Bloomfield 2.93 GHz Performance Data Disclosed

btarunr · Jul 10, 2008

Benchmarks of Nehalem derivatives are on a roll. We had seen the Bloomfield 2.66 GHz scores and thought it was great. A couple of days ago, Tom's Hardware showed off their newest toys to the world in which was a 2.93 GHz Bloomfield we covered here. Interestingly, they had then stated that Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) prevented them from releasing any benchmark data, though following ChipHell's publication, they thought they would disclose theirs as well.

They carried out their tests on the Foxconn Renaissance X58 motherboard with dual-channel Crucial Ballistix 2x 1GB DDR3 1600 MHz, ATI Radeon HD 4850, Windows Vista SP1 and hotfix_vista32-64_dd_ccc_hd4800series_64906 patch. A 750GB Seagate SATA II hard drive was used.

In 3DMark 06, it secured a CPU score of 5183. In PCMark 05, a CPU score of 9583 with a memory score of 9010 was noted. In 3DMark Vantage, the CPU score was 17966 (CPU Test1: 2515.1 Plans/S, Test2: 23.08 Steps/S). 2.93 GHz Bloomfield had a Mere 11% performance advantage over a QX6800 (that clocks at 2.93 GHz). It is also said that this 2.93 GHz chip is 23% faster than a Phenom X4 9950.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

OzzmanFloyd120 · Jul 10, 2008

I don't think it's going to be as great as everyone expects.

btarunr · Jul 10, 2008

Many thanks to HTC for sending this in.

farlex85 · Jul 10, 2008

OzzmanFloyd120 said:
I don't think it's going to be as great as everyone expects.

Core for core speed no, it's no pd to core 2 (seems anyway). It's lookin like intel has put most of their time into multi-threading expertise, w/ HT and QPI, which they seem to be doing quite well at these early stages (seems anyway).

a111087 · Jul 10, 2008

kinda expected a bit more...

OzzmanFloyd120 · Jul 10, 2008

Wait until tomorrow when the fanboys see it.

Kei · Jul 10, 2008

Good numbers but what's the point of including the Phenom (not you I mean) in that comparison...the processor comes clocked roughly 12.5% higher than the Phenom does anyway? It is quite impressive however if it can achieve that additional 11.5% advantage with the Phenom at the same speed...in all tests that is. I wonder where the 23% came from, this processor for sure will be good though I won't buy one I think the 2.66Ghz model excites me far more for some reason.

When are these slated to hit retail distribution and what kinda price tag will they (speculatively? sorry for spelling) come with?

K

pentastar111 · Jul 10, 2008

Meh...I'm still going Phenom with next build...

Rash-Un-Al · Jul 10, 2008

Kei said:
Good numbers but what's the point of including the Phenom (not you I mean) in that comparison...the processor comes clocked roughly 12.5% higher than the Phenom does anyway?

I'm with you on that… although, Intel has little choice but to pit their best against AMD's best… and AMD's best happens to be the Phenom X4 9950.

Kei said:
It is quite impressive however if it can achieve that additional 11.5% advantage with the Phenom at the same speed...in all tests that is.

Considering the X4 9950's operating speed is 2.6 GHz (and not 2.66 GHz), the IPC advantage Bloomfield (at the same speed) has over it is slightly smaller – 10.9%.

When one takes into considering AMD's Shanghai K10.5 45nm processors will boast significantl IPC increases, are said to be able to launch at 2.8 to 3.0 GHz (with faster variants to follow), are expected to operate below current-generation TDP, with 6MB of L3 cache (versus the current 2MB), and a future native octal-core (Sandtiger), Intel simply must release its new architecture, just to stay ahead. Otherwise, current Wolfdale/Yorkfield processors would either be par or not enough for Intel to remain on top.

mk_ln · Jul 10, 2008

11%?...thats odd as i just performed the test with my Q6700 @ 3.3GHz and i got 11750 on the performance setting (3DMark score was P5981). wouldn't it be something along the lines of 50% increase just based on the numbers?

Rash-Un-Al · Jul 10, 2008

mk_ln said:
11%?...thats odd as i just performed the test with my Q6700 @ 3.3GHz and i got 11750 on the performance setting (3DMark score was P5981). wouldn't it be something along the lines of 50% increase just based on the numbers?

