Intel's New 45nm Yorkfield QX9650 @ [H]

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,664
Intel's New 45nm Yorkfield QX9650 - Intel marches forward with another groundbreaking processor. Four cores of 45nm goodness. At this rate, you have to wonder whether or not desktop software and AMD will ever catch up. How good does it overclock? All signs point to, “Wow!’


After seeing our Penryn run a full 1.32GHz beyond its stock rating, it makes you wonder just what exactly is going on. I have to guess that it is very likely that Intel could have launched at 3.6GHz or better if pushed. But the fact is that AMD is not pushing it right now and Intel has no reason to shoot for speeds any higher. Lack of competition can stagnate the market place.
Click to expand...


Please Digg to Share!
 
Performs great and makes prices go down, we all win! (except amd, hopefully they can rough it out)
 
It really sucks that AMD is a no show any more. I have been useing AMD sense I had a K6-2 500mhz (except for having a Celery 333 for a short while). They have always had great value and good performance, but lately they just can't keep up with Intel at any price.

I guess my main thought after reading the review is do we really need quad core? No, But do we want it, Hell yeah. I guess my next system is going to be a LGA775, might not be a quad core processor, I cant aford it right now, but at least I know I will be able to when the prices go down. If I were to upgrade to a AM2 I dont know where I will be able to go in the future, and that doesn't make me feel like I am getting my monies worth because I don't want to have to buy a new motherboard everytime I upgrade my CPU.
 
Diablo2K said:
It really sucks that AMD is a no show any more. I have been useing AMD sense I had a K6-2 500mhz (except for having a Celery 333 for a short while). They have always had great value and good performance, but lately they just can't keep up with Intel at any price.

I guess my main thought after reading the review is do we really need quad core? No, But do we want it, Hell yeah. I guess my next system is going to be a LGA775, might not be a quad core processor, I cant aford it right now, but at least I know I will be able to when the prices go down. If I were to upgrade to a AM2 I dont know where I will be able to go in the future, and that doesn't make me feel like I am getting my monies worth because I don't want to have to buy a new motherboard everytime I upgrade my CPU.
Click to expand...

Unless you're doing a bunch of video stuff quad core is a waste....but Wolfdale/Penryn dual cores will be on the way, and I bet those bastards will be cheap! :eek:
 
Kyle, don't forget the ePenis value. Video stuff or not, there's still those who need bragging rights.. :D

Or is that compensation? :eek:
 
Nice read, cant wait for the yorkfield now. Nice over clock but isn't that voltage(1.55) deadly for a 45nm?
 
pArTy said:
Nice read, cant wait for the yorkfield now. Nice over clock but isn't that voltage(1.55) deadly for a 45nm?
Click to expand...

I would not suggest it on air, but on water it did just fine. Of course if you want to argue the effects of electromigration over time, well, I will never keep it that long anyway. ;)
 
Very impressive ! Nice review,and great to see this,cant wait to get a Q9450 in Jan for some low voltage/lower temps then kentsfield oc action
 
Great review. But being the patient person I am I can't wait for the 32nm Nehalem with the on die DDR3 memory controller. I'll be looking forward to that review.
 
Typo Fixed, Thanks! - Kyle

Processor looks quality tho - if only I had enough wedge to line myself up with one :rolleyes:
 
nice work, very informative,


Any chance you could pop that cpu into a P965 (if you still have your gigabyte P965 -DQ6 laying around that woud be perfect) board with a bios that does not directly support 1333 buss CPUs but is know is do high FSB;s and see if you can get it to work ? Off hand I do not see why it would not, but as to myself, personally, having no need or desire to upgrade to P35 or X38 from a top of the line board barely a year old, it is of high interest if the cpu would work in an older board.

oops nevermind, no microcode update in the bios. This blows.
 
Well, guess it was not that exciting. I figured Penryn would spawn a bit more discussion....
 
LOL, AMD doesn't even bother any more. At first it was high-clocked K8s to answer Intel, then it was price cuts, then it was unlocked multipliers. Now they don't even waste the time. :p

Back on topic though, these look great, but I was expecting more than this. I think it will be a little while before I jump to 45nm. Maybe my next CPU will be a Q6600 once the prices come down even more thanks to the 45nm parts.
 
Nice OC and really surprising wattage info there. What were the temperatures @ full load for these chips?
 
What I would like to see are some real world UT3 demo benchmarks. I'm currently sporting an e6750 and the flyby benchmark gives me great fps (>80), but once actually playing with 12+ players, the framerate often dips down to 40s if not 30s when there are several players on the screen and projectiles are flying everywhere.

Of course no review website ever mentions this, and I would call these benchmarks, quite simply, a lie. Hardocp is the only site that bothers with real world imo, so I hope you guys investigate this.
 
Aix said:
What I would like to see are some real world UT3 demo benchmarks. I'm currently sporting an e6750 and the flyby benchmark gives me great fps (>80), but once actually playing with 12+ players, the framerate often dips down to 40s if not 30s when there are several players on the screen and projectiles are flying everywhere.

Of course no review website ever mentions this, and I would call these benchmarks, quite simply, a lie. Hardocp is the only site that bothers with real world imo, so I hope you guys investigate this.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is important to us too. But just not a whole lot right now. ;)

Game Benchmarks

We have decided to abandon our real world gaming benchmarks for this particular CPU review. Quite frankly, until AMD comes forth with a new desktop processor, we are not going to spend the great amount of time or resources it takes to put something of that magnitude together. Worth still looking at today is our look at Real-World Gaming CPU Comparison with 8800 GTX SLI. It showed that gaming is by far GPU limited before CPU limited.


