Go Back   Hardware Canucks > NEWS & REVIEWS > Reviews & Articles from the Web

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old January 31, 2012, 06:13 PM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
There really isn't any way to compare one architecture to another unless the clocks are normalized across ALL platforms or multiple CPUs from each platform are tested.
Exactly, that is such bs article. Sure I get that they went by price but every one knows bulldozer would get killed even at a faster speed, but why would you even bother comparing an old chip like Nehalem, which no one buys anymore and not run it at the same speed. I've had my I7-920 for almost 3 years and that tells me nothing about if it would truly benefit someone to upgrade from a 3.3Ghz(min runs at 4) nehalem to a 3.3GHz Sandybrige with the new cards. I'm betting not, other than a chance of a higher overclock which has no guarantee and could get a dud, since the sandybridge is only 17% faster while being clocked 20% faster. The real world could be different though and unless you run them both at the same speed this doesn't indicate which platform it runs best on.

I have no plan on upgrading but it seems like every article like this does this and never shows a direct comparison in architecture.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old January 31, 2012, 07:16 PM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 645

My System Specs

Default

This makes me feel not so bad for buying a new am3+ mobo
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old January 31, 2012, 07:40 PM
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,497

My System Specs

Default

Putting in Nehalem is rude.
__________________
For my part I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of the stars makes me dream.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old February 17, 2012, 01:09 AM
GT7R's Avatar
Allstar
F@H
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Our universe
Posts: 991

My System Specs

Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by Teal3800 View Post
Exactly, that is such bs article. Sure I get that they went by price but every one knows bulldozer would get killed even at a faster speed, but why would you even bother comparing an old chip like Nehalem, which no one buys anymore and not run it at the same speed. I've had my I7-920 for almost 3 years and that tells me nothing about if it would truly benefit someone to upgrade from a 3.3Ghz(min runs at 4) nehalem to a 3.3GHz Sandybrige with the new cards. I'm betting not, other than a chance of a higher overclock which has no guarantee and could get a dud, since the sandybridge is only 17% faster while being clocked 20% faster. The real world could be different though and unless you run them both at the same speed this doesn't indicate which platform it runs best on.

I have no plan on upgrading but it seems like every article like this does this and never shows a direct comparison in architecture.
For one thing you're absolutely right, but remember that than you can OC the SB cpu and get even more. While comparing architectures - their ability to run at certain clock speeds is yet another one of their advantages/disadvantages. Say clock per clock SB and Nehalem will perform sort of on par, Intel decided to give it the higher frequencies which it CAN operate at. Yes, Nehalem isn't far of SB in terms of clock per clock, but SB can and is designed to achieve much higher clocks more easily and with less drama (heat power, etc). Getting an I7 920, 24/7 over 4 GHz was almost impossible, while literally every SB unit I've worked with ran at 4.6 and laughed at my face. Again there is truth in what you're saying, but at the end of the day, I want performance from my CPU, and doesn't matter in which way - clock speed, smart-ass architecture, OC ability, etc. And this way, SB is just better whether you compare them @stock or OCed.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old February 17, 2012, 03:09 AM
Galcobar's Avatar
MVP
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Richmond, B.C.
Posts: 437

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldonko View Post
Wish they had SB-E in there
SB-E are the same cores as SnB, so unless the game values additional threads and we discount overclocking the results would be pretty much identical -- the extra cache doesn't seem to benefit many games, aside from World of Warcraft for whatever reason.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[WTB] WTB: sandy bridge cpu and SSD dpk33 Buy/Sell & Trade 7 January 15, 2012 08:15 PM
Sandy bridge build soapdefe New Builds 11 December 3, 2011 06:31 AM
Upgrading to sandy bridge Polygon New Builds 2 April 28, 2011 04:55 PM
RAM Recommendations for Sandy Bridge? cloneman RAM 8 January 10, 2011 07:35 AM
Sandy Bridge 4.5 on AIR i7 2600K ZZLEE Rumor Mill 9 November 26, 2010 10:09 PM