backtop


Print 36 comment(s) - last by The Sword 88.. on Apr 19 at 9:30 PM

Intel benchmarks its dual and quad-core "Penryn" processors

Intel is set to introduce its Penryn-family later this year beginning with its Xeon processor family. Penryn is a die shrink of the current Conroe-family to 45nm. Intel previously confirmed Penryn taped out in January and fully capable of booting Windows Vista, XP, Linux and Mac OS X operating systems.

In addition to the shrunken fabrication process, Penryn features new SSE instructions and more L2 cache. New to Penryn are SSE4 instructions for more efficient executions of SSE, SSE2 and SSE3 instructions and new enhancements for image, video processing and vectorization.

Intel plans to upgrade the cache on dual and quad-core Penryn-family products. Dual-core Yorkfield processors gain an additional 2MB of L2 cache for a total of 6MB. Quad-core Yorkfield processors, which are essentially two Wolfdales sandwiched together, feature 12MB of L2 cache. Intel’s current Kentsfield quad-core processor only has 8MB of L2 cache.

Intel has designed its Penryn-family to operate in speeds excess of 3.0 GHz. The current dual and quad-core samples demonstrated at Spring IDF in Beijing, China operate at 3.33 GHz. These early Penryn samples also operate on a 1333 MHz front-side bus.

The early Penryn dual and quad-core processors are operational as well. Intel has benchmarked its dual and quad-core in various applications and games to salivate the public. The Intel test system consists of its D975XBX2 BadAxe 2 motherboard with 2 GB of memory in dual-channel and a GeForce 8800 GTX running Microsoft’s Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit. Intel installs a pre-production dual-core and quad-core Penryn processors clocked at 3.33 GHz with 1333 MHz front-side buses in its test system. Intel also benchmarks a Core 2 Extreme QX6800 for reference.

Applications
Model
Dual-core
Penryn
Quad-core
Penryn
C2E
QX6800
Mainconcept H.264 Encoder
(seconds, lower is better)
119
73
89
DivX 6.6 Alpha with VirtualDub 1.7.1
(seconds, lower is better)
22
18 38
Cinebench R9.5 (CPU benchmark)
(higher is better)
1134
1935
1549
Cinebench R10 beta (CPU benchmark)
(higher is better)
7045   13068  10416

Video encoding shows an 18 percent improvement with the new Penryn-family when it comes to H.264 encoding. DivX encoding shows a 52 percent improvement with the quad-core Penryn over the previous Core 2 Extreme QX6800. The dual-core Penryn processor is able to beat out the quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6800 by 42 percent when it comes to DivX encoding. Cinebench R9.5 and R10 beta reveals performance increases of 25 percent when comparing the quad-core Penryn and Core 2 Extreme QX6800 processors.

3D Applications
Model
Dual-core
Penryn
Quad-core
Penryn
C2E
QX6800
3DMark06 v1.1.0 Pro - CPU
(higher is better)
3061
4957
4070
3DMark06 v1.1.0 Pro - Overall
(higher is better)
11015
11963
11123
Half Life 2: Lost Coast
(frames per second, higher is better)
210
210
153

Half Life 2: Lost Coast shows gains of 37 percent between the Penryn and Core 2 Extreme QX6800. The dual-core Penryn has no troubles keeping up with its quad-core counterpart. Synthetic 3D benchmarks such as 3DMark06’s CPU benchmark shows 22 percent gains with Penryn.

Expect Intel to release Penryn later this year beginning with its Xeon products, desktop Core 2 products should follow shortly.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 3.3GHz vs 2.9GHz
By Oregonian2 on 4/18/2007 1:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
Benchmarks at different clock speeds is fine. Would make no sense whatsoever, for instance, to only compare Conroe and Pentium IV parts that are rated the same clock speed. Just as one didn't compare AMD vs Pentium chips based on the same clock speed.

More important is to compare at the same price-point. Harder to do prior to release, but really what is important, I think.

An alternative good comparison might be at the same power-point (if one can somehow equate the different ways that is spec'd).

A third point might be 'the fastest available' to see where the top end is.

But clock-for-clock throughput is mostly interesting only for the designers of the chips I think, those talking about pipeline strategy tradeoffs and the like (closest I get to that nowadays would be in FPGA designs).


RE: 3.3GHz vs 2.9GHz
By caqde on 4/18/2007 3:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
The idea behind the same clock speeds is to find out what the architectural changes actually do. Otherwise you can't really tell which architecture is better. Each type of benchmark has it's own merits the one your talking about is good for released products. But in this case it would have been nice if Intel put a 2.93Ghz Penryn in the mix for comparison.


RE: 3.3GHz vs 2.9GHz
By Ringold on 4/18/2007 8:58:21 PM , Rating: 2
I also appreciate clock-for-clock comparisons because, for an overclocker, it provides a rough mental guide for expected performance gains when looking at all kinds of different processors one can buy at various price points and how people have managed to OC them. When people report OC's and get it added to OC databases they don't typically run a full suite of benchmarks for everyones benefit, so having clock-for-clock comparison information in the back of ones mind can just be of some use.

Of course, it's no replacement for any other benchmark, and I agree the best general comparison is chip at a price point rather than at a clock speed. Clock-for-clock is a compliment.


RE: 3.3GHz vs 2.9GHz
By The Sword 88 on 4/19/2007 9:30:45 PM , Rating: 2
I thought it was die shrink not an architectural change


RE: 3.3GHz vs 2.9GHz
By spartan014 on 4/18/2007 11:42:25 PM , Rating: 2
To know the exact performance benefit, they should have taken a Conroe overclocked to 3.33GHz and 1333 MHz FSB for comparison. Then we could see what improvement does the 45nm die shrink and additional 2 MB cache brings...


RE: 3.3GHz vs 2.9GHz
By SmokeRngs on 4/19/2007 3:12:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it would be better to keep the Conroe at 1066 FSB. That's what it is at stock and it should stay that way for the comparisons. You can also add in Conroe at 1333 bus for an extra comparison but I would like to see the differences at stock FSB but equal clock speeds. The Conroe at 1333 FSB would be to determine the differences the increased FSB makes.

Then again, my Conroe is running 1600FSB already so it doesn't matter to me. Too bad I can't do comparisons. I only have an E6400 and with the stock cooling can't get it stable over 3.2.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki