2: Episode Two runs well on modest hardware, but a recent mid-range graphics card is recommended if you wish to play at higher than 1680x1050 or would like to top out the available options, including anti-aliasing and very high texture settings.

This game benefits from both the CPU and GPU, and the skies the limit. In order to fully top out the available settings and run the highest resolution possible, you need a very fast GPU or GPUs along with a fast processor. Though the in-game options go much higher, we run our tests with 4xAA and 8xAF to allow the game to remain playable on the smaller mid-range cards.

The same performance hits are seen with HL2, which happens to be a very CPU-bound game. Again though, I can't conclude on anything quite yet, and as it seems right now, both CoD4 and HL2 are two titles that specifically have issues on Core i7, and HyperThreading really doesn't seem to have much to do with things.
Futuremark 3DMark VantageAlthough we generally shun automated gaming benchmarks, we do like to run at least one to see how our GPUs scale when used in a 'timedemo'-type scenario. Futuremark's 3DMark Vantage is without question the best such test on the market, and it's a joy to use, and watch. The folks at Futuremark are experts in what they do, and they really know how to push that hardware of yours to its limit.
The company first started out as MadOnion and released a GPU-benchmarking tool called XLR8R, which was soon replaced with 3DMark 99. Since that time, we've seen seven different versions of the software, including two major updates (3DMark 99 Max, 3DMark 2001 SE). With each new release, the graphics get better, the capabilities get better and the sudden hit of ambition to get down and dirty with overclocking comes at you fast.

Similar to a real game, 3DMark Vantage offers many configuration options, although many (including us) prefer to stick to the profiles which include Performance, High and Extreme. Depending on which one you choose, the graphic options are tweaked accordingly, as well as the resolution. As you'd expect, the better the profile, the more intensive the test.
Performance is the stock mode that most use when benchmarking, but it only uses a resolution of 1280x1024, which isn't representative of today's gamers. Extreme is more appropriate, as it runs at 1920x1200 and does well to push any single or multi-GPU configuration currently on the market - and will do so for some time to come.

Similar to our above games, Vantage doesn't put i7 in a favorable light. CPU scores are high, but the GPU scores are not, despite using the same exact GPU and same exact drivers (and also exact Windows configuration). As mentioned earlier, gaming is one area we'll be tackling a lot more this coming week, so please stay tuned as we plan on releasing an article that focuses solely on it.



由于现在国内不少所谓的权威网站 现在测试变的越来越水 越来越枪,为了满足 大众玩家的严格要求  所以找了些  国外还算比较知名的网站.   以上只是一些片段,想看详细完整的可以去下面连接 看看玩玩

http://techgage.com/article/intel_core_i7_performance_preview/1

http://hothardware.com/Articles/Intel-Core-i7-Processors-Nehalem-and-X58-Have-Arrived/

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3448&cp=4#comments

---

欢迎光临 热点科技 (http://www.itheat.com/activity/)

Powered by Discuz! X3.2