IDF Spring 2007 - Benchmarking Penryn - bit-tech.net Forums

The_Pope · 18th Apr 2007, 13:01

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._penryn/1.html

Digg to Share

DougEdey · 18th Apr 2007, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

We begged, pleased and argued

You did what now?

Those figures do look nice, but the how much is applicable to the larger L2 and how much to the higher FSB

Mary Jo · 18th Apr 2007, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by article

Since the 45nm process is still immature but these CPUs are offering a performance that will be exactly the same as on desktop.

This doesn't read correctly.

JADS · 18th Apr 2007, 13:54

Out of slight curiosity could you overclock a QX6700 to 3.33GHz (on a 1333Mhz FSB) and compare the quad core Penryn numbers clock-for-clock?

Tim S · 18th Apr 2007, 13:57

Thanks, this was a time sensitive piece and I wasn't available to proof the article before being published. Thus, there were a few errors not picked up by the other proofers.

Tim S · 18th Apr 2007, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by JADS

Out of slight curiosity could you overclock a QX6700 to 3.33GHz (on a 1333Mhz FSB) and compare the quad core Penryn numbers clock-for-clock?

It's certainly possible to create a system similar to that in our offices, as our QX6700 was capable of 3.46GHz using multiplier changes. We'll have to see.

yakyb · 18th Apr 2007, 14:13

yeah that would be excellent.
to try and see what they rate at clock for clock would be great

my question tho is surely with a few OC'ers going upwards of 5Ghz would it be likely we will see a few penryn going upwards of 6Ghz and therefore possibly sub 8 sec super pi runs

Bindibadgi · 18th Apr 2007, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by JADS

Out of slight curiosity could you overclock a QX6700 to 3.33GHz (on a 1333Mhz FSB) and compare the quad core Penryn numbers clock-for-clock?

We wanted to but they actually wouldnt let us play with the systems. This was our exact argument but they were having none of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary Jo

This doesn't read correctly.

Fixed! The processors are exactly the same as what you can buy but because the 45nm process is so new, the yields are still poor and the cost per chip is still exceptionally high. Therefore supplying the press with samples would cost Intel far too much, instead we'll have to wait a few months.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DougEdey

You did what now?

Those figures do look nice, but the how much is applicable to the larger L2 and how much to the higher FSB

Subst the s for a d

they are next to each other on the kb!

I was quoted "12% to clock speed, 14% to cache" but that was under a certain circumstance I can't seem to find now. It depends on what you're running: if the data can fit in cache then it'll be cache dependent, otherwise it'll be FSB since it'll be accessing memory.

mclean007 · 18th Apr 2007, 15:47

And Intel get the prize for least scientific performance demonstration this year. Wow a new architecture running at higher FSB and higher clock gives a better performance...who would have guessed?! They really should have had Penryn at stock, QX6800 at stock, and then either Penryn at 11 x 266 or QX6800 @ 10 x 333. Without that, the numbers are meaningless!

Still, subject to all these caveats, there is massive potential, particularly in that encoding score!

JADS · 18th Apr 2007, 15:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

We wanted to but they actually wouldnt let us play with the systems. This was our exact argument but they were having none of it.

As Tim mentioned you can replicate a 3.33GHz Kentsfield in the lab and do a direct comparison so it should give a better indication of the potential performance improvement.

Penryn good, Nehalem better

?

Tim S · 18th Apr 2007, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by JADS

As Tim mentioned you can replicate a 3.33GHz Kentsfield in the lab and do a direct comparison so it should give a better indication of the potential performance improvement.

Penryn good, Nehalem better

?

Providing Rich can get the source material used in the benchmarks.

Mary Jo · 18th Apr 2007, 16:47

Nice one. Good report - can't wait until someone gets their hands on one of these for some intensive testing.

Grinch123456 · 18th Apr 2007, 18:24

If this is to be believed, AMD better do something fast.

Nictron · 18th Apr 2007, 19:32

AMD where art thou!

DXR_13KE · 18th Apr 2007, 20:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by mclean007

And Intel get the prize for least scientific performance demonstration this year.

speedfreek · 18th Apr 2007, 23:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by mclean007

And Intel get the prize for least scientific performance demonstration this year. Wow a new architecture running at higher FSB and higher clock gives a better performance...who would have guessed?! They really should have had Penryn at stock, QX6800 at stock, and then either Penryn at 11 x 266 or QX6800 @ 10 x 333. Without that, the numbers are meaningless!

I thought the same, what do they have to worry about if there new design is so much better than a simple die shrink.

djDEATH · 19th Apr 2007, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grinch123456

If this is to be believed, AMD better do something fast.

exactly what i was thinkin.

My AM2 board, which i was under the impression would be future proof for at least 18 months is lookin more and more outdated by the day.

I so wish i'd bought a 775 and C2D... we live and learn.

Bindibadgi · 20th Apr 2007, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by JADS

As Tim mentioned you can replicate a 3.33GHz Kentsfield in the lab and do a direct comparison so it should give a better indication of the potential performance improvement.

