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.

Mainconcept H.264 Encoder
(seconds, lower is better)
DivX 6.6 Alpha with VirtualDub 1.7.1
(seconds, lower is better)
18 38
Cinebench R9.5 (CPU benchmark)
(higher is better)
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
3DMark06 v1.1.0 Pro - CPU
(higher is better)
3DMark06 v1.1.0 Pro - Overall
(higher is better)
Half Life 2: Lost Coast
(frames per second, higher is better)

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

By Setsunayaki on 4/19/2007 12:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
This really doesn't matter much for the following reasons

1) I am currently running an overclocked e6300 that has reached 3.5ghz on air cooling. I keep it at 2.4ghz on a multiplier of 6 because it can run on 1.068v and that is important for heat. Secondly. Once I optimized windows, I scored higher in CPUMark2 than the X6800. This means I can run a graphic card to its potential power at 400 x 6. My PC is overclocked and its stable and made with parts to be a silent PC to the point I got scared thinking the PC was broken when I turned it on because I didn't hear a wind tunnel powering up like I was used to hearing. Sure, I can run on 2.8ghz, 3.0ghz and 3.5ghz....but that doesn't really do much for me unless a processor requires such speed in order to unlock the maximum power of a graphic card.

I already have 400 - 500mhz FSB....why do I need 333mhz BUS? If my processor fries....then I will buy a 6320 that has 2MB extra Cache to match the higher end processors and I can get 2 - 5% performance in gaming due to the cache. I could also buy a Quad core...or even a Penryn...

2) Most motherboards in existence that allow for 1333mhz FSB force you to overclock to reach that speed. This means a real motherboard being released that is 1333mhz stock will cost more. The processor will cost more as well since the Conroes are floating around as well. Finally....In order for true 1 : 1 synchronization to be reached, we need 1333mhz DDR-2 meaning the latencies would be shot.

3) This benchmark is flawed because of the different BUS speeds. If they truly wanted to make a REAL BENCHMARK. They could have launched the Penryn at 266 x 10 for 2.66ghz and take the X6800, Drop its multiplier by 1, for 266 x 10. Then they could have benchmarked both processors and we could have seen a real difference.

This is a test of Process type....65nm vs 45nm. What we may see is lower heat as long as the Voltages can be reduced. If you have a 45nm process, and the voltage can not be reduced, its not much for heat reduction.I guarantee you however that we won't see higher performance, that in fact performance will be the same under the SAME BUS. I do however bet the the voltage can be lower and that it has less heat and uses less power.

Why do I need a FSB of 333mhz as tested above...if I already can reach 400mhz (1600mhz) along with 500mhz (2ghz)?

Right now it costs $400 to get performance higher than stock penryn and x6800 conroe speeds. That is how much I paid for my MBDs, RAM and Processor....then 150 more for cooling and case + power supply. 100 for the HDD and Optical drive...I already owned the graphic card (X850XT PE....which I can overclock it from 540/590 to 625/625) and gives me max framerate in Command and Conquer 3 and I can really play in Quake 4. Only drawback is it doesnt have HDR for Oblivion....

Think about what I have said....We are all waiting for "performance" when in truth performance beyond what we are waiting for is already out there at a price that is cheaper and not 1st generation technology. ^_^ We just have to risk it and overclock and if we succeed, we don't have to wait. ^_^

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

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki