Intel's Core 2 Quadro Kentsfield: Four Cores on a Rampage

[pschmid]

Intel will walk all over AMD with its upcoming Core 2 Quadro processor. Its 8 MB L2 Cache and aggressive clock speeds will boost performance by up to 100%. Our benchmarks tell the story.

 

[Eurasianman]

Hm... Quad core... when I just got a dual core... Well, as of now, I've hardly seen a difference in performance other than that at my last LAN party, I was running Norton Antivirus and Windows Defender at the same time while playing Battlefield 2 and noticed to slow downs. How often do people do that though? Well, other than that. IMO, quad core is over kill for windows xp. But hopefully, Windows Vista will be out by then showing just how truly powerful a quad core can be against a dual core. Till then, looks like some game developers need to work on a new patch (ex. Activision's Call of Duty 2). Need more benchmark results to see if it's truly worth to get a quad core after recently purchasing a dual core. What would help the decision is knowing that my ASUS P5W DH Deluxe will fully support it with a click of the "Flash BIOS" button . Anyone else have any input on this or other information other than THG?

 

[Mike995]

I would say your slowdowns are the programs scanning the harddrive. If you really want to test the multitasking performance of your cpu, you should turn on prime 95 and bf2 or super pi and bf2 because they only put a strain on your processor, not the hdd. The core 2 quadro seems to be a wickedly fast chip and I cant wait for it. Its faster clock for clock then the C2D, it overclocks great, and will be a monster for media encoding. Maybe it would be able to handle physics better in games also, and in the future when game engines could be optimised for multi core, the quad core users are going to notice a big difference.

 

[npilier]

Considering that this is an ES sample, the test results of the Kent Core Quadro were very impresive indeed. It shows how solid of a multi-core solution it's going to be. As discussed in the article, better code optimization in general is needed so one can get the full power and performance from 4 Cores effectively -besides the immediate benefit seemed in 3D rendering and high CPU-intensive applications.

Also, overall power consumption is one thing that has to be addressed as well. I read an article not so long ago explaining how the AMD counterpart 4x4 solution would consume much less power as the already available solution. In addition, I would keep an eye on AMD's 4x4 solution as -perhaps, better power-efficient system than Kentsfield is or will be.

I don't think that the "average joe enthusiast" will benefit from Kentsfield systems in the near future. I would rather wait until later revisions are made available, the power kinks problem are ironed out and better code optimization exist that let mundane programs take advantage of such a system. Until then, I would consider the upgrade path to such a system futile. Core2 remains a better solution in general, at the moment.

Probably I'm getting ahead of myself but a question that now -I believe- must be addressed is, what differs from a Kent-based, Wood-based and Optie-based systems? Why such latter systems are not/were not included in the benches and are not compared side by side? Perhaps this will be addressed in the future, but as pro-consumer enthusiast I would like to see such comparison.

 

[bga]

Intel will walk all over AMD with its upcoming Core 2 Quadro processor. Its 8 MB L2 Cache and aggressive clock speeds will boost performance by up to 100%. Our benchmarks tell the story.

Thats overstating it a bit. This is a case where everybody needs to study the benchmarks VERY carfully.
This is certainly not a gamers CPU.
By your benchmarks it performs worse in games than a dualcore X6800 CPU and the X6800 has much better overclocking potential.
Only on very specific benchmarks the performance shows: HD video encoding, where up to 100% can be had with some overclocking. On most non-synthetic benchmarks most do not show ANY improvement over a similary clocked dual core. Quad core is for (HD) video rendering and heavy multitasking - AND you will need to make some even heavier (3-4 apps) multitasking benchmarks where the new quad (and octo) core chip can show their stuff.
Gaming is, almost by definition, single tasking work. Nobody plays an immersive game AND works at the same time :lol:
This chip is for professionals only! This will fracture the high-performance PC market even more than today, where the gamer/professional split between Extreme Edition/single chip, and the Xeon/dual chip workstation crowd, will carry over to dual Core high clock (gaming), compared to quad core lower clock for work.

So quad core is not a universal advantage, but for videorendering and multi application work this is nice (I have already worked on a dual-dual Opteron workstation- nice 4 core system). Now we only need the Xeon edition Kentsfield for a Octo core system.

 

[B4bypUncHER]

The home user is going to require the 4 cores as high def becomes more mainstream.

 

[wolfman140]

Wow...Smokin'. I'm drooling, but have never been one to blow tons of $ on a proc. Yeah I just bought a C2D, I didn;t think a quad would be out THIS soon. But...for the average user of media, etc. and a fairly hardcore gamer...the C2D will be just fine for me for at least a couple of years. I've had my old P4 for 4 yrs already
So my question is, they are releasing teh quad for less than the C2DExtreme is right now...Is that gonna drop the price of the Extreme significantly? Thus dropping the price of the rest of the C2D line?

