Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad core Kentsfield or Penryn?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 12, 2007 3:26:56 AM

The Penryn stats to be released as by MikesHardware:http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/RoadmapQ307.htm

Intel Penryn architecture CPUs are expected to be released in Late Q3 on a 45nm process. Penryn is an update to the Core 2 architecture, designed for both mobile and desktop CPUs. Enhancements to the Penryn architecture include larger L2 caches (6MB for dual-core CPUs and 12MB for quad-core), faster division operations (twice the speed), improved cache management, enhanced power management including a C6 'Deep Power Down' state, support for up to a 1600Mhz PSB, Enhanced Dynamic Acceleration technology, and SSE4 support with an enhanced SSE engine. Intel's Enhanced Dynamic Acceleration technology allows heavily utilised cores to increase their clock speed whilst staying within a specified thermal and power envelope. SSE4 introduces 50 new instructions to the core for streaming operations, enhancing the performance of media and high performance computing applications.

Intel's performane metrics suggest roughly a 20% increase in gaming performance (3.2Ghz Penryn vs 2.93Ghz Core 2) and up to 40% with codecs that utilise SSE4. Virtual machine transition performance is also improved by 25-75%.


Now, the Yorkfield chips are supposedly starting at 3.46GHz... i'm looking into buying a Q6600 with a P5k Dlx and overclocking to 2000FSB, DDR2-1000 1:1, and the Q6600 at 3.5GHz. Do you guys think Penryn would put this build in it's shadow at stock? It's only Late Q3 release, so i don't want any buyers remorse since it's so close.
July 12, 2007 4:00:02 AM

Based on what I have seen and what you posted it appears to be a better chip. So, let me ask you a question. Can you wait?
a c 478 à CPUs
July 12, 2007 4:59:04 AM

It depends if you can wait.

I will upgrade my PC early next year 'cause I want to boost video encoding performance especially since I plan on moving from DivX to H.264 encoding. I may get a quad core.

Most of my current components will be used to rebuilt my HTPC that's built around an Athlon XP-M which will choke on H.264 and Blu-Ray.
Related resources
July 12, 2007 6:24:01 AM

I'm going Yorkfield all the way. That should last a few years (much more future-proof than the Q6600)
Nehalem will require new everything, so I can wait a while for that.
July 12, 2007 4:45:12 PM

But i'm asking, for what the Yorkfield core will do (and it doesn't seem like it will overclock much if at all, being so high up in speed as it is) would it be better to wait for Yorkfield or should I buy a Q6600 Kent soon and just overclock it to 3.5? Technically it should be comparable to a 3.74ish Yorkfield, and that's not money i'm going to be willing to spend considering the Q6600 will be so cheap next to Yorkfield when it launches.
July 12, 2007 4:49:34 PM

Sorry to double post, but apparently i'm not allowed to edit my own freaking post.

EDIT: I am looking to futureproof my PC, but i'm also looking to get the most performance out of my parts as possible. If you look at my OP, i'll have a relatively cheap computer (~$1800) but it'll be a powerhouse. If i wait for Yorkfield, would i be able to push the components just as much as what is out now? Because the only thing changing for Yorkfield is the chip, there will still be X38 and DDR3 to put for either Kents or Yorkfields.

I just wonder if waiting for Yorkfield would be that much of a benefit to me as a megatasker and a gamer, considering it will most definitley be much more expensive than the Kent Q6600.
July 12, 2007 6:26:18 PM

korsen said:
should I buy a Q6600 Kent soon and just overclock it to 3.5?
An overclock on s Q6600 to 3.5 is a lofty goal. More like 3.0 on air. The Yorkfield is going to be that much better from everything that I have read. With a tray price of $266 after 7/22 get the Q6600 and the P35 with DDR2. When the Penryn comes out look at the price and decide if it is worth the money. It will drop into the P35, or so they claim. If you don't need any more power immediately, then wait until the Penryn drops in price a little bit. If you get the Q6600 make sure you get the new G0 stepping revision. You will have to wait for the pipeline to clear. The G35 has a trouble free overclock to 3.0G. I have posted this a dozen times so you probably have already seen it, but one more time.
Quote:
As stated in the review, almost every Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad we tried in the P35 ASUS P5K and P5K3 ran at 1333 FSB at the default multiplier and default voltage. The only processors that required any voltage increase were the top line Core 2 Extreme processors. This free 25% overclock, which still allows everything else in the system to run at default values, is exciting. It is so exciting we have to wonder how long Intel will allow this in the marketplace.

http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2989&p=1
July 13, 2007 1:37:40 AM

Ahem: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=13a9e08d42c7cb9da20a0d8549a5d89a&t=144199

Do not call, insinuate, or assume that i am a noob. I will have watercooling, I will have 3.5GHz, I will have 2000FSB, I will have DDR2-1000 @ 1:1.

