<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1250"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>PC Zenith v4 &#187; 3dmark vantage</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pczenith.com/blog/tag/3dmark-vantage/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pczenith.com/blog</link>
	<description>Hardware and software under the scope!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:29:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Review [ENG]: Core i7 SLI gaming performance</title>
		<link>http://pczenith.com/blog/2008/11/16/review-eng-core-i7-sli-gaming-performance/</link>
		<comments>http://pczenith.com/blog/2008/11/16/review-eng-core-i7-sli-gaming-performance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:51:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Darco</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CPUs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hardware reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3dmark vantage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[core i7]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gaming performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ghz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ocaholic.ch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[vantage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pczenith.com/blog/?p=754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Except one game Intels Core i7 &#8211; 965 3.2 GHz was able to convince us in every single benchmark or game. Through the whole span the performance was higher. But as we expected Nehalem couldn&#8217;t show it&#8217;s real potential and therefore we all need to stay patient for some time until the majority of the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://pczenith.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/nehalem-back2.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-755" title="nehalem-back2" src="http://pczenith.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/nehalem-back2-300x177.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="177" /></a></p>
<p>Except one game<strong> Intels Core i7 &#8211; 965 3.2 GH</strong>z was able to convince us in every single benchmark or game. Through the whole span the performance was higher. But as we expected Nehalem couldn&#8217;t show it&#8217;s real potential and therefore we all need to stay patient for some time until the majority of the game- and software insdustry puts software on the market that can take advantage of eight or more threads. With the synthetic benchmark 3DMarkVantage you can see what Nehalem is able to because in this case Futuremark spreads the load to every single of Nehalems eight threads. This explains the huge performance gap between Core i7 &#8211; 965 and Core 2 Q9650. Read all @ <a href="http://www.ocaholic.ch/xoops/html/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=218&amp;sel_lang=english">Ocaholic.ch</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pczenith.com/blog/2008/11/16/review-eng-core-i7-sli-gaming-performance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
