| Intel Core i7-2600K Sandy Bridge CPU |  |
| Reviews - Featured Reviews: Processors | |
| Written by David Ramsey | |
| Sunday, 02 January 2011 | |
|
Page 12 of 15
SPECapc LightwaveSPECapc (Application Performance Characterization) tests are fundamentally different from the SPECviewperf tests. While SPECviewperf tests incorporate code from the various test programs directly into the benchmark, the SPECapc tests are separate scripts and datasets that are run against a stand-alone installation of the program being benchmarked. SPECapc group members sponsor applications and work with end-users, user groups, publications and ISVs to select and refine workloads, which consist of data sets and benchmark script files. Workloads are determined by end-users and ISVs, not SPECapc group members. These workloads will evolve over time in conjunction with end-users' needs and the increasing functionality of PCs and workstations. For this test, I ran the SPECapc "Lightwave" benchmark against a trial installation of Newtek's Lightwave 3D product. The benchmark, developed in cooperation with NewTek, provides realistic workloads that simulate a typical LightWave 3D workflow. It contains 11 datasets ranging from 64,000 to 1.75 million polygons and representing such applications as 3D character animation, architectural review, and industrial design. Scores for individual workloads are composited under three categories: interactive, render and multitask. The benchmark puts special emphasis on processes that benefit from multi-threaded computing, such as animation, OpenGL playback, deformations, and high-end rendering that includes ray tracing, radiosity, complex textures and volumetric lighting. The test reports three scores: Animation (multitasking), Animation (interactive), and Rendering. The numeric scores represent the time it took to complete each section of the benchmark, in seconds, so lower scores are better. I've found the SPECapc Lightwave 3D test to be an excellent indicator of overclock stability. In many cases, overclocked systems that will make it through every other benchmark here will crash in this test. 
Although this test stresses system components other than the processor (the video card's OpenGL implementation, for example), it still shows obvious performance differences in the CPUs. The AMD 1100T ekes out a couple of very narrow victories over the Core i7-950 in two of the three tests, but it can't compete with the 2600K. In the Animation (Multitasking) section, we see a very nice performance scaling with frequency for the Intel processors, with results following clock speed almost perfectly. This pattern is repeated in the Animation (Interactive) and Rendering sections, although the differences are less notable. The 1100T's relatively poor showing here prove that six physical cores don't always beat four physical cores.
|
|
Comments
Of course y entire argument relies on AMD finally getting up enough tech power to challenge Intel in the higher end market--something it hasn't done wince 2004.
Ok, ok, it's really easy to break my argument down: If Intel locks us out of OCing, and AMD does not and can come even close to Intel performance, it's a no brainer--AMD will win the day.
So, there's only one option for us: Buy Intel CPUs and give up OCing, or buy AMD cpus and continue OCing. And this is where my second key premise comes in, that AMD will need to bring a lot faster cpu to market than it has today, since even the stock 950 beats it handily. In other words, if I had to buy a processor, and it was a choice between an OC-able AMD that was always going to be slower than a stock, locked Intel, I'd choose the stock, locked Intel.
So the argument, when broken down looks like this:
AMD OCed if and only if Intel is locked and AMD can provide near equal speed by OCing for a fraction of the cost (e.g., The Intel 920 did this).
This all is a factor of Intel being able to beat AMD to a point that they can, again, start dictating the market. For instance, if AMD came out with an OC-able CPU that could nearly match the new 2600 Intel, but only cost 1/3 the price, then OCers would buy that CPU and OCers would have nothing to do with Intel. Again, this harks back to the key point that the only reason I can see Intel doing this is that OCing does cut into their bottom line enough to try and force the sale of the more expensive CPU. If that is a true premise, then again, if AMD can rise to the occasion (like the 920 did), Intel will get smoked out of that market share.
Intel has no high-end Desktop competition today. That's why we're seeing this.
The fastest OC'g AMD chips top out at ~ 4.0, Phenom 4 or 6
Intel can do near 4.5 on their stock cooler
The Intel SB chips are cheaper.
And last but not, their chips are just plane faster clock for clock and just another 25%
Chips are then set to their maximum stable settings, some(ones with less impurities) can be used for over clocking and are sold with an unlocked multiplier.
There is quite a bit more left to how this works, but basically chips with locked multipliers are locked for a reason, not due to companies trying to make more money.
Nice article!
Looks like a separate spread sheet will be needed when all the mobo players get their version of 1155 spec'd out and sorted to the various processors. And yet another for the on-board GPU cycles vs. discrete graphics.
I'm tired just thinking about it.
Happy New Year !
So here we are, at a place, or nearly a place, where we can buy a 300USD CPU and have it be so fast that unless we are doing very specific tasks, and lots of them, we will not see or enjoy more speed from the CPU, and except for a hobby and fun, have no need to OC for practical reasons.
We've had this discussion before: Things are getting so fast and so small, that they are becoming mainstream and uninteresting. It's only a matter of time before you can buy an entire system as fast as any top of the line OCed desktop, and have it fit into your hand.
I'm all for it. Saves me space and time.
Then in the next sentence, you state that processors have gotten so fast that it doesn't make a difference.
So which one is it?
AMD guys will do anything they can to justify the fact that AMD will always be 2nd best to Intel, and there are only 2 companies in competition. LOL
Gotta love the AMD guys for supporting their sub-par performance for the past 6 years.
If you consider real-world performance and saving money more important that bragging about your scores in AIDA64 or CINEBENCH, an AMD hex-core processor might be your best bet.
Now, personally, I'm one of those people who must have the fastest, even if it makes no difference. So my personal machine is an overclocked 980X with 12G of memory, a 256G SSD main drive, and two spanking new GTX580 cards. But you know what? When I drag out my overclocked 1090T AMD system with Radeon 5770s, I never notice any difference in gameplay at 1920x1200 in games like Crysis, Metro 2033, and Bad Company 2. So what did all that extra money for the 980X system really buy me?
The point is that unless you're the kind of person who brags about their car's 1/4 mile times (utterly irrelevant to real-world driving), you should plan where to spend your performance dollars.
For example the old Voodoo2
Max 640*480 refresh = 120 Hz
Max 800*600 refresh = 120 Hz
Max 1024*768 refresh = 85 Hz
I`m currently cpu limited with my Q9650 at 4.1ghz and a GTX 580 and this is why i`ve just ordered the i7 2600k along with 8gb of ram and an asus P8P67 deluxe.Money well spent imo seeing as this lot cost much less than your cpu alone and will definitely improve MY gaming along with the encoding i do.
"And this is where my second key premise comes in, that AMD will need to bring a lot faster cpu to market than it has today, since even the stock 950 beats it handily.
If you research into current advancements and and productural timelines, you should begin to see consumer based entry level systems within the next 5-10 years. Intel Knows this, as well as AMD, NVidia/ATI..
One only has to view some the time lines and review current tech reviews and product spec's to see it begin to unfold very quickly. You can blame SSD's, they are what bandwidth is needed to make the all happen, Hard drives were always the bottleneck, you can blow the doors off a better processor and slow drive system with a slower processor and the fastest drive system. Especially if if that drive system can handle multiple reads and writes per clock cycle.
Oh the expense of it all, I could have probably bout an Island in the Bahama's for the money I've spent over the years on PC's
Danny
:)
What the fanboys from Team Orange never want to admit is that when you overclock you pay quite a bit for a beefier power supply, a 3rd party cooler, and a bigger case with more fans to fit the cooler into. Those are not insignificant expenses and can easily exceed $200. So when I see someone trying to compare their OC'd-to-the-max 1090T to an i7-920 running stock I just laugh. Are they really that desperate?
Sandy Bridge is going to be a game changer for sure, and I doubt if Bulldozer will even be enough to catch up to the edge Intel holds just with their current 1156 and 1366 products.
with RamDisk Plus version 11:
##superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php
We already have a 16 GB XP/Pro workstation working
well with a 10 GB ramdisk using an earlier version
of that software:
##supremelaw.org/systems/superspeed/RamDiskPlus.Review.htm
32 GB total - 4 GB for 32-bit OS = 28 GB for a storage partition!
NIIICE!
I think AMD could "leap ahead" by enhancing their
integrated memory controllers to support quad-channel mode.
(I suggested this to them, many weeks ago, but
received no acknowledgment.)
If Intel's Sandy Bridge will only get "shrunk"
at the next "tick-tock" iteration, Sandy Bridge
is "stuck" with dual-channel mode.
AMD, are you reading this?
/s/ Paul A. Mitchell
Systems Development Consultant
Just Saying.
And to think AMD now own ATI, which for years I loved, but crippled those video cards too, thats why NVidia is way better, double precision FPU, parrallel processing etc....Not to mention NVidia eqquips their cards with (PPU), Physics Processing Unit, and a GPU, (Graphics Processing Unit)...Which has not only been the fastest Gamming cards always, but performed Direct Processing for quite some time, which is why BIONIC, folding at home etc., use them for Physics as well as high speed calculations....
I could go on and on, but my point is you get what you pay for period..
If you want the best of the best stay with Intel and NVidia all the way and you will have the fastest, most accurate, stable and reliable computing platform period. Very few BSOD's and computation errors.
Peace out people
Danny
Variables being temperature, voltage, clock speed, etc.
If run properly, they will both return correct results (unless that piece of silicon is actually faulty, which would get detected before sold)
If I remember correctly, the only processor that ever actually computed numbers incorrectly was an old pentium version that had a division error.