Penryn good, Nehalem better

?

To make it properly scientific you'd want to use exactly the same system and benchmarks for both tests, setup by just one person.

Highland3r · 29th Apr 2007, 12:37

Would be good to see some dual core compare's too if possible. Know you stated you'd need exactly the same setup etc which is fair enough, but it'd be nice to get a ballpark figure for the performance improvement (or not).
The clockspeed defecit the Q6800 has over the other quad would certainly be MUCH lower if the clockspeeds were matched, the extra bus speed might well help things to an extent too. (could also be worth changing the labelling here, as the QX6800 isnt labelled as quad core which could cause confusion)
Clock for clock, things don't look a _huge_ amount quicker. From Intels point of view I guess it makes sense for them NOT to overclock one/underclock another as the performance difference between the chips would certainly be less marked than these stock runs with the large clock speed discrepancies

18th Apr 2007, 13:01	#1
The_Pope Geoff Richards Moderator Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 2,089	IDF Spring 2007 - Benchmarking Penryn http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200..._penryn/1.html Digg to Share

18th Apr 2007, 13:54	#4
JADS Et arma et verba vulnerant Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Portsmouth, UK Posts: 2,919	Out of slight curiosity could you overclock a QX6700 to 3.33GHz (on a 1333Mhz FSB) and compare the quad core Penryn numbers clock-for-clock? __________________ [AMD A64 2800+ + Zalman 7700][MSI K8N Neo Platinum][1GB Corsair PC3200][Leadtek Geforce 6600GT][Seagate Barracuda 7200.7 80GB + Maxtor Diamond Max Plus10 200GB + Maxtor Diamond Max16 120GB][Plextor PX-716 DVD-RW + 2x Plextor Premium 52x32x52 CD-RW + 16x Samsung DVD][Coolermaster ATC-201 BXT][Antec TruePower 430][Dell 2405FPW + Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070u][Logitech MX1000][Matias Tactile Pro][Griffin Technology PowerMate Black] Email Me

18th Apr 2007, 13:57	#5
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Thanks, this was a time sensitive piece and I wasn't available to proof the article before being published. Thus, there were a few errors not picked up by the other proofers. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

18th Apr 2007, 14:13	#7
yakyb CK is God!!! Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,061	yeah that would be excellent. to try and see what they rate at clock for clock would be great my question tho is surely with a few OC'ers going upwards of 5Ghz would it be likely we will see a few penryn going upwards of 6Ghz and therefore possibly sub 8 sec super pi runs __________________ Gaming Box:: q6600 @3.0 :: 9800gtx :: Abit IP35 :: 4gb :: 1.4TB :: akasa eclipse :: Win7 Development:: PhenomII 955BE @3.2 :: 4200 :: asus M4A785 M Evo :: 1.25TB ::Win7 Media Centre :: q6600 @3.0 :: x1950pro :: asus p35 epu :: 8gb :: 320 GB :: Lc17B :: Win7 server:: I7 860 :: p55 gd65 :: 3450 :: 8 TB :: 8gb :: Rebel 12 :: server 2008 R2

18th Apr 2007, 15:47	#9
mclean007 Officious Bystander Join Date: May 2003 Location: Nodnol Posts: 1,595	And Intel get the prize for least scientific performance demonstration this year. Wow a new architecture running at higher FSB and higher clock gives a better performance...who would have guessed?! They really should have had Penryn at stock, QX6800 at stock, and then either Penryn at 11 x 266 or QX6800 @ 10 x 333. Without that, the numbers are meaningless! Still, subject to all these caveats, there is massive potential, particularly in that encoding score! __________________ Demand Naked DSL in the UK!

18th Apr 2007, 16:47	#12
Mary Jo oh lolz Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: UK Posts: 646	Nice one. Good report - can't wait until someone gets their hands on one of these for some intensive testing. __________________ .

18th Apr 2007, 18:24	#13
Grinch123456 Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 95	If this is to be believed, AMD better do something fast.

18th Apr 2007, 19:32	#14
Nictron Multimodder Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 98	AMD where art thou!

29th Apr 2007, 12:37	#19
Highland3r I Mod, Therefore I Own Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Leeds UK Posts: 7,156	Would be good to see some dual core compare's too if possible. Know you stated you'd need exactly the same setup etc which is fair enough, but it'd be nice to get a ballpark figure for the performance improvement (or not). The clockspeed defecit the Q6800 has over the other quad would certainly be MUCH lower if the clockspeeds were matched, the extra bus speed might well help things to an extent too. (could also be worth changing the labelling here, as the QX6800 isnt labelled as quad core which could cause confusion) Clock for clock, things don't look a _huge_ amount quicker. From Intels point of view I guess it makes sense for them NOT to overclock one/underclock another as the performance difference between the chips would certainly be less marked than these stock runs with the large clock speed discrepancies __________________ Prawn or not...?