Timeline for How does the performance of current i7 CPU's compare to i7 920?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 7, 2016 at 11:10 | history | edited | Rubydesic | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed link.
|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 21:03 | comment | added | Adam Wykes | With all due respect, can you give us more details about 1. the exact nature of your work - specific program/platform names help us a lot sometimes. 2. how you are determining that memory bandwidth is the limiting factor? The passmark test was just the first thing I could think up which would give you a general idea about CPU performance (which is all you're ever going to get without specific program and workload information). It is accurate within itself, as in it is consistent. Passmark is also well-documented (as are Cinebench and 3DMark/PCMark, I'm sure), so you can read up on it. | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 20:26 | comment | added | user3728501 | @RubyJunk It is certainly difficult to know what a score of 10000 passmarks compared to 5000 passmarks really translates to in terms of real-life performance. This could be a very memory intensive test, or alternatively it could be very cache/register level intensive, and involve no memory read/write operations at all. Finally, although RAID is a good idea it's not what is limiting performance here. Most of the work I do is memory bandwidth constrained. | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 20:18 | comment | added | Rubydesic | I have to politely disagree with the usage of Passmark. Although it is much, much better than CPUBoss which is a biased piece of crap, not even a benchmark, Passmark isn't very accurate. I'd recommend CineBench or 3DMark/PCMark | |
| Jul 6, 2016 at 17:33 | history | answered | Adam Wykes | CC BY-SA 3.0 |