Intel Wolfdale and Yorkfield Performance (Penryn)

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

http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel%5FWolfdale%5Fand%5FYorkfield%5FPerformance%5FPenryn/

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
13 answers Last reply
More about intel wolfdale yorkfield performance penryn
  1. Quote:
    article on hothardware.com, performance of new dual and quad core cpu's

    http://www.hothardware.com/Articles/Intel%5FWolfdale%5Fand%5FYorkfield%5FPerformance%5FPenryn/

    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


    Kind of old news :P
  2. what do u mean? i only saw the article 15 mins ago while brousing thru the site. plus it was only dated yesterday
  3. it was posted yesterday, with some extremely intelligent views expressed by many...
    look back a bit if your interested...
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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? ;)
  7. 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...
  8. 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...
  9. 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...
  10. It is much more than jsut a die shrink....





  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Performance Quad Core Intel