POST A COMMENT

55 Comments

Back to Article

  • Reynod - Saturday, September 01, 2007 - link

    Another great article Anand.

    Informative and helpful.

    I really hope your doing something similar with the new AMD cpu and will wait and see what you write.

    Like many people thinking of upgrading I await what AMD will offer after the 10th of Septenber ... but its clear Intel have a range of strong offerings at present.

    All we need now is to see what CPU design Nvidia are cooking up ... heh heh.

    We might end up with 3 competing complete platform (cpu, chipset, graphics) providers ... ??

    Maybe that's why Intel is trying so hard to crush AMD at the moment ... wars on two fronts are much more difficult than one !!
    Reply
  • Lord Evermore - Sunday, August 26, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Under load however (running our WME9 test) the total system power consumption gap increases to 12.6W


    189.1 - 170.3

    I don't see a 12.6W power difference in that chart. I see 18.8W. 12.6 isn't even the amount it changed from the idle draw.

    At least you got the percentage calculations correct for a decrease (difference/Conroe instead of difference/Penryn).
    Reply
  • Lord Evermore - Sunday, August 26, 2007 - link

    For that matter, I just noticed the percentage was measured using the correct 18.8W measurement. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, August 25, 2007 - link

    Great review! This is valuable information, to know how Intel's next-year CPUs will perform. Reply
  • Carfax - Saturday, August 25, 2007 - link

    Does anyone know what resolution the game benches were run at?

    These benchmarks vary considerably compared to the HKepc ones, which could be explained if Anandtech ran the benches at a higher resolution compared to HKepc.
    Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, August 25, 2007 - link

    You're missing the whole point. The two sites aren't necessarily using the same graphics card, other hardware, exact test conditions, same driver, etc. If you want to see framerates, read a regular review on a game or graphics card. Anandtech's benchmark set the resolution very low so that it would be CPU-limited. Reply
  • ShowsOn - Friday, August 24, 2007 - link

    I'm wondering if the x264 video encoder could become a new benchmark?

    There is already a set of benchmark files http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=122318">herethat provide a consistent encoding task.

    Numerous people in the doom9 forums have already run the benchmark, http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8092/couper12nx...">which has produced the following chart.

    It would be fascinating to see how much faster - clock for clock - the penryn cores are on this particular task.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    I must have missed it by could you tell me what resolutions you used in the gaming tests? Reply
  • DLeRium - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    I'm sorry but anytime you introduce a new CPU we all expect IN DEPTH articles. No, we don't want a quickie that just touches a few things and a few benchmarks so you can shoot this out the door and say "Hey! I got the first article out!"

    Sure it may be a preview because the chips aren't officially out yet and these are merely engineering samples.

    The biggest complaint was OCing. If you're not going to even do a little minor OC with different voltages, then what the hell is the point of putting a tease up there.

    Anyways.. seriously. I expect more detailed articles than this if you're going to review some piece of hot technology...
    Reply
  • DarthAgitated - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    My god man.. Did you pay for this article.. Did someone give you a choice to read this article or spend 15 minutes with a model and you chose the article?

    It's a preview. Of a cpu that's not coming for another couple of months. From a company that usually makes people sign NDA's up the ying yang so you can't report on anything.

    Damn them for managing to get a cpu in advance and telling us something about it. And in case you don't know, intel can tell when a cpu is overvolted. But I suppose they should have possibly fried it or hand it back to their mole and let him try and explain to Intel why their cpu was overvolted or fried. Maybe you can tell the people at anandtech how far they can overvolt a new 45nm cpu..

    Knowing what a cpu can be overclocked to on standard voltages is kind of a good thing to know. Knowing something about performance is probably a good thing to know. Any info is good info.

    Unless it's a press release. Then it's usually useless.

    Thanks for being a downer.

    me
    Reply
  • DLeRium - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    My God. Then maybe they should think about reviews when dealing with NDAs. Just because I didnt have to pay for this article doesn't mean people can't complain.