Good observation... as pointed out in the other (ealier) Bloomflield thread, the increases in performance are nowhere near the same for each application... we are currently speaking in terms of average gains, based upon the article's aforementioned "23% faster" claim. I would imagine this is based upon comparisons accross a suite of different applications and scenarios.

Click here, to view the speed increases in SuperPi and Cinebench (single-thread):
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=877721#post877721
You'll notice that, against a Wolfdale/Yorkfield, the Bloomfield speed advantage can vary considerably, depending on the application. The increases you've described above display Bloomfield's multithreading power at work, in an optimized-for-multithreading environment (3DMark Vantage), while these performance increases still represent the minority of current compute scenarios (and while not all multithreaded applications will yield the same degree of gains).

lemonadesoda · Jul 11, 2008

mk_ln said:
11%?...thats odd as i just performed the test with my Q6700 @ 3.3GHz and i got 11750 on the performance setting (3DMark score was P5981). wouldn't it be something along the lines of 50% increase just based on the numbers?

Problem is... other tests dont indicate CPU performance increasing like that. It could be a quirk in 3dmark due to HT. In a more realistic test, e.g. CB10, the HT only added a small % to CPU score.

Also look at 3dmark06. A Q6600 at 2.93Ghz scores 4,680 on DDR1. The bloomfied is getting 5183 according to Toms. That's only a 10% increase on the same clocks. Not a very big gain given new CPU, Quickpath and DDR3!

farlex85 · Jul 11, 2008

lemonadesoda said:
Problem is... other tests dont indicate CPU performance increasing like that. It could be a quirk in 3dmark due to HT. In a more realistic test, e.g. CB10, the HT only added a small % to CPU score.

Also look at 3dmark06. A Q6600 at 2.93Ghz scores 4,680 on DDR1. The bloomfied is getting 5183 according to Toms. That's only a 10% increase on the same clocks. Not a very big gain given new CPU, Quickpath and DDR3!

What makes cinebench more realistic, I'm curious. And what makes vantage less reliable than 06? You seem to be snatching whatever poor increases you can and then ignoring the positive ones. We're seeing a mix b/c this tech is not supported fully utilized yet, on a software and hardware level.

lemonadesoda · Jul 11, 2008

Not really, look at PC Mark 05 also. 4 out of 5 tests (3Dmark05, CB10, PCmark05, Superpi) do not show significant wins with Bloomfield.

"Snatching?", pot calling kettle black.

It's pretty clear that results so far indicate bloomfield is luke warm. That's all we've got to go on. Don't you think it's wishful thinking to ignore that and just blow the bloomfield trumpet? Let's hope things change, but until they do, GO WITH THE FACTS.

farlex85 · Jul 11, 2008

lemonadesoda said:
Not really, look at PC Mark 05.

4 out of 5 tests (3Dmark05, CB10, PCmark05, Superpi) do not show significant wins with Bloomfield.

"Snatching?", pot calling kettle black.

lol, not quite, just pointing out the inconsistencies of your argument, although I am inclined to believe this is going to be quite a nice line-up once everything is working. I don't know about cinebench, or superpi (but I know at least that one has been around for a while), but I'll take the results from a more recent benchmark over ones from 3 years ago when dealing w/ new tech. Also, I agree that the increase in core for core speed is not impressive at all, but maybe we're spoiled w/ the core 2. 8 logical cores and triple channel ddr3 (which I don't think has been implemented yet) along w/ qpi will yield significant gains even if core for core the proc worked slower, how could it not? It will take a multi-threaded app to show it though.

lemonadesoda · Jul 11, 2008

I really dont know farlex. I "held out" for bloomfield, but now, I actually think a better powerhorse is xeon quad x 2 on skulltrail, e.g. http://geizhals.at/deutschland/a318034.html
There you've got 8 real cores. If you look at the CB10 results, or media encoding results, for such a monster it blows bloomfield. http://www.3dfluff.com/mash/cinebench/top.php

But I guess bloomfield will be a lot cheaper than the workstation/server solution to über-power.

