Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Wolfdale and Yorkfield Performance (Penryn)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 19, 2007 11:54:16 PM

article on hothardware.com, performance of new dual and quad core cpu's

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel%5FWolfdale%5F...

nearly 12000 3d marks on the quad core 3.33Ghz with an 8800GTX graphics card, thats 800 more than the current quad core extreme QX6800 2.93Ghz
April 20, 2007 12:09:54 AM

what do u mean? i only saw the article 15 mins ago while brousing thru the site. plus it was only dated yesterday
Related resources
April 20, 2007 12:11:24 AM

it was posted yesterday, with some extremely intelligent views expressed by many...
look back a bit if your interested...
April 20, 2007 1:28:29 AM

Quote:
Actually, if you look closely, the x6800 actually outperforms the wolfdale 3.33ghz cpu in almost every single benchmark, only the quad manages to beat it. So I don't know what people are bragging about, the quad is taking advantage of the multthreaded spots and therefor the better performance is expected, but the cpu itself isn't any special, since if you compare dual to dual, the slower clocked x6800 beats the high clcoked 3.33ghz wolfdale


from the slide/pic - "Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor QX6800 (8MB Cache, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB) "

QX6800 - yes a 4-core C2D should be faster than a dual-core Penny on muti-threaded appsa and synthetic benchmarks, eh? Why do you think it's just an X6800?
April 20, 2007 1:32:18 AM

Quote:
Actually, if you look closely, the x6800 actually outperforms the wolfdale 3.33ghz cpu in almost every single benchmark, only the quad manages to beat it. So I don't know what people are bragging about, the quad is taking advantage of the multthreaded spots and therefor the better performance is expected, but the cpu itself isn't any special, since if you compare dual to dual, the slower clocked x6800 beats the high clcoked 3.33ghz wolfdale


from the slide/pic - "Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor QX6800 (8MB Cache, 2.93GHz, 1066MHz FSB) "

QX6800 - yes a 4-core C2D should be faster than a dual-core Penny on muti-threaded appsa and synthetic benchmarks, eh? Why do you think it's just an X6800?

I think he means the X6800, which is a dual core...the QX6800 is the quad core.
April 20, 2007 1:39:20 AM

Quote:
I think he means the X6800, which is a dual core...the QX6800 is the quad core.


I know that, But there's no X6800 dual in those benches - so where'd it come from? ;) 
April 20, 2007 1:44:25 AM

Quote:
Actually, if you look closely, the x6800 actually outperforms the wolfdale 3.33ghz cpu in almost every single benchmark, only the quad manages to beat it. So I don't know what people are bragging about, the quad is taking advantage of the multthreaded spots and therefor the better performance is expected, but the cpu itself isn't any special, since if you compare dual to dual, the slower clocked x6800 beats the high clcoked 3.33ghz wolfdale :roll:


HuH?!? Did you have a de je vue d'Baron? :wink:

The way I see the IPC of the re-design to 45nm, is roughly a 5% min increase, much more in areas...
April 20, 2007 1:46:07 AM

How much performance did AMD gain switching from 90nm to 65nm?
Now those figures look bad! Hope that is not what is delaying Barc.... heck, it obviously is a whole lot more complicated than just that issue...
April 20, 2007 1:49:41 AM

Quote:
HuH?!? Did you have a de je vue d'Baron?

The way I see the IPC of the re-design to 45nm, is roughly a 5% min increase, much more in areas...


I believe he got confused and thought the QX6800 numbers quoted were from a dual-core X6800 instead, and therefore it seemed like a slower-clocked dual-core Conroe was beating a faster clocked dual-core Wolfdale, when in actuality it was a quad-core Kentsfield beating a Wolfdale...
April 20, 2007 2:03:26 AM

It is much more than jsut a die shrink....






April 20, 2007 2:24:06 AM

Quote:
Actually, if you look closely, the x6800 actually outperforms the wolfdale 3.33ghz cpu in almost every single benchmark, only the quad manages to beat it. So I don't know what people are bragging about, the quad is taking advantage of the multthreaded spots and therefor the better performance is expected, but the cpu itself isn't any special, since if you compare dual to dual, the slower clocked x6800 beats the high clcoked 3.33ghz wolfdale :roll:


where? according to the article on hothardware.com, the quad core 3.33 beats the quad core QX6800 hands down, same as if the dual core 3.33 would beat the dual core X6800 2.93Ghz, unless u got it mixed up, they only showed the new dual and quad core 3.33Ghz, with the current quad core QX6800 2.93Ghz not the X6800 as u mentioned
April 20, 2007 2:36:47 AM

Well it is sort of old news,but still good info for those like me who have not seen it yet per say.Only heard about it.Those scores are fairly impressive.Well I might build an INTEL system yet.LOL.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 TOLEDO
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7950GT KO IN SLI
4X 512MB CRUCIAL BALLISTIX DDR500
WD300GIG HD/SAMSUNG 250GIG HD
ACER 22IN WIDESCREEN LCD 1600X1200
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
3DMARK05 13,471
April 20, 2007 3:26:47 AM

5 stars Jack, thanks for the time and effort in creating the table and chart. Respect.

Now hopefully this will stop all the stupid comments of 'Kentsfield beats Penryn in 3DMark at the same clocks!' when they don't even understand that the 3DMark overall score and 3DMark CPU score are calculated differently. The 3DMark overall score is largely determined by the GPU, in terms of weighting I'd say the GPU is responsibly for ~90% of the final score.
!