|
Re: INTEL I7-3930K @ 4.8Ghz & 5.0Ghz, MAME 0.143u9 Benchmarks
11/11/11 12:01 AM
|
|
|
> As promised benchmarks of the I7-3930 @ 4.8Ghz & 5.0Ghz. > > > ROM FX-8150(4.8ghz) I7-3930K (4.5ghz) I7-3930K (4.8ghz) I7-3930K (5.0ghz) > * > BLITZ 143.30% 283.31% 300.47% 312.75% > DOLPHIN 27.62% 39.18% 41.99% 43.74% > GAUNTLEG 199.48% 378.57% 400.84% 418.54% > GRADIUS4 147.71% 217.45% 235.88% 244.87% > PROPCYCL 119.31% 213.75% 227.50% 235.52% > RADIKALB 125.12% 191.33% 203.24% 211.85% > SCUD 79.36% 146.15% 154.47% 160.37% > STARSLDR 67.92% 92.83% 98.72% 103.00% > > I dropped RB's I7-2600K scores as it wasn't a good comparison as people have pointed > out, due to the changes in MAME from 0.141 to 0.143u9. I was hoping to do some > updated benchmarks of a I7-2600K on 0.143u9 to see what the real preformance diffence > was bewteen the two I7 CPUs at the same clock speed, but we didn't have any I7 2600K > system laying around, only i5-2500Ks. With a little luck we'll get the I7-2700K > instock soon and I can post some direct comparison benchmarks between the two > difference series of I7 CPUs.
Cool numbers. From the searching I did it looks like, at equal clock speeds, the i7 is about 2x the performance of the Bulldozer. Assuming that it's just as easy to get both of these processors to 4.8 Ghz, and that the costs of doing so is the same, then the Bullldozer's price of approximately 1/2 that of the i7 (FX-8150: $240 @ Amazon, i7-3930K: announced at $570-ish) seems about right, making them about equal from a price:performance (i.e. value) perspective.
One thing that is not clear to me is how much more power efficient (and the more important derivative of this, quiet) the i7 is.
|
|