Now we are still very interested in multithreaded gaming. However, finding those games is far and few between, but we have done our canned gaming benchmarks in low resolution and high resolution and put them on the same graph so we could see exactly how we can expect higher graphics resolutions to impact gameplay performance experience.
Click to expand...

The physics benchmark in Crysis really left me flat. I was simply expecting more. And I don't see UT3 AI eating up tons of CPU cycles.
 
Diablo2K said:
I guess my main thought after reading the review is do we really need quad core? No, But do we want it, Hell yeah.
Click to expand...

I can use it. Send it my way if you don't want it! ;)

I use my quad cores for important work-related tasks, and my boxen fold for Team 33: [H]ard OCP! They work 24/7.





 
Nicely done review Kyle. I have been looking around the web at various reviews of the QX9650 and have thus far enjoyed yours the most. I've been looking forward to the release of this cpu for some time now, and your review makes me that much more impatient to get one. November 12th can't come soon enough!
 
Great article. Any info/date on when the competition will be showing up (i.e. AMD) ?
 
AFAIK if you're encoding to WMV the app is just using the format sdk bits and the in-box encoder provided with Windows. If you want to see the TMPEGEnc perf differential then you need to encode to MEPG2 as that will exercise their encoder.
 
These new Penryn processors ought to be nice Folders, especially running the SMP client. But I can't justify the cost until they come down to the $300-ish price point...which will take a bit.

 
As I said in the genmay version of this thread, the issue at this point is less CPU overclocking ability, but the mainstream chips and the mobos that are going to need to hit 500Mhz FSB to hit 4.0 :eek:

Beyond that, this looks impressive but I think intel is missing the boat by waiting until after christmas to release the mainstream yorkfields. If I can find a cheap kentsfield I might just skip yorkfield completely and wait until bloomfield.
 
Why are your wattage so off compared to other sites?

Maybe it would make a difference if you loaded the systems with real apps.
 
Awsome! Thank you for the [H]ard work...as usual.

Once you finish the gaming article could you pop that sucker in the mail to me?

Thanks
 
anyone have the datasheet able to say what the max and abs max vcore/vtt are?
 
Perhaps programmers will incorporate processor compensation, due to the lack of horsepower in the current GPU's. I don't know any of the technicalities of it, but it sounded good when I thought of it.
 
harpoon said:
Do a 'real world Penryn gaming' article, that will sure get some decent discussion going if you know what I mean - LOL! :D
Click to expand...

Put Sup Com on it...

That thing chews up proc power and is multi thread. Get 500+ units (air on patrol, that always kills the game) and run it with 8 ppl. If that wont show the strength I don't know what will.
 
Kyle, it seems your review is the only one that shows Yorkfield to have almost no power benefit over Kentsfield under full load?

I've read about 5 other reviews and all have shown substantial power savings at full load compared to Kentsfield. Whats your take on this?
 
The QX6850 measurement appears to be off.

The data shows quad-core QX9650 draws as much power as dual-core X6800 which would agree with all the other reviews.

Yorkfield Extreme Edition runs cool, no-brainer there.

The bright spot here is Kyle's testing of Yorkfield at varying loads. "granulatrity" as he calls it(whoever coined such a silly term for fine power management?), is a nice feature of Penryn that could be inferred PCPerspective's review and perhaps others I might have overlooked but not directly explored as in the this review.
 
Hi Kyle,

According toTomshardware:

Together with the review sample, we received Intel's new official specifications - all 96 pages of them. Under the entry Boxed Cooler, we found not only the familiar model but also a completely new design.
Click to expand...

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/10/29/intel_penryn_4ghz_with_air_cooling/page18.html

The new boxed cooler looks nice. Did you guys also get the documents? and if so, does it say which processors will come with it? Would be nice to get that cooler packaged with all quads.

Thanks!
 
jhtrico1850 said:
Why are your wattage so off compared to other sites?

Maybe it would make a difference if you loaded the systems with real apps.
Click to expand...

Well, if I followed their methodology/reasoning correctly...

The whole point of Kyle (and crew) measuring the way they did is so that you get an
*actual* indication (unskewed -at least as much as possible) of what the 'base system'
(eg: cpu/mobo/ram) consumes -not the peripherals.

Also, the power was measured (as referenced several times) at the secondary of the
PSU. Not on the primary (meaning where it plugs into the wall). So that should account
for some differences between reviews.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what I gleened from the article... =)

---------------------------

"Also, all cooling system fans and devices were loaded to an outside PSU.
The wattage quoted here is NOT at the wall, but the actual system wattage. "

"(Again, this is wattage being pulled from the PSU, not wattage measured at the wall before the PSU.)"
 
First off, thank you for providing 1600 x 1200 and 640 x 480 benchmarks. Now that's the way to write reviews!

Second, wow! 4.33Ghz is quite an overclock. Now we can have 4Ghz+ clockspeeds and an better IPC than AMD.

Third, let's hope AMD gets back into the game. I don't want them to take the performance crown again (as that ruins everyone's upgrade path), but I hope they start to provide some sort of competition to keep technology rolling.

Fourth, we need to see some software development to utilize all of this new performance!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top