POST A COMMENT

16 Comments

Back to Article

  • emenk - Sunday, January 20, 2008 - link

    From first page (this article): "As we saw in our original Penryn preview, Penryn's cache performance remains unchanged; latencies in our final stepping are identical to Conroe."

    From the original Penryn preview (3rd page):
    "Not only is Wolfdale's L2 cache larger, but it also happens to be slightly faster than its predecessor. Intel has shaved off a single clock cycle from Wolfdale's L2 access time; we're already off to a good start."

    Isn't this a contradiction?

    Ignore this (testing quote tags):
    [quote]Quote goes here.[/quote]
    Reply
  • IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - link

    You know that will not be true in the true Phenom comparison right Anand?? Take a look here: http://techreport.com/articles.x/8236/14">http://techreport.com/articles.x/8236/14

    Dual Opteron is slower than a Single Opteron, yet you still used Dual Opteron against a single Barcelona. Why?? No really, WHY?!?

    "Because of these limitations we refrained from running any comparative benchmarks to desktop Athlon 64 X2s, instead we chose to run a single quad-core Opteron in our server platform against a pair of dual-core Opterons to simulate Phenom vs. K8 on the desktop."

    You could have took games like Oblivion with Single socket Opteron to see the real advantages. This is the worst comparison, ever. And to make it worse, you put "simulated" benchmarks.
    Reply
  • victory - Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - link

    Wouldn't Intel be able to take immediate advantage of the new SSE4
    instructions in a new integrated graphics chipset perhaps then
    competing with nVidia as well as beating AMD's integrated chipsets?
    Reply
  • magreen - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    It does 4GHz easily on the stock cooler? So why don't you strap a TR ultra 120 ex on there and tell us what it can really do? Cmon Anand, stop teasing us and tell us what we really want to know! Reply
  • AnnihilatorX - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    It's a shame that they delay the release date of more affordable Yorkfields to January, just missed to Christmas sales.

    I am p0lanning to upgrade my computer and not sure whether to wait for Yorkfield or buy a Q6600.
    Reply
  • idgaf13 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Intel is trying to suppress Christmas sales and have a negative influence on "other companies" earnings while relieving themselves of Old Inventory.
    45nm process is going to produce so many CPUs per wafer that prices will fall fast or inventory will rise quickly.
    With respect to the traditional cycle of product releases and price changes ,
    A January launch date allows for the longest possible time before prices begin to tumble
    typically after the trade shows in the first two quarters of the year.
    It also more time to perfect the production process.
    Question is do really need to be "the first on the block" to have this CPU ?
    Or can you wait until the price falls by 50% or June/July for the best price?
    Possibly even a faster CPU by then.
    Reply
  • MGSsancho - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    anand, could you be so kind as to point to where you got the info on the new sse4 instructions? the chart would be cool but some pdfs or something from into would be awsome Reply
  • jsaldate - Friday, November 09, 2007 - link

    Penryn SDK: http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/11...">http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/11...http://softwarecommunity.intel.com/articles/eng/11... Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silic...">From Intel's website Reply
  • MGSsancho - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    thanks a lot =) Reply
  • Canadian87 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    I'd like to point out that someone must have been tired when writing this. The graphs here on page 4 say "QX6950" VS "QX6850", simple reversal of the numbers, but I'd like to correct it for those that might be confused, took me a moment to figure out which was which myself the "QX6950" is ment to be the "QX9650", and obviously the "QX6850" is the correct naming.

    GL HF.
    Reply
  • GlassHouse69 - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    ew.

    intel again ftw. blech. They made a great chip. power usage is fantastic. One could get even lower total wattages (by far) if they concentrated on doing so. a quad core that can be cooled near silently. neat :)

    Reply
  • sprockkets - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Just a question, what was the difference from Core to Core 2? All I could ever fine was cache size was increased.

    Now that I'm thinking about it, why not the name Quadro? Oh, nVidia ownz it.
    Reply
  • defter - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    Core Duo (Yonah) was based on Pentium M.

    Core2 (Conroe) is a new architecture.
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    actually i found a comparison page about it, and core 2 isn't that much different from core. Yes, it updated a lot and gave improved performance. No, it is not a completely new architecture from PM, but you can say a big difference from the P4.

    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p...">http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p...
    Reply
  • sprockkets - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link

    On page 9 I believe you are grabbing some old benchmarks, old in the sense of your previous articles. I believe I pointed this out to you as a mistake, and now it is here in the bar graph. Again, how is it that the 2.33ghz C2D outperforms the 3ghz one? Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now