'Nehalem' 2.93 GHz Benches Revealed

Several days ago we took a look at Intel’s next generation X58 platform for Nehalem in which we explained that the new chipset will be bringing along several new features. The most significant of these features is QuickPath, which is a brand new link architecture very similar to AMD’s HyperTransport, and getting rid of the front-side bus (FSB) system altogether.

What this means for enthusiasts is that old methods of overclocking will no longer work with Nehalem. What will happen is that the connection between the CPU and the northbridge (X58 MCH), will be based on an external clock multiplier running at 133 MHz. At this time, with an early X58 sample motherboard on hand, we’re still unable to change this frequency, but our motherboard sources tell us that this is a feature that will be available via the system BIOS once things go into full production.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
  • beerzombie
    I'm not sure how relevant it is, but you don't mention if you're running Vista SP1 32 or 64 bit. Anyway really looking forward to a full review.
    Reply
  • pizap
    Can't wait for the full review
    Reply
  • spuddyt
    isn't the x6800 a dual core? you are comparing a dual and a quad?
    Reply
  • asdasd123123
    Uhhh, so the QUAD CORE nehalem is 23% faster than a DUAL CORE? Errr.
    Someone made a type-o, or that new cpu is useless :P
    Reply
  • Titanius
    spuddytisn't the x6800 a dual core? you are comparing a dual and a quad?
    Obviously you haven't read the entire article, here is the answer to your question quoted directly from the article:

    "Keep in mind though that the CPUs above are all dual-cores."
    Reply
  • techtalk
    I didn't understand the 23% comparison. Please elaborate.
    Reply
  • Uh, isn't the FX-74 going on two years old now? Odd setup to benchmark against.
    Reply
  • androticus
    WHY would you compare to Athlon and not (Quad) Phenom????
    Reply
  • asdasd123123
    TitaniusObviously you haven't read the entire article, here is the answer to your question quoted directly from the article:"Keep in mind though that the CPUs above are all dual-cores."
    What's your point? There are quad core cpus from both intel and amd to compare with, and has been for a while now. There's no point what so ever to use a dual core for reference.

    There's only one scenario where that comparison would make sense, and that's if 3dmark is exclusively single threaded, and as far as I know, it isn't.
    Scoring 23% better with twice as many cores is a rubbish score.
    Reply
  • gxsolace
    asdasd123123What's your point? There are quad core cpus from both intel and amd to compare with, and has been for a while now. There's no point what so ever to use a dual core for reference.There's only one scenario where that comparison would make sense, and that's if 3dmark is exclusively single threaded, and as far as I know, it isn't.Scoring 23% better with twice as many cores is a rubbish score.
    How is it rubbish? i have a dual core cpu and i'd like to know how much performance i'd get from going to Nehalem when it comes out? Seems reasonable for me and any other dual core owner. Get a better grasp on the scope of things and not such a narrow mind. In fact, i and many others didn't plan on upgrading to quad cores for the very reason that the performance difference were small, as indicated in the article. now that we see even bigger differences with nehalem, I feel now it's reasonable to upgrade for the price. Sheesh.
    Reply