Q6600's can reach ~4.0 on liquid.

My apologies for not posting this thread as proof of what I am going to accomplish earlier.

I assume that a 3.5GHz Q6600 will have close to nil if a mild handicap in comparison to a 3.42GHz Yorkfield processor. Remember that the performance boost is needed on a 3.2GHz York compared to a 2.93GHz Core 2, meaning additional speed is a factor in the increased performance, which basic Yorkfields won't have over a 3.5GHz Q6600.
July 13, 2007 2:20:33 AM

Although I agree that a 3.5 Ghz q6600 will be nothing to scoff at and will only be a wee bit slower than a 3.46 yorkfield, don't forget that the yorkfield will probably also overclock quite well.
July 13, 2007 2:32:26 AM

And that's what i'm wondering about... i may or may not be ready for my PC by August/September, but i don't want things to sell out/be pulled from production. Also price is a factor too, but if the cheapest Yorkfield ends up ~$300, then i'll wait for sure.
a c 100 à CPUs
July 13, 2007 2:38:44 AM

korsen said:
Ahem: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?s=13a9e08d42c7cb9da20a0d8549a5d89a&t=144199

Do not call, insinuate, or assume that i am a noob. I will have watercooling, I will have 3.5GHz, I will have 2000FSB, I will have DDR2-1000 @ 1:1.

The 500 MHz FSB rate is certainly achievable with some of the better boards out there. I've seen people get Q6600s up to 3.5 GHz. Plugging the voltages they took (1.43-1.47 volts) into a CPU power dissipation calculator yields a TDP of 200 W. That's darn hot and will certainly give your water cooler a run for the money. That's also a pretty stiff voltage increase and I'd not run the CPU on that many volts for very long.

Quote:
Q6600's can reach ~4.0 on liquid.


From what I've read in the Q6600 Overclocking Thread over at XS, air tends to peter out at about 3.2-3.3 (~170-180 W) and water at 3.6 or so (220 watts). The guys doing better than that either are on phase change, sub-zero chilled coolants, or are doing destructive testing with liquid nitrogen or dry ice.

Quote:
My apologies for not posting this thread as proof of what I am going to accomplish earlier.

I assume that a 3.5GHz Q6600 will have close to nil if a mild handicap in comparison to a 3.42GHz Yorkfield processor. Remember that the performance boost is needed on a 3.2GHz York compared to a 2.93GHz Core 2, meaning additional speed is a factor in the increased performance, which basic Yorkfields won't have over a 3.5GHz Q6600.
[/quote]
Quote:


There are a few small architectural tweaks between the 65 nm Core 2s and the 45 nm ones, as well as a few new SIMD instructions. There won't be very much out very quickly that takes advantage of the new SSE4 instructions, so the 65 nms and 45 nms are going to be rather similar, especially since a 3.50 GHz Kentsfield Q6600 will have a higher FSB than the 3.42 Yorkfield, which gives it a small boost. The one difference between a 3.50 GHz Q6600 and a 3.42 Yorkfield will be that the Q6600 requires water cooling and draws an ungodly amount of power while the Yorkfield won't run any hotter than a QX6700/QX6800 at stock and possibly cooler. Intel probably wouldn't sell it clocked that high if it did run that hot, unless something forced them to.
July 13, 2007 2:56:12 AM

That's a very good point i didn't consider. Thank you for pointing that out. But regardless of a Yorkfield or Kentsfield, my motherboard will be running at 2000FSB. So no brownie points for either in that regard. I just hope HKEPC releases Yorkfield pricing schemes early before i make my decision. If it ends up being ~$100 difference between a base Yorkfield and the Q6600, then Yorkfield it'll be. However i'll go nowhere near Yorkfield if it starts at $841 the way Q6600 did.

Since Nehalem will require new everything (providing it's wonderful 8 theoretical cores) i wonder if it would be wise to buy into a Yorkfield if by the time a Q6600 becomes just shy of outdated there are more than 8 cores on the market. However the heat/power draw of a 3.5 Q6600 is a very good negator of a small price increase towards Yorkfield.

