The Dark Knight: Intel's Core i7
by Anand Lal Shimpi & Gary Key on November 3, 2008 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Video and Media Encoding Performance
Nehalem is happiest in 3D rendering applications, but video encoding is a close second place. Our first video encoding test is Tech ARP's x264 HD benchmark, which does a test encode of a 720p source file using the x264 codec. We're reporting results from the 0.59.819 version of x264.
Here Nehalem can "only" deliver a 17% performance advantage over Penryn, but once again the $284 i7-920 is faster than the $1400 QX9770.
Our DivX test is the same DivX / XMpeg 5.03 test we've run for the past couple of years now, the 1080p source file is encoded using the unconstrained DivX profile, quality/performance is set balanced at 5 and enhanced multithreading is enabled:
You know the drill, Intel introduces a new architecture and obsoletes its old one - the i7-920 is looking mighty tempting...
The WME test gives us a little dose of reality, the i7-920 is only as fast as the QX9770 here:
Although this isn't a video encoding test I wanted to include a lighter workload to illustrate a situation where Nehalem is no faster than its predecessor. The iTunes benchmark is a simple WAV to MP3 encode and Nehalem isn't able to dominate here:
Penryn pulls slightly ahead at the top end but at 2.66GHz it falls slightly behind. In both cases the point is that you'll be faster with a QX9770 than an i7-920, and you'll be no faster with a Nehalem vs. Penryn.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
73 Comments
View All Comments
npp - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Well, the funny thing is THG got it all messed up, again - they posted a large "CRIPPLED OVERCKLOCKING" article yesterday, and today I saw a kind of apology from them - they seem to have overlooked a simple BIOS switch that prevents the load through the CPU from rising above 100A. Having a month to prepare the launch article, they didn't even bother to tweak the BIOS a bit. That's why I'm not taking their articles seriously, not because they are biased towards Intel ot AMD - they are simply not up to the standars (especially those here @anandtech).gvaley - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Now give us those 64-bit benchmarks. We already knew that Core i7 will be faster than Core 2, we even knew how much faster.Now, it was expected that 64-bit performance will be better on Core i7 that on Core 2. Is that true? Draw a parallel between the following:
Performance jump from 32- to 64-bit on Core 2
vs.
Performance jump from 32- to 64-bit on Core i7
vs.
Performance jump from 32- to 64-bit on Phenom
badboy4dee - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
and what's those numbers on the charts there? Are they frames per second? high is better then if thats what they are. Charts need more detail or explanation to them dude!TSM
MarchTheMonth - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
I don't believe I saw this anywhere else, but the spots for the cooler on the Mobo, they the same as like the LGA 775, i.e. can we use (non-Intel) coolers that exist now for the new socket?marc1000 - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
no, the new socket is different. the holes are 80mm far from each other, on socket 775 it was 72mm away.Agitated - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Any info on whether these parts provide an improvement on virtualized workloads or maybe what the various vm companies have planned for optimizing their current software for nehalem?yyrkoon - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
Either I am not reading things correctly, or the 130W TDP does not look promising for the end user such as myself that requires/wants a low powered high performance CPU.The future in my book is using less power, not more, and Intel does not right now seem to be going in this direction. To top things off, the performance increase does not seem to be enough to justify this power increase.
Being completely off grid(100% solar / wind power), there seem to be very few options . . . I would like to see this change. Right now as it stands, sticking with the older architecture seems to make more sense.
3DoubleD - Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - link
130W TDP isn't much worse for previous generations of quad core processors which were ~100W TDP. Also, TDP isn't a measure of power usage, but of the required thermal dissipation of a system to maintain an operating temperature below an set value (eg. Tjmax). So if Tjmax is lower for i7 processors than it is for past quad cores, it may use the same amount of power, but have a higher TDP requirement. The article indicates that power draw has increased, but usually with a large increase in performance. Page 9 of the article has determined that this chip has a greater performance/watt than its predecessors by a significant margin.If you are looking for something that is extremely low power, you shouldn't be looking at a quad core processor. Go buy a laptop (or an EeePC-type laptop with an Atom processor). Intel has kept true to its promise of 2% performance increase for every 1% power increase (eg. a higher performance per watt value).
Also, you would probably save more power overall if you just hibernate your computer when you aren't using it.
Comdrpopnfresh - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
Do differing cores have access to another's L2? Is it directly, through QPI, or through L3?Also, is the L2 inclusive in the L3; does the L3 contain the L2 data?
xipo - Monday, November 3, 2008 - link
I know games are not the strong area of nehalem, but there are 2 games i'd like to see tested. Unreal T. 3 and Half Life 2 E2.. just to know how does nehalem handles those 2 engines ;D