Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Intel Core i7 4790K: Devil's Canyon Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,904

    Default Intel Core i7 4790K: Devil's Canyon Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

    Phoronix: Intel Core i7 4790K: Devil's Canyon Benchmarks On Ubuntu Linux

    Last week at Computex Intel formally announced the Core i7 4790K "Devil's Canyon" processor as a new, high-end, refreshed Haswell part. The Intel Core i7 4790K tops out at 4.4GHz and is quite interesting for PC enthusiasts and performance junkies. Today we're delivering the first public tests of the i7-4790K Devil's Canyon run under Linux.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=20600

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    553

    Default Thanks for including the FX-8350

    It shows that the Intel processors able to defeat the AMD FX procs in video editing (the benchmark that matters for my systems) are the ones that cost $100 more for the CPU. My older FX-8120 overclocked to 4.4 GHZ is probably a bit slower than an FX 8350 at the same clocks, but when I first got one Ivy Bridge wasn't out yet either. Only the Core i7's beat the Piledriver in your libx264 test, and interestingly the same was true for Linux kernel compilation, about a minute for a job that seemd to take all night with an Athlon 500 MHZ I had in 2004.

    True, the TDP is less for the Intels, but I suspect that idle/desktop power dissipation can't differ by more than 10W or so. It doesn't really matter that the overclocked AMD might pull 200W for 10 minutes rendering a video if it spends most of its time in the 50W area and can drop into the low 40s when totally idle at the desktop. These tests tell me that buying an i5 setup to replace Bulldozer would always be money down the toilet if video editing is the intended function.

    Too bad AMD is dumping the FX line, though I suspect at the rate they are going the Fusion chips will soon catch up due to the improvements in things like reducing branch predictor misses. They can already match the Phenom II x4 from what I understand, and that's fast enough for most of my work.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    14

    Default

    Very intresting test. I'm looking to upgrade my Phenom 2 940 x4 to a 8350 or a 4790K, so I will definitly be running this benchmark when I get home!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    It would be nice if a testgraph indicated whether the test is single threaded or multithreaded. I'm still pondering whether to purchase my first Intel chip because of it's superior single core performance over AMD.

    It's really really sad AMD has stopped it's fx line. I'm not *that* appealed by APU chips.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14

    Default

    i wonder why Intel removed 2 security technologies from i7-4790K (even compared to i7-4790, not to mentioned their older CPUs), that are:

    * "Intel® vPro Technology":

    Intel® vPro™ Technology is a set of security and manageability capabilities built into the processor aimed at addressing four critical areas of IT security: 1) Threat management, including protection from rootkits, viruses, and malware 2) Identity and web site access point protection 3) Confidential personal and business data protection 4) Remote and local monitoring, remediation, and repair of PCs and workstations.
    "Trusted Execution Technology":

    Intel® Trusted Execution Technology for safer computing is a versatile set of hardware extensions to Intel® processors and chipsets that enhance the digital office platform with security capabilities such as measured launch and protected execution. It enables an environment where applications can run within their own space, protected from all other software on the system.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    16

    Default TDP

    "215 Watts" !!!!!

    I read the article because I'm working in HPC and I'm always aware about CPU perf but wait : 215 Watts !
    How Intel is thinking we can cool a chip consuming 215 Watts ? This is incredible.

    Technology needs to evolve a lot if we want more powerful CPU in the near future.
    22nm seems to be a barrier (even if smaller size is possible, the price will be amazingly high), and so frequency can't be much more than 4GHz.
    Work has to be done on materials or other parts ...

    @Michael : if you have hardware like "Xeon(R) CPU E5-2665" between 2.40GHz and 3.0GHz, I will be really pleased if you can compare it with this new i7.
    Just to see the impact of a large cash vs high freq.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yonux View Post
    "215 Watts" !!!!!

    I read the article because I'm working in HPC and I'm always aware about CPU perf but wait : 215 Watts !
    How Intel is thinking we can cool a chip consuming 215 Watts ? This is incredible.

    Technology needs to evolve a lot if we want more powerful CPU in the near future.
    22nm seems to be a barrier (even if smaller size is possible, the price will be amazingly high), and so frequency can't be much more than 4GHz.
    Work has to be done on materials or other parts ...

    @Michael : if you have hardware like "Xeon(R) CPU E5-2665" between 2.40GHz and 3.0GHz, I will be really pleased if you can compare it with this new i7.
    Just to see the impact of a large cash vs high freq.
    215 watts peak usage. It's not like it's peaking at 215 for extended periods of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by const View Post
    i wonder why Intel removed 2 security technologies from i7-4790K (even compared to i7-4790, not to mentioned their older CPUs), that are:

    * "Intel® vPro Technology"

    "Trusted Execution Technology"
    Overclockable Intel CPU's (suffix K) generally don't have these technologies. I guess this is product differentiation. Or maybe technically not feasible. You will also see that K type chips usually don't have VT-D as well. So no surprises there.

    I must also admit, having no intel vPro is nice. Intel TXT is a nice extension to SecureBoot.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yonux View Post
    "215 Watts" !!!!!
    I read the article because I'm working in HPC and I'm always aware about CPU perf but wait : 215 Watts !
    How Intel is thinking we can cool a chip consuming 215 Watts ? This is incredible.
    I will remember that - Devil's Canyon 215W .

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Luke View Post
    It shows that the Intel processors able to defeat the AMD FX procs in video editing (the benchmark that matters for my systems) are the ones that cost $100 more for the CPU. My older FX-8120 overclocked to 4.4 GHZ is probably a bit slower than an FX 8350 at the same clocks, but when I first got one Ivy Bridge wasn't out yet either. Only the Core i7's beat the Piledriver in your libx264 test, and interestingly the same was true for Linux kernel compilation, about a minute for a job that seemd to take all night with an Athlon 500 MHZ I had in 2004.

    True, the TDP is less for the Intels, but I suspect that idle/desktop power dissipation can't differ by more than 10W or so. It doesn't really matter that the overclocked AMD might pull 200W for 10 minutes rendering a video if it spends most of its time in the 50W area and can drop into the low 40s when totally idle at the desktop. These tests tell me that buying an i5 setup to replace Bulldozer would always be money down the toilet if video editing is the intended function.

    Too bad AMD is dumping the FX line, though I suspect at the rate they are going the Fusion chips will soon catch up due to the improvements in things like reducing branch predictor misses. They can already match the Phenom II x4 from what I understand, and that's fast enough for most of my work.
    I maybe missing something but I don't see arch optimization for those test even though it's likely the 8350 would still get beat. I know what you mean, I wish AMD would come out with a monster again.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rexilion View Post
    It would be nice if a testgraph indicated whether the test is single threaded or multithreaded. I'm still pondering whether to purchase my first Intel chip because of it's superior single core performance over AMD.

    It's really really sad AMD has stopped it's fx line. I'm not *that* appealed by APU chips.
    Exactly. I'd like to see some tests marked explicitely as single/multi core. I'd also see some more single core tests (I suppose 1 test here is probably single core, but not sure). Single-core task performance does matter a lot even in 2014.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •