• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Penryn?

S

shivang222

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
302
Hey guys,

I understand that in Q3 of this year, Intel planes to release their 45nm processors (Penryn). I also understand that these will be only dual core, and the quad-core 45nm processor will release later.

So when the dual-core Penryn is released, which processor do you think will be more powerful: best dual-core Penryn available OR QX6800?

I understand this would be just speculating, but as I play to build around August of this year, I was wondering what the more powerful processor would be.
 
There should be a FAQ on how you can't compare singlecores with dualcores, or dualcores with quadcores etc.
The short answer is: It depends.
 
It depends on what programs you run with the processor. The vast, vast majority of games don't utilize more than two cores (in fact, most of them only use one.) Right now, I think the only games that are four-core enabled are Supreme Commander, and perhaps Flight Simulator X (with SP1.)

I believe a Peryn dual core at X speed has been speculated to be about 20-30% faster than a Conroe (dual core) at X speed, due to architecture enhancements. If you are running programs that take advantage of four cores, say video editors or 3D modeling programs, then you can expect the Kentsfield (quad core) to be faster with those programs, since a Kentsfield Quad (Q6600, QX6700) can provide up to a 80% performance increase over a Conroe at the same speed. However, that 80% performance increase is null if the program can't use four cores.

Lastly, many expect Intel's quad core platform to mature with Peryn Quads (Yorkfield.) Plus, there should be more software available that can utilize four cores by the time Peryn Quads come out. If I was thinking about getting a Peryn, I'd wait for the quads.

Mark.
 
gesher_01.jpg
 
Intel has this policy that they never do a dieshrink and a new architecture at the same time, because it's very hard to get both working. The risk is too large.
So Penryn is pretty much the 'die-shrink'-Conroe, and Nehalem is what could be called 'Core3'.
Nevertheless, Intel generally puts in some new goodies when they do a dieshrink, so you get more cache, SSE4, and some other tweaks for even better performance. And ofcourse higher clockspeeds and lower power consumption.
 
If you have a need for quad core then a ~$270 q6600 will be a great cpu for the price. If not then go for whichever dual core fits your budget. The e6750 for ~$185 looks like it'll be the cpu of choice for enthusiasts.
 
So during the show AMD demoed Barkie. In fact they demoed a 4 socket system that totalled 16 cores. Not impressed, Intel demoed a V8 that consists of a two Socket system with Dual Quade Cores to total 8 cores.

http://www.uberpulse.com/us/2007/05...problem_you_better_fix_it_before_you_ship.php

At the Microprocessor Forum, Intel demoed its V8 workstation running the POV-Ray benchmark. The machine is equipped with Intel's Workstation Board S5000XVN, 2 quad-core Xeons 5365, clocked at 3GHz and 16GB RAM. And the results are simply impressive: Intel scored over 4,900 pixels per seconds versus a little bit over 4,000 for AMD's 4 sockets quad-core (Barcelona) system. Again, this is an AMD 16 cores system versus Intel's 8 cores V8 machine.

If you take 16 cores at 1.8Ghz, divided by 2 and add 60% to get to 3.0Ghz, it gives POV-Ray score of 3600 for 8 cores. Meaning that at 3.0GHz, Barcelona still lose by quite some compare to an 8 cores Clowertown system.

"Why do you need 16 cores, when you can do better with 8. Our 8 core system is 30% faster than the 16 core machine AMD showed to the press yesterday. I just don't understand how they can claim to be 40% faster", said Francois Piednoel, an Intel engineer present at the show.

Well, now AMD has some explanation to do and sooner rather than later. Because if they can't figure out what happened with those POV-Ray results they showed us, that's the end of it. At the show, Intel also demoed a system with a 45nm Penryn quad-core processor (shipping by year end, about the same time than Barcelona!) that is 40% faster than the top of the line quad-core generation, the Core 2 Extreme processor QX6800. Wow!
Click to expand...

If this is old news, please skip this:)?
 
If Penryn comes out this year, then I'm guessing I'll be doing my upgrade later this year. :)
 
i would seriously doubt that penryn will perform 20-30% better than a conroe at the same speed, like 1 of the above posters typed. thats a huge bump. it will pick uip some efficiency, and run cooler, and maybe (only maybe) run 5 or 10% better at the same speed. as far as overclocking as well as conroe, who knows?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top