3.2GHz Quad-Core “Nehalem” vs 3.33GHz 6-Core “Westmere”

[brentsg]

Yepp, we need a 64-bit Geekbench score for a 3.2 quad. I still have the feeling that the 3.2 GHz quad and the 2.66 dodeca will be the "sweet spots".

It's not a perfect comparison.. but I took my i7-980X and dropped it down to 3.2GHz and 4 cores in BIOS.

In Win7 I get 9670 on 64 bit Geekbench with 6GB RAM.

 

[Fiete5401]

It's not a perfect comparison.. but I took my i7-980X and dropped it down to 3.2GHz and 4 cores in BIOS.

In Win7 I get 9670 on 64 bit Geekbench with 6GB RAM.

I just noticed that somebody posted a 64-bit result of a 3.2 quad to the database. The MP scored 11097.
I expected something between 11300 and 11400 but as more results will be uploaded we'll get a better picture. 11097 seems to be too low in my eyes as the 3.2 quad reaches 10111 in 32-bit testing already.

 

[brentsg]

I just noticed that somebody posted a 64-bit result of a 3.2 quad to the database. The MP scored 11097.
I expected something between 11300 and 11400 but as more results will be uploaded we'll get a better picture. 11097 seems to be too low in my eyes as the 3.2 quad reaches 10111 in 32-bit testing already.

It's possible that shutting down 2 cores in BIOS isn't a good replication of a true quad I suppose. That's interesting. My 6 core results fall right in line.

 

[CaoCao]

It's possible that shutting down 2 cores in BIOS isn't a good replication of a true quad I suppose. That's interesting. My 6 core results fall right in line.

if there is an overclock step at that point it may try to turbo, though I don't think it does