"Where Nehalem really succeeds however is in anything involving video encoding or 3D rendering"

We have new CPU that does Video encoding and 3D Rendering really well while at the same time the GPU manufacturers are offloading these applications to the GPU.

The CPU Vs GPU debate heats up more.
_______________________________________________________________
www.topicbean.com

Reply

Well if both CPU and GPU are better for video encoding, the better! Even now the rendering takes forever.
So there is not any problem if GPU helps allready good 3d render CPU. Everything that gives more speed is just bonus!


Reply

Wheres the product that offloads encoding to GPUs - all of them, from both makers - as a publicly available product? I havent seen that yet. Of course, we havent seen Core i7 in the wild yet either, but I bet it will be many moons before there is that single encoding suite that is ready for primetime regardless of the card that is sitting in your machine. On the other hand, I can encode my stuff right now with my current Intel or AMD products and will just move them over to the upcoming products without having to think about it.

Huge difference. The debate isnt really a debate yet, if you're doing more than just talking about it.

Reply

Any chance we'll see some database/apache benchmarks based on Nehalem soon?

Reply

Intel can call it supercalifragilisticexpialidocious until they're blue in the face, but take it from a local, it's Neh-Hay-Lem. Just see how it's pronounced in this news segment:

http://www.katu.com/outdoors/3902731.html?video=YHI&t=a

Reply

toms hardware published an article detailing that there would be a cap on how high you are allowed to clock your part before it would downclock it back to stock. since this is an integrated par of the core, you can only turn it off/up/down if they unlock it. the limit was supposedly a 130watt thermal dissipation mark. what effect did this have in your tests on overclocking the 920?

Reply

Tom's? You might as well reference HardOCP....

Okay, THG sometimes gets things right, but I've seen far too many "expose" articles where they talk about the end of the world to take them seriously. Ever since the i820 chipset fiasco, they seem to think everything is a big deal that needs a whistle blower.

Anandtech got 3.8GHz with an i7-920, and I would assume due diligence in performance testing (i.e. it's not just POSTing, but actually running benchmarks and showing a performance improvement). I'm still running an overclocked Q6600, though, and the 3.6GHz I've hit is really far more than I need most of the time. I should probalby run at 3.0GHz and shave 50-100W from my power use instead. But it's winter now, and with snow outside it's nice to have a little space heater by my feet!

Reply

Geez, calling a core 2 a space heater. How soon we forget prescott...

Reply

I think overclocked Core 2 Quad is still very capable of rating as a space heater. The chips can easily use upwards of 150W when overclocked, which if memory serves is far more than any of the Prescott chips did. After all, we didn't see 1000W PSUs back in the Prescott era, and in fact I had a 350W PSU running a Pentium D 920 at 3.4 GHz without any trouble. :-)

Reply

Funny comparison. If it was just for the space heater arguments sake (well, 150W is by far not enough to qualify as a real space heater to be honest), I could follow you but saying the 150W of a 4 core, more-IPC-than-any-P4-can-ever-dream-of, processor should or could be compared to the wattage of the infamous thermonuclear furnace AKA prescott, is a bit of a long stretch, dont you think? :p

Reply