System Name	RBMK-1000
Processor	AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard	ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling	DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory	2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s)	Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage	Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s)	BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case	Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s)	ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply	Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse	ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard	Gamdias Hermes E2
Software	Windows 11 Pro

System Name	The Netbook
Processor	Intel Atom n270
Memory	1GB DDR2 533mhz
Video Card(s)	Intel G945
Storage	250GB
Display(s)	10.1" LCD
Software	Microsoft Windows 7 Starter x86

System Name	RBMK-1000
Processor	AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard	ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling	DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory	2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s)	Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage	Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s)	BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case	Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s)	ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply	Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse	ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard	Gamdias Hermes E2
Software	Windows 11 Pro

System Name	Aquarium
Processor	Ryzen 9 7950x
Motherboard	ROG Strix X670-E
Cooling	Lian Li Galahead 360 AIO
Memory	2x16gb Flare X5 Series 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR5-6000 PC5-48000
Video Card(s)	Asus RTX 3060
Storage	2TB WD SN850X Black NVMe, 500GB Samsung 970 NVMe
Display(s)	Gigabyte 32" IPS 144Hz
Case	Hyte Y60
Power Supply	Corsair RMx 850
Software	Win 11 Pro/ PopOS!

Processor	Intel Q9400
Motherboard	asus p5q-pro
Cooling	Ultra120
Memory	6GB ddr2
Video Card(s)	NVS 290
Storage	3TB + 1.5TB
Display(s)	Samsung F2380
Case	Silverstone Fortress FT02B
Audio Device(s)	Creative X-Fi
Power Supply	750W PC P&C
Software	win 7 ultimate 64bit

Bloomfield 2.93 GHz Performance Data Disclosed

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator

OzzmanFloyd120

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator

farlex85

a111087

OzzmanFloyd120

Kei

pentastar111

Rash-Un-Al

mk_ln

New Member

Rash-Un-Al

lemonadesoda

farlex85

lemonadesoda

farlex85

lemonadesoda

System Name	...no name yet
Processor	AMD Ryzen 7800x3D
Motherboard	ASUS STRIX X670E-E Wi-Fi
Cooling	EK Nucleus AIO CR360 Lux-D-RGB
Memory	G.Skill Ripjaws DDR5 6000Mhz CL36 32GB (2x16)
Video Card(s)	MSI 4090 Gaming Trio
Storage	1Tb Samsung 860 SSD, twin 2TB Samsung nvme drives
Display(s)	Asus ROG Swift PG279Q IPS gsync 2k
Case	Thermaltake P5 wall mounted and backlit with Corsair lighting node pro
Power Supply	EVGA P3 1000w
Mouse	Logitech G9x (awesome!)
Keyboard	Logitech G105
VR HMD	Pimax 5k+
Software	Windows 10 64Bit
Benchmark Scores	CPU-Z 698s/7465m (7800x3D result)

Processor	i7 920
Motherboard	EVGA X58
Cooling	eight 120mm fans, Swiftech GTZ cpu block, 3 120mm radiator, MCP655 pump, primochill tubing
Memory	6 gig G-Skill DDR3 1600
Video Card(s)	GTX 285's (SLI)
Storage	500GB Western Digital
Display(s)	3 Asus 23 in inchers
Case	Lian Li A77B
Audio Device(s)	on board 7.1
Power Supply	Corsair 1000
Software	win 7 64

Processor	Intel Core i7-970 @ 4.02
Motherboard	Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD5
Cooling	Cooler Master Hyper 212+ (dual fans)
Memory	12GB Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz
Video Card(s)	MSI GTX 465 TWIN FROZR II GE flashed to GTX 470 + PNY GTX470 (SLI)
Storage	1x Intel 80GB G2, 1x 320 series 160GB SSD, + 11 other drives totaling a bit over 12TB
Display(s)	Samsung 2693 + ASUS VW266H
Case	Silverstone TJ07-BW
Audio Device(s)	Logitech Z5500
Power Supply	Corsair HX850 - Modular
Software	XP PRO x86, Vista Ult. x64, Win7 Ult. x64

System Name	ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor	Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory	2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s)	HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s)	2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s)	Audigy 2
Software	Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.