Nehalem vs Penryn Graphics Performance

Will upgrading to a new cpu squeeze a little more out of your card?

With a new CPU, there comes the question of "do I actually need to upgrade to this?" So, whacking an ASUS 4870X2 TOP card into each of our test benches, we set about finding this out. Specs as follows:

rig1
QX9650, at 3.2GHz (356 x 9) and 3.8GHz (346 x 11)
MSI X48 Platinum
Patriot DDR3 @ 1066, 5-5-5-15

rig2
i965, at 3.2GHz (133 x 24) and 3.8GHz (158 x 24)
Intel X58 Reference board
Patriot DDR3 @ 1333, 6-6-6-18

Results
We fired up 3DMark Vantage for testing, and whiled away the morning benching. Results, as you'll find out in a very short moment, are not all that flattering in terms of raw gaming performance.

Using our 45nm C2D 'Yorkfield' QX9650 at 3.2GHz, we saw a GPU score of 14,157. With Nehalem at the same speed, we recorded 15,107, almost a thousand point increase. With both chips at 3.8GHz, we didn't see much of a performance difference at all in terms of GPU, though CPU scores were much improved. If CPU performance is what you're after Nehalem is a whole world of good.





It doesn't mean we don't love Nehalem, though. Like a fat kid loves cake.

While we didn't get a chance to do Crossfire testing (a certain online editor killed our other 4870X2 :P), the bottleneck with a single card and fast CPU isn't particularly noticeable, and certainly not if you're overclocking.

If you're a gamer, there's no point waiting for Nehalem if you run a single-card rig, and don't do any other CPU-intensive task.

For our full Nehalem review and tech breakdown, follow the link.