That surprises me, meaning that I know nothing about i7 improvements, AFAIK i7 2600K nominal is 3400MHz with turbo 3800MHz, maybe your test was done at 3800MHz?

Just looked at:
http://ark.intel.com/

Sandy Bridge-E:
Processor Number: i7-3930K
# of Cores: 6
# of Threads: 12
Clock Speed: 3.2 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency: 3.8 GHz
Intel Smart Cache: 12 MB
Lithography: 32nm
# of Memory Channels: 4
Max Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s

Sandy Bridge-E:
Processor Number: i7-3820
# of Cores: 4
# of Threads: 8
Clock Speed: 3.6 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency: 3.8 GHz
Intel Smart Cache: 10 MB
Lithography: 32 nm
# of Memory Channels: 4
Max Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s

Gulftown:
Processor Number: i7-980X
# of Cores: 6
# of Threads: 12
Clock Speed: 3.33 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency: 3.6 GHz
Intel Smart Cache: 12 MB
Lithography: 32 nm
# of Memory Channels: 3
Max Memory Bandwidth: 25.6 GB/s

Sandy Bridge:
Processor Number: i7-2700K
# of Cores: 4
# of Threads: 8
Clock Speed: 3.5 GHz
Max Turbo Frequency: 3.9 GHz
Intel Smart Cache: 8 MB
Lithography: 32 nm
# of Memory Channels: 2
Max Memory Bandwidth: 21 GB/s

Looking on Max Memory Bandwidths (51.2 GB/s vs 25.6 GB/s) one cannot ask oneself how Intel doubled the performance by adding 4 channels vs 3 channels, meaning it should be 6 channels if dummy math is done.

Bandwidth doubled over X58 because of the limitations to the 1366 IMC.

Notice that sandybridge almost = x58 bandwidth despite only being dual channel memory

Thanks, I read from time-to-time articles about whole platforms but I must admit I have no experience except my old AMD Barton (the fastest 32bit CPU ever made I believe) and my nowadays Core 2 laptop, I have so much to learn: it is shocking to see how i7 boosts even the clean code (no RAM loads) loops as in Knight Tours benchmark.

Bartons were awesome.

Never had one, I ran T-Breds.. then moved on to A64, then back to p3 then back to a64.. then actually ran core2 arch for a little bit (hated it) back to AM2+ then AM3 and intel x58 setups. (skipped p55) Intel had a LONG period of time they sucked, but still rocked the benchmarks. Core2 arch was terrible compared to AMD, but superpied better so everyone drooled over it.

X58 was GREAT. And IMHO probably better than Sandybridge except in power consumption. X58 was snappy. Sandy bridge not so much. (Yes it benches betteR) going to fire up the x79 tomorrow... so we will see...

In car analogies. the AMD is the ricer quicker off the line but it aint a drag car.... The intel is the top speed car. (like the Bugatti Veyron needing a 13 mile track with a 5 mile arrow straight line to hit top speed.

Then again if what I see is true x79 should rock my world. sub 40ns mem latency might be the key.

>Then again if what I see is true x79 should rock my world. sub 40ns mem latency might be the key.
Double yes.
In my limited views the roadmap both for AMD and Intel (aside of making a fat CPU/GPU mix sharing one i.e. common memory!!!) is to continue this trend to lower drastically latencies - call me delusional but I think/dream of 10ns latency for main RAM whereas L1/L2/L3 are gonna be somewhat 1ns/2ns/3ns - bold huh. That is why I directed my intent towards the fine tuning of functions fetching in burst (i.e. sequential) mode small unaligned chunks - being the real BOOST of i5/i7 over all old architectures. For that reason I included a heavy Quicksort test sorting 7bytes chunks, to show how much better behaves i7 compared to inferiors, he-he.

And just a note about 'qpress' benchmark: when the resultant text file is loaded into notepad the text is not formatted because of LF endings (*nix format of ending lines i.e. LF), not as Windows users expect CRLF endings, to obtain Windows-like text file just load the file into Wordpad and save - that will do the conversion.

not into command line or programming anymore but I assume that

LF=Line feed and CRLF= carriage return line feed.

If so, seems odd to me that windows would need to add LF at all after CR....

Yes it is odd and retarded, NOTEPAD is to be blamed, not to be able to load properly text files from the LF world (*nix) in my opinion is on purpose - to show that DOS/Windows CRLF endings are to stay, kind of stupid pride.

In fact, qpress uses *nix format so CR should be prefixed to each LF in order the 'proud-in-its-stupidity' NOTEPAD to be able to catch up 21st century.
Anyway I plan in next revision C of MJ to convert the qpress.txt with a tiny C written tool before loading into NOTEPAD.

Also I plan to add 7th test: ZPAQ - being one of the most powerful compressors on INTERNET, on top of that it is free, open source, and not encumbered by patents.
Its author Dr. Matt Mahoney is a renown expert in compression craft.
ZPAQ is multi-theaded and stresses well both CPU and RAM, highly cache sensitive/dependent. All-in-all it shows the integer (i.e. non floating point) computational power of modern systems.

If anyone has the time and will to send me ZIPed resultant text files from sixth tests along with CPU/RAM info I will be thankful.
My desire is to make a comparative (a table or something similar) study and to place it here as well.
The analysis is based on result ratios across different systems, for example one of the fastest single-threaded Lempel-Ziv [de]compressors (here dealing with 197MB English text file):

T7500:
Yappy_Intel_32bit_O3.exe: comp 29.9 MB/s uncomp 512.5 MB/s
Yappy_Intel_32bit_Ox.exe: comp 33.1 MB/s uncomp 513.0 MB/s
Yappy_Microsoft_32bit_Ox.exe: comp 32.3 MB/s uncomp 527.1 MB/s

i7 2600K:
Yappy_Intel_32bit_O3.exe: comp 52.9 MB/s uncomp 1362.2 MB/s
Yappy_Intel_32bit_Ox.exe: comp 57.5 MB/s uncomp 1362.2 MB/s
Yappy_Microsoft_32bit_Ox.exe: comp 54.8 MB/s uncomp 1385.9 MB/s

Very interesting (it tells something important worth to be known) ratios change:
54.8:32.3 = 1.6 is highly different than 1385.9:527.1 = 2.6
or if you prefer
527.1:32.3 = 16.3 and 1385.9:54.8 = 25.2

In my view dummy math screams well here.

I am heading out right now... when i get home I will run it on my stock thuban, tonight hopefully I will be hooking up an x79 system, although I have to finish up a dual channel ram kit before I move to quad channel to start the x79 review.


I know, im slow...

EDIT: setting up download now since its going to take 6 minutes lol

BTW, might want to clean up your site a bit.. dont know if you have a page limit or something on your host but I had to do a word search for Monstrous_Jesters.exe to find the download link.


http://www.sanmayce.com/Downloads/Mo...revision_B.zip for anyone else looking for it.

Just got a copy here and I'll do some runs with my 960T and Win 7 to see how it does. :cool3: