Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Core i7 On Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by cruiseoveride View Post
    FAIL

    This was such a pointless benchmark.

    Its quite obvious what the results were going to be when you put 3 i7s against each other.

    Without Phenoms and C2D/Quads this article is pointless
    Here we go again, cruiseoveride. I still have not seen a positive post from you.

    This article is supposed to be informative and engaging of readers to go test their system against the i7, something that takes advantage of the newly release PTS 1.8, which was big news.

    Seriously, amaze me and appreciate something for once.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Fixxer_Linux View Post
      The shame in that story is that no manufacturer / retailer or any big company has been able to send a sample review to Phoronix.

      It's a real shame, knowing that there is not so much Linux site hardware review and that I guess that Phoronix has many visitors...
      Why do you think there are so many AMD hardware articles?

      Comment


      • #18
        Comparison

        Although I understand everyone can benchmark his own machine, we can't all buy a machine to benchmark against the core i7. I could of course benchmark my C2D E8400 (and I will when I have more than just a few hours of free time), but I can't benchmark it against any of AMD's recent offerings because I simply don't have anything in AMD's recent offerings. Also phoronix could benchmark the E8400 with DDR3 memory, while I can't (iirc both an E8400 has shown up in tests as well as a socket 775 motherboard with DDR3 memory).

        Anyway, it would be nice to see more of a comparison IN the article, but if that's not gonna happen then we'll have to do with what's offered right now.
        Regards,

        Michael

        Comment


        • #19
          we will be back shortly with more benchmarks, including virtualization benchmarks, but we just wanted to get this information and numbers out there now for people interested in seeing how their system stacks up
          That should have been in bold. Seriously, do you guys even read the article, or just blast through the graphs?

          Anyway, I haven't bought a computer in a few years, and I just recently discovered Nvidia's coverup with the 8 series gpus, and seeing how Intel and Nvidia are nowhere near as generous as AMD when it comes to Phoronix, I think I know what my next purchase will be.
          Also, Intel can take their chips and shove it. I refuse to buy anything Intel until they either come out with a reasonable gpu or drop out of the market entirely.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by GreatWalrus View Post
            Here we go again, cruiseoveride. I still have not seen a positive post from you.

            This article is supposed to be informative and engaging of readers to go test their system against the i7, something that takes advantage of the newly release PTS 1.8, which was big news.

            Seriously, amaze me and appreciate something for once.
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulVDM0a49Lw

            I try. And I try. But i dont get no.. all this useless information... its meant to drive my imagination?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Kano View Post
              Very interesting is the Parallel BZIP2 Compression test which is much faster on my test system. The kernel is basically the same, just the basesystem is Debian 5.0.
              Seams to be one of the cases, where the i7 really sucks. Another extreme example of this is the Windows game "Bioshock", where the 3 GHz i7 gets beaten by an 2,33 GHz C2Q. Overall for gaming the 220 Phenom II 940 isn't slower than the 560 Core i7 940...

              Comment


              • #22
                Typo on page 1

                We were able to push this processor any further than 3.60GHz with this motherboard and the stock cooling before running into stability problems.
                It should be We were not...

                Comment


                • #23
                  a direct comparison to a Q9xxx/Q6xxx quad core cpu's would have been great. Not to mention a Phenom II thrown in there.

                  Also is there a way of disabling HT and trying again? I would love to see the performance gains from this new generation of hyperthreading.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Possible Benchmark Improvements

                    It would be nice to see a low-end and a high-end CPU also compared on the same test bed in the dual-core and quad-core categories.

                    Additionally, one could try to make comparisons with Windows and Mac to see which operating systems take advantage of new features like added cores and sse3-sse4.1 best.

                    To mention nothing about AMD.

                    I know this is tough since many sites (Tom's Hardware comes to mind) benchmark processors in Windows, but comparatively few do on Linux!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Rarely do I post here anymore.

                      Originally posted by gtrawoger View Post
                      People, you are missing the idea. What Michael wants you to do is post YOUR results from YOUR setup.

                      That way, when someone post his from a Q9XXX, you will know. You can't expect Michael to have all those processors.

                      As soon as I get Phoronix Test Suite installed, I will post.
                      I agree in the sense of the community generating meaningful results itself; results which can then be compared against each other. But, I think most people here, myself included, were hoping for something in the article to compare it against. After all, not everyone has the same OS configuration, nor Phoronix Test Suite, nor Linux for that matter. What about the audience looking for i7 Linux performance who 1) have never used it, and 2) don't have an i7 but may be considering buying one & installing Linux on that rig (or any single part of that)?

                      Don't get me wrong. I love the Phoronix Test Suite for what it is, and I'm very grateful to Michael for providing this critical piece of software for free. Also, I have no reason to believe Michael isn't acting with his best intentions. However, I'm with everyone else on this issue: It's hard to make a judgment call with just one chip that's been overclocked.

                      (tl;dr) Put shortly: Perhaps a follow-up article with community-submitted benches of comparable systems would be something Michael could consider.

                      just my 2c.

                      (btw, didn't mean to single you out, gtrawoger. nothing personal!)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        meh ... no offense taken. I just thought I'd point out the intent of Michael's providing the command for the test. I actually thought it would be a pretty neat idea to have the community provide some benchmarks from their rigs and have larger pool of stats to pull from.

                        Now, all we'd need now is a way to make something out of that data.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          So, I installed Wallbuntu 9.04 Beta 1 on some spare space I had on this HDD here.


                          The benchmark results may be found here: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...6937-12014-280

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lordmozilla View Post
                            Also is there a way of disabling HT and trying again? I would love to see the performance gains from this new generation of hyperthreading.
                            Assuming there is one...

                            The problem with Hyperthreading on multi-core is the scheduler needs to know which cores are virtual and which are not. As the whole point of hyperthreading is to hide such information...

                            Virtual cores sounds great in theory, but don't always work out. It is possible to get a scenario where the schedulers mess up and load 4 threads on 2 cores, and the two virtual cores, and leave the other two cores unloaded. This is not a problem once you hit 8+ threads (strictly speaking 7+), or when you only have one seriously heavy load thread, but any where in between there is scope to get it wrong. On a single core system, this is, of course, totally irrelevant as it isn't actually possible to assign processes to the "wrong" core.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by RobbieAB View Post
                              Assuming there is one...

                              The problem with Hyperthreading on multi-core is the scheduler needs to know which cores are virtual and which are not. As the whole point of hyperthreading is to hide such information...
                              The linux kernel is aware of the difference between real and virtual cores and tries to schedule with those in mind. That was added back when the P4 went hyperthreaded.

                              The core i7 is more super scalar than the P4 and should be able to scale much better.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by downhillgames View Post
                                So, I installed Wallbuntu 9.04 Beta 1 on some spare space I had on this HDD here.


                                The benchmark results may be found here: http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...6937-12014-280
                                Ugh, original phenom.

                                Below is a full battery of tests from a phenom2 x3 which seems to generally outperform your original phenom.

                                http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...76-29519-12230

                                If anything, the global test results database is a PITA to navigate. I tend to agree with most folks on here. Benchmarking a single platform is about useless. An existing frame of reference...*some* frame of reference would be nice.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X