 

[Whizzard9992]

The home user is going to require the 4 cores as high def becomes more mainstream.

Nope.

But anyway, I'd REALLY like to see the power requirements come down. 130 TWP is dissapointing at best. At that point, the temp becomes a limiting factor for overclockability. It's also interesting to see how little the FSB affects performance when compared to the NetBurst µArch.

Either way, I'm holding out for Kentsfield. At the very least I hope it will bring down the X6800 price. I do a LOT of processor-intensive ops that would benefit from parallel processing. I think what we'll see with gaming is until PPU's become more solid, multi-cores will be utilized by physics engines that demand heavy computations. Even so, that's a ways away. This is a great workstation proc and I think it's necessary for those of us who use hardcore compilers and CAD.

4 Cores + virtualization = One very clean home server farm.

 

[4745454b]

Its faster clock for clock then the C2D

You forgot to mention that is only faster clock for clock in some applications, not all. Many/most programs showed it to be no faster then C2D. (The e6700, which runs at the same 2.66GHz) Considering the less heat and power draw for this chip, I'd take it over the C2Q anyday. (yes, I don't do any video editing.)

Its my belief that this review shows how far we still have to go in getting software to work with new hardware. Programs that can truely take advantage of multiple cores showed impressive gains, but many programs were no faster then the C2D. If more software showed gains, if the heat and power number were better, and if there weren't any hickups for any games, then this would be amazing. As it is right now, just grab a 6700 for less.

 

[mat347]

This is certainly not a gamers CPU.

Similar things were said when dual cores were introduced. There will be no advantage UNTIL games are coded for multiple cores, look at the Doom patch, a nice jump in FPS was had when the second core was used.
Physics need to find a home in games, dual cores aren't quite up to the task but quad+ core CPUs could be the answer everyone settles on.

I thought Intel would actually learn from the past, making the CPUs access the bus to share info WAS/IS not the best way to do things!

 

[caamsa]

You guys ever hear the saying "don't count your chickens before they hatch" :?: Best to just wait and see what develops.

I can kinda see where this is going. 4 cores then 6 then 8....................................I have been reading in some tech magazines that some of these cores may take over some of the duties of the video card. That makes sense for someone who is a gamer. But the programing needs to catch up with the technology. What there are like 4-5 games that support dual core processors now........I am still running a single core for games and am still happy with it so far.

Yea the guy next to me at the LAN with his SLI dual core system can run BF2 all maxed out, but my system runs it just fine at 1280X1024 with medium settings and besides that I own him every time

I feel sorry for you ADHD impulsive people out there. You would sell your soul just to be the first person on the block to own a quad core system...... :twisted:

 

[Eurasianman]

I waited outside when the XBOX 360 came out for 2 hours, but that didn't involve selling my sole, just my hard earned money

In the end, my XBOX 360 sits on the shelf gathering dust as my new computer has taken over

 

[caamsa]

Errrr a rolling stone gathers no moss. So if you are dust or moss free you are ok Hell I have a 1966 Mustang in my garage doing nothing but taking up space.......we all have our vices.....get in line

 

[Mike995]

The clock speed is lower what do you expect ? it performs better at 2.66 ghz then the E6700 does, so it is infact faster in games. It either matches or beats the E6700. I dont really see how ppl can claim its not a gamers cpu....even if it did loose by 1 fps would anyone notice the differece ? no. Wait till games become more multithreaded, there was a time when single cores were faster then dual cores for gaming how ever thats changing. The same thing will happen for the quad cores.
Btw theres a typo with the Serious in serious sam 2.

 

[bga]

Well, that is the problem. Look at the numbers. The Core Quad is NOT faster than a E6700. Same Clock, same speed - no advantage whatsoever of 2 cores more. At least in gaming and applications. Of course HD video encoding is another story, so in the future any Home Theater PC would be Quad or Octo core.

 

[twile]

As expected, Quad Core stuff looks exciting for the future. At present the only HD videos I get are game trailers and .hack//Roots episodes, all of which are 1280x720 and look quite nice (the .hack episodes which are in H.264 and are positively beautiful). These videos work the hell outta my aging A64 3500+ and even drop frames, I don't want to imagine 1080p running H.264 (even if my display was big enough). At this point the number of videos I can get in HD aren't enough to worry me, though I guess this will change in time...

Still waiting to see more 4x4 stuff

 

[Mike995]

How long do you think thats going to stay like that. In serious sam 2 its already slightly faster clock for clock. Core 2 quadro will most likely shine under the unreal engine 3. And there is huge support for that engine.

 

[Mike995]

I thought they planned on some design by 2010, there was a toms hardware article on it. But I cant really remember.

 

[B4bypUncHER]

The home user is going to require the 4 cores as high def becomes more mainstream.

Nope.



What would make you think it's not going to become a requirement when it has been demonstrated the advantages of multi-core with HD processing?