I'm sure this thread will eventually clear up thoughts about people waiting for their Q6600 dream builds >_>
a c 100 à CPUs
July 13, 2007 3:15:55 AM

korsen said:
That's a very good point i didn't consider. Thank you for pointing that out. But regardless of a Yorkfield or Kentsfield, my motherboard will be running at 2000FSB. So no brownie points for either in that regard. I just hope HKEPC releases Yorkfield pricing schemes early before i make my decision. If it ends up being ~$100 difference between a base Yorkfield and the Q6600, then Yorkfield it'll be. However i'll go nowhere near Yorkfield if it starts at $841 the way Q6600 did.

I highly doubt this will happen, for three reasons:

1. Yorkfield is still made up of two independent dual-core Wolfdale dies. Thus Intel can cherry-pick the dies and also not trash an entire big monolithic die if one core has a problem. They've been doing this with all multi-cores since the Pentium D 900 on up through the Core 2 Quad, excepting the Core 2 Duo. The Pentium D 800 was two dies as well, but the dies were not cut apart and as such it was a monolithic but electrically separate die setup.

2. The 65 nm units by and large will perform similarly at similar clock speeds. If the Q6600 is $266, then I doubt that Intel could charge more than that for a 2.33 Yorkfield as the 2.40 Q6600 should perform only slightly slower than the 2.33 Yorkfield.

3. AMD will be introducing low-clock-speed quad core chips supposedly starting at $300 or so for the slowest ones. Nobody really knows how well the 10h chips will stack up, but I am guessing that at worst, the 10hs will be similar to the Core 2s clock-for-clock. That would mean that Intel has a bang-for-the-buck competition in low-end quad-cores and I am betting they wouldn't price themselves out of that market, since it's the bulk of the sales.

Quote:
Since Nehalem will require new everything (providing it's wonderful 8 theoretical cores) i wonder if it would be wise to buy into a Yorkfield if by the time a Q6600 becomes just shy of outdated there are more than 8 cores on the market. However the heat/power draw of a 3.5 Q6600 is a very good negator of a small price increase towards Yorkfield.

I'm sure this thread will eventually clear up thoughts about people waiting for their Q6600 dream builds >_>
[/quote]
Quote:


I've not heard anything about Nehalem 8-core chips. I've heard it's a rework of the Core 2 uarch on the existing 45 nm process and the quad-cores will become monolithic. Some will have FSBs, some will have IMCs, and there will be two new sockets- 715 and 1366, the former for FSBs and the latter for IMCs. I've heard that the IMC units might be Xeon DPs and MPs only with desktops getting only the socket 715 FSB-equipped units, but it's all guesses at this time, except that 775 is going away and you'll need to buy new stuff. The only 8-core CPUs I've heard about are Sun's UltraSPARC T1 and T2 series as well as that AMD MCM unit I don't count the Cell Broadband Engine as it's basically a single-core CPU with seven big FPU/vector units on board, not an 8-core CPU.
July 13, 2007 4:35:19 AM

MU_Engineer said:
I've not heard anything about Nehalem 8-core chips. I've heard it's a rework of the Core 2 uarch on the existing 45 nm process and the quad-cores will become monolithic. Some will have FSBs, some will have IMCs, and there will be two new sockets- 715 and 1366, the former for FSBs and the latter for IMCs. I've heard that the IMC units might be Xeon DPs and MPs only with desktops getting only the socket 715 FSB-equipped units, but it's all guesses at this time, except that 775 is going away and you'll need to buy new stuff. The only 8-core CPUs I've heard about are Sun's UltraSPARC T1 and T2 series as well as that AMD MCM unit I don't count the Cell Broadband Engine as it's basically a single-core CPU with seven big FPU/vector units on board, not an 8-core CPU.


From what I read high-end Nehalem will have 8 physical cores plus hyperthreading = 16 logical cores.

I'm pretty excited about Nehalem. If Penryn is available Q3 07 then hopefully Nehalem will be available Q3 08. Can't wait.
July 13, 2007 6:32:38 AM

korsen I am same bot as you. if the new penry price going to be like $800 to $1000 I wont wast my time on buying them rather go with q6600. I just need know what are price are gonna be like when the new penry cpu comes out on market!!!!
July 13, 2007 8:17:19 PM

I would imagine that the price of the Yorkfield will have a lot to do with the performance of the Barcelona, if and when it is released. Barring any serious competition from AMD I doubt Intel will be releasing the Yorkfield anywhere close to $400. So be prepared to wait or pay.
July 13, 2007 8:30:02 PM

I said Nehalem will have 8 theoretical cores. 4 physical and 4 from hyperthreading. And if Intel starts base Yorkfields at 2.33, and $266, we're all buying that. But if because of the performance increase Intel decides to keep Yorkfields around the $450+ area, I might cry for a while but i may still scrounge around to get one. Any higher than that and it's a Q6600 for me.