    Remember those Conroe reviews done by HardOCP or something that were just GPU limited? Of course people have a right to complain about crappy reviews.
    Reply
  • Beenthere - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    Nothing here but ad hype for sure. Intel looks desperate. Reply
  • AnnonymousCoward - Saturday, August 25, 2007 - link

    Since when does a process node transition mean the company is desperate?? Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    Why would Intel be despirate? you think 2GHz Barcelona (which isn't the desktop chip) scares them? Reply
  • coldpower27 - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link


    Assuming that a E6550 consumes 8-10W at idle and 55W at load which shouldn't be too far off from the proper numbers and is a reasonable estimate.

    Then your looking at 3-5W for idle and something like 37W for load, very impressive considering the Wolfdale SKU's on the desktop are going to retain their 65W TDP.
    Reply
  • n0nsense - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    wtf ?
    32bit system performance tests on 64bit hardware ?
    lets test it on PII.
    if you can't find native 64bit soft for MS, look at real OSes.
    need new optimizations ? compile open source programs with new flags enabled.
    and one more thing.
    compilation test will be very good
    Reply
  • johnsonx - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    Ever since this:

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8313&...">http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?n...amp;thre...

    I can't help but laugh when I see the first chart on page one.
    Reply
  • strikeback03 - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    bwahaha

    Penryn enhancements indeed
    Reply
  • TA152H - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    I somehow remember having an argument with all the dolts that were claiming massive IPC improvements for this core and how hopeless the Barcelona was since it would be against the Penryn. It surely does not look to be impossible to me, not even close. Considering the massive improvements AMD gets over time with their process technology, and large improvements vis-a-vis the K8, this looks to be the most competitive the companies have been for quite some time.

    Not that I am bad mouthing Intel, they did an amazing job not only increasing the size of the cache, but also lowering the latency. The problem is that so many people were expecting the impossible, and now are disappointed because they really don't know anything about microprocessors. It's not Intel's fault, it's still a great product. Lower power, better performance and smaller size compared to a fantastic processor is something they deserve a lot of credit for. But, it's not going to walk away from the Barcelona, especially on servers.

    Higher clock speeds would probably show greater improvement, since it's got a larger cache, and going to four cores would as well, but the reality is, it's not going to be a big improvement on most apps. It's also going to be relatively simple for AMD to increase cache sizes, particularly since they added wait states to the L2 cache so it could be bigger if they chose (again illustrating how amazing Intel was for increasing size and speed).

    By the time this processor is out though, AMD will not only have corrected the most egregious speed path problems for Barcelona, but they will also be further along on their 65nm process, and if history is any indication (and it normally is), AMD will do a great job in improving their manufacturing on 65nm. All in all, it's not going to be easy for Intel. Or AMD.
    Reply
  • AbRASiON - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    I believe those idiots were hopeful of extremely high clocks actually.

    It doesn't matter how performance is delivered, 10mhz of ultra optimised CPU or 10ghz of poorly optomised, all we want is speed and AMD is yet to show us the money.
    Reply
  • zsdersw - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    The idiots who predicted a "huge improvement" existed only in your mind, I suspect.. or were never a group of any nominal size to begin with. Reply
  • sprockkets - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    Not really. Search even this site and find stories like "30% improvement over Conroe." They painted Penryn as if it was such a major advance in technology that it would obliterate anything or anyone period had on the planet. Reply
  • sprockkets - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    Yeah, here:
    http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Unveils+Penryn+Perf...">Daily Tech Penryn "Benchmarks"

    Funny How Intel benchmarked the processors and got "amazing" benefits over the previous generation. Of course they didn't do a clock for clock comparision.
    Reply
  • coldpower27 - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    Most people were claiming was 5-10% improvement per clock over Conroe, and that is what the data from Anandtech and HKEPC shows, if your talking overall improvements that is trickier as it would depend on what the clockspeed as well, so up to 30%, is not impossible given the right circumstances and depending on what Yorkfield XE tops out at.