 

[4745454b]

The clock speed is lower what do you expect ? it performs better at 2.66 ghz then the E6700 does, so it is infact faster in games.

What??? Did you read the article?
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/page8.html

Heres the page with the gaming benchmarks, lets review. Stock C2Q vs 6700. C2Q can't run CoD, so win one for the 6700. In Quake four, they score the same 182FPS, so its a tie. (0 to 1, or 1 to 2, take your pick.) Moving on to unreal 2004, C2Q loses again. I prefer 0 to 2, C2Q still hasn't won a single benchie. Finally, we hit the last test, Serious Sam. (I'll spell that the way its supposed to be spelled...) C2Q FINALLY scores a 1FPS win. I don't see how you can claim that C2Q is faster clock for clock then C2D. It won only one test, by one FPS at that.
It only performs better then the 6700 at programs that support multi cores better. Gaming isn't it. (yet)

 

[boe]

[quote="Thats overstating it a bit. This is a case where everybody needs to study the benchmarks VERY carfully. [/quote]

Funny you should mention this - I was studying the VGA benchmarks very carefully and compared them to several other websites - just Google 1950, 7950 benchmarks and Prey or HL2 or F.E.A.R. - you'll find several benchmarks that really contradict the benchmarks in the VGA charts. I'm hoping it is just an accidental mislabling the various cards, not something nefarious or anything else.

It is hard for me to put much stock in any of the Tom's benchmarks until this gets corrected - however since I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago and nothing has been done, it makes me have less faith in Tom's all the time which is a shame because this used to be my one stop for a great deal of hardware news. Hopefully Tom will consider reviewing the data posted on his site in the future as I see I'm not alone in this concern.

If just one or two sites had data that was contradictory to Tom's results I'd guess it was just an environment issue or more tests were needed however I went to six sites all with similar although not identical results that all had significant results differences from Tom's. I'm not an ATI or nVidia fanboy. I understand how features in a game effect speed however that data posted currently is rediculously far from the other sites as to which cards are better.

I'd really recommend the VGA chart get taken down until a retest can be arranged for the sake fo Tom's good name and integrity.

 

[Sokolum]

IMO, quad core is over kill for windows xp.

When is a overkill not good for us

 

[Whizzard9992]

The home user is going to require the 4 cores as high def becomes more mainstream.

Nope.



What would make you think it's not going to become a requirement when it has been demonstrated the advantages of multi-core with HD processing?

I think you have some wires crossed here...


"HD Processing" is 1080i/1080p to the mainstream, and is more dependant upon the GPU, not the CPU. Computers have been chewing through 1080p "HD" for years now with no problem.

I'm not saying 4 cores won't be utilized, because they will eventually. I'm saying "multi-core" really has no bearing with regards to "HD processing." Multi-cores affect game mechanics much more than visual definition (with few exceptions).

 

[joex444]

Intel only plans to release up to a 2.66GHz Core 2 Quadro, correct? So, the 3.0 & 3.33GHz data is really projective and not currently available, apart from the overclockers.

When you don't look at the 3.0 & 3.33, the Quad 2.66 isn't all that impressive, it loses some benchmarks with the X6800 even in its strength areas such as video (tho, other times wins easily, like in H.264 encoding).

Nonetheless, the 3.0 & 3.33 should be expected to arrive at some point, depending on yields probably. Perhaps this particular chip was a better than typical example of their product.

Just thinking, the first Pentium Ds were formed similarly, and when they finally went to a true dual core solution, there was a gain. Could a native quad core processor provide a similar gain compared to these types stuck together dual cores?

 

[elbert]

Intel will walk all over AMD with its upcoming Core 2 Quadro processor. Its 8 MB L2 Cache and aggressive clock speeds will boost performance by up to 100%. Our benchmarks tell the story.

Intel may have went quad core to soon. I expected the games benchmarks to be dead even but only video compression got better. Im excluding simulation tests which seemed to be the only advantage to quad. Intels top quad, or atleast thg said is the top CPU, is only a 2.66GHz which benchmarks show, 2 Intel, dual cores beating the crap out of. This with the fact that on air the quad can only go up to 3.4GHz and the Core 2 duo maxs out on air above 4Ghz.
If Intel cant improve Kentfield then an AMD 4X4 is going to make light work of Intels new quad. To be fair some programs in the benchmarks need to be optimized for Kentsfield. I dont think AMD's 4X4 will need these optimizations as HT and dual CPU mobo's using HT are old hat. The important thing to note here is will gamers want a low GHz quad or high GHz Core 2 duo.
My son will want a high GHz Core 2 duo as they will increase his current single threaded games performance and have dual core when its needed later.
My final question is will Kentsfield over come the 600MHz deficit to Core 2 duo or will Intel not up the Core 2 duo's GHz in favor of Kentsfield? Intel will clearly need to charge more for the Kentsfield and wouldnt want Core 2 duo competing.