PAR2 Multithreaded Archive Recovery Performance
Par2 is an application used for reconstructing downloaded archives. It can generate parity data from a given archive and later use it to recover the archive
Chuchusoft took the source code of par2cmdline 0.4 and parallelized it using Intel’s Threading Building Blocks 2.1. The result is a version of par2cmdline that can spawn multiple threads to repair par2 archives. For this test we took a 708MB archive, corrupted nearly 60MB of it, and used the multithreaded par2cmdline to recover it. The scores reported are the repair and recover time in seconds.
Our Par2 test actually puts both the 860 and 870 slightly ahead of the Core i7 975. It's clear that anything faster than a Core i5 750 in this case basically performs about the same. It looks like we're starting to be bottlenecked by our SSD.
Microsoft Excel 2007
Excel can be a very powerful mathematical tool. In this benchmark we're running a Monte Carlo simulation on a very large spreadsheet of stock pricing data.
Sony Vegas Pro 8: Blu-ray Disc Creation
Although technically a test simulating the creation of a Blu-ray disc, the majority of the time in our Sony Vegas Pro benchmark is spend encoding the 25Mbps MPEG-2 video stream and not actually creating the Blu-ray disc itself.
Again the Core i7 860 pulls slightly ahead of the 920 and falls short of the 870, right where we'd expect it to land.
Sorenson Squeeze: FLV Creation
Another video related benchmark, we're using Sorenson Squeeze to convert regular videos into Flash videos for use on websites.
The 860 and the 920 keep trading positions, but as you'd expect given the similar price points - the two perform about the same.
WinRAR - Archive Creation
Our WinRAR test simply takes 300MB of files and compresses them into a single RAR archive using the application's default settings. We're not doing anything exotic here, just looking at the impact of CPU performance on creating an archive:
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
iwodo - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link
Well, it will defiantly sell well in terms of OEM market. Since they will sell the same amount of PC, and Intel will be pushing Lynfield into their throat anyway.I wont even called that Sales, it is more like tax on those OEM makers.
I think it wont sell well in terms of Retail market.
IntelUser2000 - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Ivy Bridge is a shrink of Sandy Bridge to 22nm. It's Haswell that will have FMA.iwodo - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link
Yes. It is Ivy Beidge ( the shrink of Sandy Bridge ) for FMA.It was supposed to be for Sandy Bridge, but some changes delay it to Ivy Bridge. So unless they have postponed it AGAIN. it should be out with Ivy Bridge.
bigboxes - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
I know the basic archetecture of Lynnfield is superior to Bloomfield, but you are not using 6gb of tri-channel memory for the i920. That is where the i920 really shines. Is there a reason that you are not testing with 6gb of ram with the 920 other than apples to apples testing that needs to be done? Just curious.the zorro - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
lynnfield has another gigantic bottleneck which is the dmi bus speed of only 2GBps, phenom 2 hypertransport speed is 41.6 GB/s which means that is 20 times faster than lynnfield when communicating with the chipset,that shows why phenom 2 is better than lynnfield. this is going to be a real problem in the next future.silverblue - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Actually, as HT 3.0 is limited to 16-bit width on AMD desktop boards, it's half that.DigitalFreak - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
Next future? As opposed to the current future? I must thank you for all the laughs I get from reading your posts.TA152H - Saturday, September 19, 2009 - link
No offense, but you're clearly an idiot.You realize that in EVERY benchmark, the i7 860 was running at higher clock speeds than the i7 920. Sometimes by a lot, with turbo mode. Also, Anand uses inferior memory for the i7 920, to try to 'prove' the validity of the brain-damaged P55 platform.
Despite his bad attempt, the i7 920 STILL outperformed it. If you clock them at the same rate, with the same uncore, it's only ugly for the Lynnfield.
It's not superior. Well, in performance. It's got nice power characteristics, and it's cheaper to implement. But, your remark is purely idiotic.
Where do you get stuff like this from?
Etern205 - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link
Lynnfields are categorizes as mainstream, therefore no matter how advanced their architecture is compared to Bloomfield, it won't out perform it. Intel purposely did this and you should know this by now, but I guess you don't care as your too busy sucking your own c0ck."Your the kind of man that can be use as a blueprint to build a idiot".
bigboxes - Sunday, September 20, 2009 - link
Sorry. I didn't mean to say anything that would warrant an "idiot" label. I have just been reading from Anand that the Lynnfield core is better than the Bloomfield. In all his testing he never uses 6gb of ram in his tests. I understand that he wants to measure the cpus on a level playing field, but when you put 6gb of pc1600 ram on an i920 those scores increase considerably. From what I understand that is something that the Lynnfield cannot achieve. Was just wondering if Anand could throw that (i920 w/6gb) into his charts. It seems that almost all Bloomfield owners are gonna be running 6gb (3x 2gb) and not 4gb. The i920 uses that extra bandwidth and it truly performs better when so equipped. I hope that makes more sense.