And in regards to AMD processors (Phenoms), they don't tend to overclock well, and from all the bad news and press lately about their products and benchmark numbers, i highly doubt that their combined stock performance and overclocking limits will stop anybody from getting Q6600's and pushing them up on air.

Anyone with a near $2000 budget is going with a P5K Deluxe, DDR2-1000, a Q6600, CF/SLI, ~1000w PSU, and a good watercooling loop. What could AMD possibly offer that goes anywhere near that kind of performance?

Granted the power draw of that kind of system is atrocious, but people with that kind of budget are least concerned with power draw, even though it is somewhat of a concern.
July 13, 2007 8:39:53 PM

If yorkfield are under $300 and has better performance then q6600 then i think i will wait if that happens. One more thing i member that there will be only 2 yorkfield cpu coming out on q4 is this true i think price are gonna be skyrocket........... :pt1cable: 
July 13, 2007 9:26:05 PM

Does Intel ever release their 'new' technologies cheap? Penryn is faster, uses less power and is the brand spanking new flagship of Intel.

Ill place bets 50 to1 that the Penryn will be 699+ on day 1… The only acceptation will be if AMD pulls a magic rabbit from their hat and actually produce something worth buying.
July 13, 2007 10:48:51 PM

Penryn will be out soon b/c intel has already switched over some of the fabs and they're running full tilt. Probably Q4 before volume shows up. Penryn will probably not go over 3.2-3.33 at first b/c it doesn't need to, so we'll have to oc to get the true performance potential out of them. Now, if phenom is really better clock for clock and creeps up closer to 3 ghz in Q2 08, we'll see penryns getting much closer to 4 ghz to keep the performance crown.

Nehalem intro is going to be a problem imho b/c intel will have no need to rush it to maintain their performance crown. They are in the driver's seat and appear set to remain there for the forseeable future. I wouldn't be surprised to see nehalem intro creep into 09.
July 13, 2007 10:58:09 PM

Hopefully we will see benchies, approx pricing and release date of Penryn soon. I'm planning to get Q6600 in several weeks, but ofc would adjust plans if beast is comming out soon with good pricing ;-)
July 13, 2007 11:00:45 PM

grieve said:
Does Intel ever release their 'new' technologies cheap? Penryn is faster, uses less power and is the brand spanking new flagship of Intel.

Ill place bets 50 to1 that the Penryn will be 699+ on day 1… The only acceptation will be if AMD pulls a magic rabbit from their hat and actually produce something worth buying.

$699 on day 1?
I think the Yorkfield EXTREME will be $1099 the first day.
I hope there will be a Q6600 type yorkfield that's about 20% slower and 50% cheaper.
I will also want a 1066 or 800 FSB that's easier to overclock. I can wait. :sleep: 
a c 100 à CPUs
July 13, 2007 11:31:09 PM

Quote:
$699 on day 1?
I think the Yorkfield EXTREME will be $1099 the first day.


You may both be right- it depends at what speeds Intel releases at initially. A 3.33 Yorkfield EE will probably go for $1099 or so, certainly in the $1000-$1300 range. They could very only release a few Yorkfields at first on the high end, keeping the old, slower 65 nm Kentsfields like the Q6600 in the slower-speed and lower-price ranges. A Yorkfield 2.67 would not be that bad of a deal at $699 since the current 2.67 quad is the $950 QX6700.

[/quote]I hope there will be a Q6600 type yorkfield that's about 20% slower and 50% cheaper.[/quote]

Intel could make a 2.00 Yorkfield and it should sell for roughly $200 if the 2.40 Q6600 is $267 at that time. That would certainly give AMD a run on the lower-clocked quad-core market that they are aiming at with the slower Phenoms. I don't think Intel will cut the speeds that low, though- 2.33 is as slow as I see them going as the quads are still enthusiast/performance parts. We probably won't see quads below $150 or so until Nehalem or AMD's Phenom refresh.

[quote[I will also want a 1066 or 800 FSB that's easier to overclock. I can wait. :sleep: [/quote]

You won't see that on any quad-core chips. The quads like bandwidth and a faster FSB gives it to them. Also, Intel wants to move new chipsets and the old ones not supporting a 1333 MHz FSB will force an upgrade. Plus, I don't think that Intel really cares if you want to overclock anything besides an EE/XE chip- in fact they discourage it by locking the multiplier. OCing voids the warranty and convinces people to buy slower, less expensive chips than what they really want the performance from.
July 14, 2007 4:56:26 AM

Get a Q6600, OC it like mad, and enjoy! It will be an eXtreme CPU that you'll get your money's worth until it comes time to decide on Yorkfield.
!