Platform performance Update:early reports on Fall CPUs is that they rock!


It appears the promise of the Penryn/Wolfdale/Yorkfield Intel CPUs is being born out.


See http://www.guru3d.com/news.html#5723 for an early performance report.


This bodes well for the future, and is something I started mentioning months ago as a positive platform performance step that would help FSX like its going to help every app.

Comments (4)
  1. Bikedude says:

    Well, what they are actually saying is (compared to a Core 2 Duo) "Most notable is a nearly 116% jump in encoding performance with an SSE4-optimized alpha of DivX 6.6. Gains in other apps aren’t nearly as striking, but they’re consistent across the board and often eclipse 10%.".

    I somehow doubt FSX is using much SSE4, so the 116% increase in encoding performance won’t help. Which leaves the "consistent" gain in "other" apps of 10%. I am sure 10% will be nice and welcome, but I fear it will be a drop in the sea as far as FSX is concerned?

    10% BTW also corresponds (roughly) to the gain you would get if you compile a native Win64 version… At least on AMD Opterons… If 10% is this significant… A recompiled binary would be a (relatively) free upgrade, whereas Wolfdale/Yorkfield will cost a significant amount of mullah, at least for the time being.

    What is needed is for someone to bench FSX to see how it scales with additional cores and clock speed. (together with a couple of high-end GPUs)

    Rune

  2. fatboysim says:

    A hidden benefit will be the overclock capability, which we don’t know yet.  But the 45nm process should help.  I can get to around 3Ghz on an E6400 (others can do better  I’m sure).  So say I can get to 4Ghz on Penryn, that’s an extra 33%.  That won’t all translate to FSX FPS, however it might just make an upgrade worthwhile (well that and the price).  The other question will be how good is Nahalem, and that is relatively close to happening.

  3. Bikedude says:

    I have been an advocate of overclocking in the past, but I never do it myself. Why? Because most device drivers aren’t worth a grain of salt. And too many incompetent support staff will ask "have you overclocked your computer?". The question will pop up, and the device driver bug will go unfixed (if it happens to be a nVidia bug — good luck reporting the darned thing!).

    And quite honestly, I would probably revert the clock first thing and see if the issue went away.

    My current rig has been running stable for two years now (except some initial nVidia bugs — at least one of which I’ve had to find workarounds for myself). Only now am I tempted to overclock it, but… But now it is time to start looking at upgrades! (actually I will probably replace the whole rig! Dual Opteron 244, 4GB DDR, 7800GTX — it will all have to go since it is woefully underpowered for FSX and I doubt it pays off to buy the old overpriced Opteron models for the old socket 940)

    That said… I can only echo my post above… I dearly need some benchmarks that will point me in the right direction CPU wise. Two dual core socket F Opterons or a single dual core Core2Duo… What will make FSX (SP1) rock the most? More cores or more GHz?

    PS: Phil’s latest entry (http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/08/08/fsx-dx10-3rd-progress-report-just-another-wednesday.aspx) indicates 17% performance increase by going DX10 instead of DX9, which shows that the CPU isn’t the only piece of the puzzle. Good software engineering still plays a role! 🙂 (and a bigger role, if the 10% increase in CPU power holds)

  4. stesoell says:

    Phil,

    others may wait … meanwhile my Dual Xeon 5150 WS is idling around 🙂

    You know that multithread game developing is much harder than the consumers believe.

    Ciao,

    Stefan

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content