Navigate: Advice Beginners BIOS Guide CPUs Links Mainboards Memory Network Storage Video/Sound Cards Contact Forum SiteMap Sponsors WebNews Home	.	.
Prices: Mainboards ABIT ASUS Chaintech Shuttle Soyo Tyan CPU Intel P4 2.4C-800 P4 2.6C-800 P4 2.8C-800 P4 3.0-800 P4 3.2-800 AMD AthlonXP XP 1700+ XP 2000+ XP 2400+ XP 2500+ XP 2700+ XP 3000+ XP 3200+ Athlon64 Athlon64 3200+ Athlon64 FX-51 Opteron Opteron 240 Opteron 242 Opteron 244 Opteron 246 Memory Corsair Crucial Kingston Mushkin OCZ Search Prices:

LOSTCIRCUITS	SHORTCUTS: A Higher Bus Frequency Test Configurations Memory Subsystem Power Consumption 3D Rendering Energy Efficiency Cinebench AV Encoding: DVD-Shrink, DrDivX, MainConcept AV Encoding: Virtualdub / DivX and SSE4 Gaming: 3DMark '06 FarCry F.E.A.R. The Down and Dirty Dis-Illusions Give Us Some Feedback on this Review
Intel's Yorkfield QX9770 at 3.2 GHz I have the Power!!
(Review by Michael Schuette, November 25, 2007)

3D Rendering Performance

Caligari TrueSpace

TrueSpace is probably the best application out there to measure multiprocessor performance. Also, there is only a limited impact of the cache since most of the data are non-recurrent. Whereas there was only a marginal performance gain between the QX6850 and the QX9650, primarily attributable to running the memory at lower latencies (6-5-5 vs. 7-7-7), the QX9770 widens the gap because of its higher clock speed and memory bandwidth. For the record, the QX9650 when clocked to 8 x 400 MHz delivered the exact same results as the QX9770

Vases

Adam Trachtenberg's model was rendered at 1024 x 768 with raytracing enabled and 2 x AA. The screenshot shows the leapfrogging scan lines in the case of Intel's V8 system using 8 processors.

Render Time

Render time in seconds, lower is better.

Power Consumption per Renderpass

Rendertime multiplied with the power consumption measured during the rendering. The result shows the energy efficiency for 3D rendering under full utilization of all CPU resources. Lower is better.

It is interesting to see how the dominating energy efficiency of the QX9650 is mitigated in the case of the QX9770 by whatever Intel has done to this processor. For comparison, the QX9650 at 3.2 GHz doesn't really change its efficiency and comes in at 4600 Wsec per render pass.

(BX80557E6300)

next page: => Cinebench =>