Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 - Penryn Ticks Ahead
by Anand Lal Shimpi on October 29, 2007 12:13 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
What do we have here today? Yorkfield
The problem with Intel's codenames these days is that we've got processor family codenames and then actual chip codenames. Penryn refers to the entire family of 45nm Core architecture products that have been/are being announced, but the actual chips themselves all have their own codenames. For example, the 45nm Penryn based quad-core Xeon processor is codenamed Harpertown. Penryn on the desktop carries two names: Yorkfield and Wolfdale.
Yorkfield is quad-core Penryn for the desktop, Wolfdale is simply dual-core. Yorkfield isn't actually a different die, because a Yorkfield chip is just made up of two Wolfdale die on the same package (just like current quad-core Kentsfield Intel CPUs). This won't change until Nehalem.
The chip that Intel is launching today is the first Yorkfield: the Core 2 Extreme QX9650. The quad-core QX9650 runs at 3.0GHz with a 1333MHz FSB, much like its predecessor the QX6850. Like all Yorkfield CPUs, the QX9650 is made up of two independent dual-core die on a single package, each one with a shared 6MB L2 cache for a total of 12MB of on-chip L2 cache.
QX9650 (left), QX6850 (right)
The QX9650 will work in a number of presently shipping motherboards; we tested ours in an ASUS P35 board, but you'll have to check with your board vendor - or check our Penryn Compatibility article - to make sure that there's BIOS/board support for it. The chip is still physically an LGA-775 processor so it'll fit in any LGA-775 socket; it's just up to the motherboard guys to implement hardware and BIOS level support for the processor.
Pricing hasn't been announced yet but we expect the QX9650 to come in at the $999 mark, the same as previous Core 2 Extreme parts.
Test Configuration
| CPU: | Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650 (3.00GHz/1333MHz) Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz) |
| Motherboard: | Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 (Intel X38) |
| Chipset: | Intel X38 |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 8.1.1.1010 (Intel) |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA |
| Memory: | Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2) |
| Video Card: | NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 163.75 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1600 x 1200 |
| OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
View All Comments
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]
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/8236/14Dual 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.
victory - Tuesday, October 30, 2007 - link
Wouldn't Intel be able to take immediate advantage of the new SSE4instructions in a new integrated graphics chipset perhaps then
competing with nVidia as well as beating AMD's integrated chipsets?
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!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.
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.
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 awsomejsaldate - Friday, November 9, 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...Ryan Smith - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silic...">From Intel's websiteMGSsancho - Monday, October 29, 2007 - link
thanks a lot =)