    Performance is not derived from just a clock per clock comparison, you also have to take into account overall clockspeed increases, cache, FSB. Don't expect any corporation to put their processors in any sort of unflattering light, it is in their best interest to make themselves look good, not bad.

    Reply
  • zsdersw - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    Nowhere in the comments of that story did anyone make any wild performance claims. Reply
  • sprockkets - Friday, August 24, 2007 - link

    quote:

    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.


    No, I don't see any inflation here at all.

    And if AMD can make a processor run at 3ghz on 90nm, uh, yeah, kinda expect a processor 2 generations down the process line to be able to reach 3.3ghz without issues.
    Reply
  • zsdersw - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    Again, not a group of people big enough to be significant. Reply
  • dualathlon - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Would you please include some wu benchmarks from FAH ?
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • Rebel44 - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    I would also like to see some F@H benchmarks. Reply
  • conquerist - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    1) What HSF was used for the OC? The stock HSF or the Thermalright Ultra 120 Extreme?
    2) As mentioned before, how does it OC at a higher Vcore?
    3) Could you use x264 for the multimedia tests? I suggest this because x264 is open source, and so you can use Intel Compiler 10 or GCC 4.3 with the msse4.1 switch to compile it in SSE4.1! It would be interesting to see how Conrow vs. Penryn SSE3 vs. Penryn SSE4 compare. You can grab a daily tarball of the source at ftp://ftp.videolan.org/pub/videolan/x264/snapshots...">ftp://ftp.videolan.org/pub/videolan/x264/snapshots....
    Reply
  • Sunrise089 - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    agree w/ 1+2 Reply
  • vailr - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    How long will the socket 775 (for desktop machines) be around?
    Has Intel given a timeline forecast for replacing 775 with some other CPU socket? Any idea whether current P35 boards will support the 32 nm. Gesher CPU (assuming those will still be socket 775 form factor)?
    Reply
  • zsdersw - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Socket 775 will likely disappear with the introduction of Nehalem, so no.. P35 boards will almost certainly *not* support Gesher. Reply
  • RamarC - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    it's too bad that an upgrade now probably won't be able to handle anything beyond penryn. still a 3ghz quad core for $300 is fantastic considering that i've got 3.4ghz dual core space heater now. Reply
  • zsdersw - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Well, I mean, seriously.. socket 775 has been around for a long time. The same people who complain about having to buy a different motherboard are probably the same people who would complain that they aren't getting any new features if motherboards didn't have to be changed as often. It makes no sense, but then again, that's never stopped anyone from complaining.. to be sure.

    I'm not saying you're one of those people, though.
    Reply
  • vailr - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Also, the TigerDirect.com price you have listed of $569.99 for the "Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor" is off.
    It's at $289.99 here:
    http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtool...">http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications...chtools/...
    Reply
  • kleinwl - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Why did you not post the benches for the OC of 3.22? or better yet, jack up the voltage to get a 3.33 and benchmark that? Then we could figure what the EXTREME EDITION cpu is going to do. Reply
  • Roy2001 - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    I guess Intel does not allow him to do that. Reply
  • retrospooty - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    Thats a good point. To release benchies at this time must have intel's OK to do so. I am sure if they let him, he would have published. And here we are all complaining LOL . Reply
  • gigahertz20 - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    What a tease, Anand didn't even raise the CPU core voltage. I figured you would change the CPU core voltage to see how far you could overclock this beast, right after you found 3.22GHz was your max overclock at stock voltage. I want to know how far you can push this. No soup for you! Reply
  • OddTSi - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Exactly. As I was scrolling down that overclocking page I actually expected them to show what they did (how high it goes without a voltage bump) and then to cap it off at the very bottom with a "oh, here's the absolute highest we could get it to" screen shot.