This is the major point I am trying to get across....
For me, this has been my experience, run for a month or so and the AMD's return Divide by Zero and compute errors, BSOD's or a host of other issues.
Durability under other than normal working conditions, you'd be wise to Invest into Intel/NVidia...Think about what I said, over seven years, no errors, nothing, they just keep on running at 100%. That in of itself speaks volumes to me about product quality. I spent a thousand dollars a piece for those Pentium 4 Extreme processors and believe me when I tell you that I have gotten more than my monies worth from them. I cant think of anything else you can buy that will run that long at full throttle non-stop with out a meltdown well before 7 years..It's amazing, It's called Intel, It's what should be inside everyones box.
:)
What a shame Intel could not take that one little lesson from what they copied from AMD. I would have gladly purchased one of these new processors if it would have fit my MOBO. This year?s upgrade will put into AMD hardware to go with the 5870 upgrade from 2010.
The next time I upgrade, I may well buy AMD for those reasons, if they can get close to Intel CPU speeds. It would be nice to only have to pop in another CPU and you're done, rather than replacing your RAM, MB, and cpu.
Pretty damn perky Linux system actually.
Thanks.
I am a Comp Sci major and have had to research and study such things as Computer Hardware Architecture, Operating systems etc. I constantly build computers to study them, old to new. I have both AMD and Intel computers, I have a closet full of parts I play with all the time, build computers, run software to check performance etc. take it back apart.
The idea that a CPU would not support an Operating system is plain ridiculous that is absolutely not possible. And there are scientific reasons Intel changes their pin patterns not just to create a new line of cpu's to sell. And Currently AMD cpu speeds not clock speeds but actual measured performance speed of calculations etc. are still pretty far behind Intels chips.
I am tempted to sit here and reply to all of these with facts, but really do not have the time, not sure what I was researching when I found this site.
See my earlier Blog, 28 years of computing experience with both platforms and AMD has yet to live up to its promise to Knock Intel to the wayside.
AMD produces nothing but compute errors, and BSOD's even at stock clocks, which is why none of their motherboards support ECC RAM, why would you spend money to verify compute errors. 1+1=2 not 3 or 4 or 5. Thats why my main rig is Intel, and the AMD is just a file server. I dont like mistakes, And when I do game, I like the fact that my main rig based on Intel/Nvidia smoke the hell out of anything AMD/ATI has ever had to offer. Dont believe me, just look at the history of 3Dmark, SYSMark etc. and see the truth for yourself..
Danny
I run both Intel and AMD rigs, and neither seems to have a stability advantage over the other.
You claim that AMD has "yet to live up to its promise to knock Intel to the wayside." I don't recall AMD ever "promising" such a thing, outside of the usual advertising hyperbole both companies engage in, but when the original Athlon 64 X2 processors came out in late 2003, they decisively smoked everything Intel had at the time, and remained on top of the performance heap for at least a year.
AMD cannot compute high end math and physics very well, period...These arent assertions, theyre plain fact... And believe me if I could I would tell you why, but I am not at liberty to tell you why....
I would love for AMD to be a better processor, but they arent, otherwise I would buy them...
So I'm stuck spending more money to get real world accuracy....
Danny
But I really value your honest opinion and killer benchmark reviews, the are some of the most thorough and accurated and unbiased I have seen to date, in my entire experience with computing, way to go and thank you.
Danny
Danny
I'm talking real world heavy use, Don't tell me no half trut's and I'll tell you no lies my friend...You go ahead and believe in AMD/ATI, thats your right, I run both AMD/Intel, NVidia/ATI, IMO Intel/NVidia combo, hands down, wins period.....
I can be rather pushey by nature, as well as brash, I'm sorry if you took offense, as it wasn't intended that way..
Danny
And your idea that Intel creates nothing but compute errors when over clocking is wrong as well, I also have an AMD computer sitting right here, it overclocks just fine. To properly overclock you have to know what you are doing, many things have to be set inside your BIOS and can't just be directly controlled by a piece of software inside the operating system.
It is depends on your motherboards BIOS, whether you can over clock, what you can over clock and to what extent. You also need to know the math to figure out what settings you should set and to what they should be set. I build computers constantly. I spend days researching motherboards, RAM, CPU's, etc. on manufacturers sites, reading white papers, manuals and other specs, before I decide on a good combination of hardware to build a system with.
It trips me out to see amateur hobbiests on sites like this passing along faulty information based on their weekend trials and errors with computers.
... like integrated memory controllers?
... like native 64-bit logic backwards compatible
with 32-bit instructions?
How quickly we forget!
MRFS
If you want an entry level low tech way to game AMD is what I run.
