Wolfdale is 9.8% faster than Conroe at the same clock speed

The good folks at www.hkepc.com have benchmarked a Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33GHz/ 4MB L2/1333MHz FSB) versus a Intel "Wolfdale" ES Sample (2.33GHz/6MB L2/1333MHz FSB)

SSE4 + Core MA Refresh

A simple Arithmatic average of the 46 different benchmarks shows that with the same Bus/Clock speeds the Wolkdale is 9.8% faster.

Wolfdale will also top out at 3.33 ghz versus 3.00 ghz (11.1% clock speed advantage) so doing some very rough and dirty math the fastest Wolfdale will be +/- 20% (11.1% clock + 9.8% IPC) - Not a quantum leap, but also better than a boot to the head.

Some things (basically the ones that use SSE "N+1") show a big advantage (Gaming, Video Conversion) in other things the advantage is a lot less (Typically 5-7%)

In some things there is virtually no advantage, but in no case did the Wolfdale actually run slowers.
10 answers Last reply
More about wolfdale faster conroe clock speed
  1. Does it make you wonder that the Average 9.8% Overall performance boost may have come because of a 4mb to 6mb boost too?

    Because average boost in performance from a 2Mb vs 4Mb Core 2 Duo is about 10% too

    Did you Wonder that???
  2. cool my 6750 systems should rock! by by e6600

    wow - another thorn in the amd foot!

    another spear in the wounded but not nearly dead amd - wait it's "its not a true quad core"!
  3. Yeah but when the Conroe went from 2mb to 4mb that was double in cache size, now from 4mb to 6mb thats only 1.5 times as much cache, while it's still a healthy increase it's not at the same factor as between the the 2mb and 4mb versions. Also combined with some optimizations you can look for those to contribute more of the performance gain than the extra cache.

    Now did you wonder about that?
  4. i can't believe how amazing conroe is, i know i'm an amd fanboi, but i am impressed by conroe, its cool that intel can shrink it so well. i'm sure i'll have a g33 wolfdale setup when the price is right....I still think Intel isn't prepared for DDR3 (but i'm not saying amd is.)
  5. I want the Penryn just for SSE4 performance boost for DivX encoding.
  6. Do you have a DivX encoder that can actually use 4 cores? If yes, what is it called please?
  7. Approximate 10% improvement. About what some people had been expecting for a die shrinkage and some technology improvements. The big jump in improvement is going to come with Nehalem when the architecture changes take place.

    My hope is the intro of Penyrn is going to further reduce the price of Conroe, because performance bang for the buck the Q6600 is an awesome little chip that is just ideal for my office computers for the next 4-5 years.

    Any news on any future Conroe price reduction?
  8. Quote:
    future Conroe price reduction?

    I'm waiting until Penryn or Barcelona push the E2XXX or E4XXX series to below 10$ :lol: And the Netburst to below 2$ mark and Celeron to Free :D (Wishful thinking)
  9. you'd have to pay me to use a Celeron
  10. aevm said:
    Do you have a DivX encoder that can actually use 4 cores? If yes, what is it called please?

    It's not the program that will utilize multi-core, it is the DivX codec itself. From what I've read DivX 6.0+ supports up to 4 cores, DivX 6.6+ supports SSE4.

    I can't recall where I saw the benchmarks, but a Quad Core Penryn isn't that much faster than a Dual Core Penryn. From the benchmarks I save a QX6800 was able to encode a 5 minute file in 38 seconds. The Dual Core did it in 22 seconds. The Quad Core did it in 18 seconds.

    If I can find it I will post the link. It was one of the first pre-production benchmarks released.

    One last comment, to the best of my knowledge, DivX 6.6+ encoding is still not fully compatible with Vista. You may be able to watch DivX movie (maybe), but you certainly will not be able to encode.

    I'm not gonna bother upgrading to Vista until at least SP1 and DivX releases a compatible codec.
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Core Intel