    Go back in the lab Anand, stick the biggest HSF you've got on there and crank it up until it can't go up anymore and tell us what you got it to. ;)
    Reply
  • gigahertz20 - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Anand has been slacking, first in the Q6600 GO article he forgets to mention what HSF he used and now he forgets or didn't want to raise the stock core voltage to see what the maximum overclock is? Bahhhhhh, I nominate all articles to either be written by Wesley Fink, Gark Key, Jarred Walton, or Derek Wilson. Reply
  • NullSubroutine - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    I would like to see such benchmarks as well, if you have the time constraints to do so.

    It would be interesting to compare 3.33 C vs 3.33 P to see what kind of scaling difference there is between the two. And just overall max clock with volt increase you could get with revision A0 (with benchmarks) it would be a good performance preview for a ways down the road.
    Reply
  • retrospooty - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    "It would be interesting to compare 3.33 C vs 3.33 P to see what kind of scaling difference there is between the two. And just overall max clock with volt increase you could get with revision A0 (with benchmarks) it would be a good performance preview for a ways down the road"

    I second that. Hopefully the next review has what we all came to see = )

    Seriously though. since the cache has improvements, and is also larger, we may well see it scale better. In other words its an avg of 5% faster at a meager 2.33 ghz, but what about 3.5, or higher which I am sure could be achieved by raising voltage. It may be quite a bit more.
    Reply
  • Hippiekiller - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Im almost glad (almost) to see that the performance difference isnt that great. It would be interesting to see each company have similar performing parts.

    My question is would similar performance lead to an even more aggressive price war then the one we have seen recently? Or, would each company just stop at a relatively higher price then we currently see, not willing to slash unless it has to in order to counter the others move.
    Reply
  • Spoelie - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    You're not taking into consideration the higher clock speeds penryn will undoubtly have, which moves the performance delta up a bit more than the 5% at the, most likely, equal pricepoints of conroe chips. Reply
  • FujiT - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    ok, Penryn is a die shrink with some tweaks. The average boost is 5% and that's not including the boost from SSE4 which pretty much results in a 100% boost in performance.

    And the retail Penryns will probably overclock better. The initial stepping supposedly had some problems reaching the high clock speeds that Intel promised, but it's been said that the new stepping solved that problem.

    With Penryn, the performance boost not only comes out from the IPC increase, but the performance in clock speed. It's supposed to top out at 4 GHz (according to Intel) and Nehalem is supposed to pick up where Penryn left off clock speed wise.
    Reply
  • duploxxx - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    the IPC performance increase is minimal, when a program likes more cache it is faster, if not it is the same. these benches from anand show it.

    we'll see how far it will go with penryn and GHZ, in Q1 2007 they were not sure if they were able to fit the 3,33GHZ into a 120W TDP !!!!

    About you're future... if it said by intel then leave it here out of the comments to ne you are just a fanboy, Nehalem is still vaporware and you guys are already hyping it... memorycontroller and fast huge on die caches do not work together....!!!!!

    @anand, what was the stepping of you're conroe versus wolfdale.
    Reply
  • fitten - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    quote:

    memorycontroller and fast huge on die caches do not work together....!!!!!


    Why do you say that?
    Reply
  • GhandiInstinct - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    quote:

    Wolfdale is faster clock-for-clock, but keep in mind that you won't see Wolfdale until Q1 of next year and the performance advantage simply isn't great enough to justify delaying a purchase by 6+ months if you need a system now.


    I love having an answer to the #1 question in my head for months.

    Thank you AnandTech!
    Reply
  • Owls - Wednesday, August 22, 2007 - link

    is it me or did the first image just look like a bunch of penises? Reply
  • Epyon - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    Its just you Reply
  • strikeback03 - Thursday, August 23, 2007 - link

    Apparently not. See the dailytech link from johnsonx below. Reply
  • Lord Evermore - Sunday, August 26, 2007 - link

    If your wang looks so similar to those charts that you saw penis in the image, you might need to get some medical attention. Or join a circus. Reply
  • GhandiInstinct - Tuesday, August 21, 2007 - link

    Now I just need to figure out when and what to buy as my GFX Card. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now