But I'm 48, and I like to play with movies and editing and audio as well as gamming, and when everything is idle it defaults to Seti@home, BIONIC projects etc. My main entertainment system PC does it all so very very well and so much more reliable. 2600k, Dual SLI GTX 580's...
Those AMD's are religated to file servers, and print servers etc., as well as some of those BIONIC chores etc during their idle time. But they fail misserably at that chore. Oh by the way every single one of those have crossfire going on, so they were'nt exactly cheap eigther...
more to follow:
I'm still Configuring and tweaking the new hardware and software, but initial impression, hell yeah and allright Intel....
Real world computing and serious damn gamming for men with bigger toys..
You get what you pay for, Enterprise quality, speed, perfomance and accuracy, Thank you Intel, and a special thanks to NVida on the SLI GTX 580's..BOOM, BOOM, A, ZOOM, ZOOM!!!!!
more to follow:
One thing I will conclude with is faster RAM, means faster, everything..Running SSD's do better with the fastest board memmory, everything completes so, so, much faster, This machine is a monster, my god, AMD you'd better take note, because the dust you see was left by Intel..
Me happy now, and high David
:)
Intel Community Forum:
#communities.intel.com/index.jspa?iid=hdr+communities
nVidia Community Forum:
#forums.nvidia.com/
Other than that, why is it that I can find no information on processor errors when googling AMD for that information? If you have evidence that AMD is producing faulty CPUs please do post it.
but proven claims about defects in Intel's push-pins are NOT OK??
Surely this will prove your systems overall integrity, not to mention possible problems will usually occur during this burn in run. Really, you should try this out, I learned alot of things about the whole system in general, as I prepare PC's extreme heavy load computational environments, that's all I am trying to convey here..
Danny
Danny
1. What does it mean exactly for a motherboard to "support" Sandy Bridge integrated graphics?
2. Which boards currently do so?
3. Do no P67 motherboards offer this support? That would rule out the ASUS P8P67 DELUXE and the Intel DP67BG motherboard, each of which I was considering to use with the i7-2600K processor.
4. What criteria should one use to determine whether a motherboard can exploit the full capabilities of the i7-2600K processor?
Thanks,
Peter
You need a P67 motherboard to overclock the CPU, but then you can't use the integrated graphics.
An H67 motherboard supports the integrated graphics, but doesn't allow any overclocking.
Don't like that? Complain to Intel. I sure don't.
1. Does this really mean that if you use a P67-based motherboard with the i7-2600K processor, the graphics capabilities of the processor really go entirely unused altogether?
2. I realize it's a very powerful processor in other respects as well, but doesn't that in part defeat the purpose of getting the i7-2600K?
3. I saw a website that suggested a new Intel chipset, the Z68, would be released in the near future (2nd Quarter 2011, possibly). Does anyone know about this, and whether it would be more appropriate for the i7-2600K?
Thanks!
Peter
2. If you use a P67 motherboard and use a video card (presumably with HDMI/DVI output ports), how much worse video performance would you experience compared to using the integrated graphics capabilities that an H67 motherboard would offer?
Thanks,
Peter
No, you don't. Probably.
"If you use a P67 motherboard and use a video card (presumably with HDMI/DVI output ports), how much worse video performance would you experience compared to using the integrated graphics capabilities that an H67 motherboard would offer?"
I haven't tested the integrated Sandy Bridge video, but Intel states it provides roughly twice the performance of their previous generation integrated video, which was unusably slow for modern gaming. So it's a pretty safe bet that almost any separate graphics card costs more than $50 will handily outperform the Sandy Bridge integrated video.
Yes, that's what it means. It's more than just the connectors available on the board; the P67 Express chipset does not have the circuitry required to support Sandy Bridge video.
"...doesn't that in part defeat the purpose of getting the i7-2600K?"
In part, yes, although one could argue that most people buying the top-end Sandy Bridge would want better video. Of course, if you buy that argument, why should the 2600K have integrated video at all? Good question.
Any Z68 stuff is rumor at this point.
"one could argue that most people buying the top-end Sandy Bridge would want better video. Of course, if you buy that argument, why should the 2600K have integrated video at all? Good question."
This is very interesting and also helpful. If a $50 video card can significantly outperform the on-board graphics capabilities of the Sandy Bridge (i7-2600K), it really does raise the question of why Intel bothered to put such a capability on the chip in the first place. Perhaps just "because they could." I suppose this is just a stepping stone to some future processor whose on-chip graphics capabilities WILL be as good or better as those on a separate video card. Maybe. In the meantime, I guess the obvious choice is to choose a P67 motherboard over a H67 motherboard, because
1. P67 motherboards can overclock and H67 motherboards can't
2. a P67 motherboard using a separate video card offers better graphics than an H67 motherboard using the on-chip integrated graphics.
Is this correct? If so, why would anyone opt for an H67 motherboard?