Penryn 40% faster on games, video...

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070417/20070416006532.html?.v=1

Gelsinger provided performance indicators for Intel's upcoming Penryn family of processors. For desktop PCs, he said to expect increases of about 15 percent for imaging-related applications; 25 percent for 3-D rendering; more than 40 percent for gaming; and more than 40 percent faster video encoding with Intel SSE4 optimized video encoders. The indicators were based on pre-production 45nm Hi-k Intel® quad core processor running at 3.33 Gigahertz (GHz) with a 1333 Megahertz (MHz) front side bus (FSB) and 12MB cache versus an Intel® Core(TM) 2 Extreme processor QX6800 introduced last week at 2.93 GHz with 1066 FSB and 8MB cache.

For high-performance computing (HPC) and workstation systems, Gelsinger said to expect gains up to an estimated 45 percent for bandwidth intensive applications; and a 25 percent increase for servers using Java(1). These indicators were derived from pre-production 45nm Hi-k Intel® Xeon® processors with 1600 MHz front side bus for workstation and HPC, and a 1333 MHz front side bus for servers versus today's quad-core Intel® Xeon® X5355 processors.

So much for Barcelona...

Some other chart said Barcelona was going to be 40% faster than Kentsfield/Clovertown... Now penryn... I think its going to be an intense battle.

40%? That sounds like a huge gap. Is it 40% with an IGP card or 40% with an enthusiast card or both? I'll believe it when I see it.

ditto. won't believe the extent of the gap until solid proof rolls out

Good news is they have 3.33GHz 1333FSB chips up and running already :)

Let's face it...most of us would be happy with identical clock-for-clock performance with only higher clocks...but we're getting both, even if it is only a small gain in some applications.

umm, who is doing their math?

[QUOTE=Vapor;2134339]Good news is they have 3.33GHz 1333FSB chips up and running already :)
QUOTE]

At my house!:D

they claim P35 was going to be 15% faster for core 2 duo ... how did that turn out ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theteamaqua

they claim P35 was going to be 15% faster for core 2 duo ... how did that turn out ...

---

with matching Ram, about Zero

This time we got actual benchmarks. More than we ever got on Barcelona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

with matching Ram, about Zero

---

bingo ... and how will this turn out??

i am not syaing there wont be any ... but the performance gain will definitely not be 40% ... much less than that

but again ill get Q6600 for $266 in Q3, then get K10 when it drops price sometime next year .. or not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

This time we got actual benchmarks. More than we ever got on Barcelona.

---

Please take the lead and use that link to FIND A SINGLE IMPARTIAL (NON-INTEL designed) benchmark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theteamaqua

bingo ... and how will this turn out??

i am not syaing there wont be any ... but the performance gain will definitely not be 40% ... much less than that

---

Actually it wouldn't actually have any improvement until quality DDR3 starting hitting the masses, then 15% is possible

the problem with AMD is taht its OCing headroom ... if it OCs well , then it will definitely be a killer for kentsfield.. say it can easily do 3.5Ghz on air for 24/7 then it will bne most ideal

300 more mhz and 4mb cache add that to todays cpu and the results would then be a little more acurate.

I wished they gave the cpu to someone like Joe who then would run a benchmark before and after on a clogged machine to see the benefit ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Good news is they have 3.33GHz 1333FSB chips up and running already :)

---

At my house!:D

---

Yeah, but yours aren't 45nm ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flopper

300 more mhz and 4mb cache add that to todays cpu and the results would then be a little more acurate.

I wished they gave the cpu to someone like Joe who then would run a benchmark before and after on a clogged machine to see the benefit ;)

---

lets be honest that isn't a real fair trial. Since I can get a better 3Dmark score on a K6 and a lean system; than a 4Ghz Penryn set up by a retard who just happens to download alot of spam and viruses

^whats to say a 45nm penryn doesnt do 4ghz with ease?

no point speculating until we see some hard evidence or specs, otherwise romurs mean pretty much nothing for either chip.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revv23

^whats to say a 45nm penryn doesnt do 4ghz with ease?

no point speculating until we see some hard evidence or specs, otherwise romurs mean pretty much nothing for either chip.

---

well we all know how useful the jump from 130nm to 90nm was for netburst in terms of max overclock :rolleyes:
for all we know, it might overclock WORSE, since perhaps the cache is more likely to lower the max clock speed. :fact:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Yeah, but yours aren't 45nm ;)

---

not yet !!!!

fb 800 ram is what dave needs tho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vapor

Yeah, but yours aren't 45nm ;)

---

I could put them in a vise and give it a 20nm squeeze!:p:

I wish it was that simple lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

Please take the lead and use that link to FIND A SINGLE IMPARTIAL (NON-INTEL designed) benchmark.

---

But we believe AMDs numbers out of the box. You are funny nn_step. :slap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

well we all know how useful the jump from 130nm to 90nm was for netburst in terms of max overclock :rolleyes:
for all we know, it might overclock WORSE, since perhaps the cache is more likely to lower the max clock speed. :fact:

---

Ye sure, you need serious help. Did you also miss the current 3.33Ghz bin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nn_step

well we all know how useful the jump from 130nm to 90nm was for netburst in terms of max overclock :rolleyes:
for all we know, it might overclock WORSE, since perhaps the cache is more likely to lower the max clock speed. :fact:

---

hmm well do you remember 180>130? or maybe 90>65?

anyways, thats not my point. My point was that you can't compare unreleased hardware, especially not to another piece of unreleased hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Movieman

I could put them in a vise and give it a 20nm squeeze!:p:

---

now that is Xtreme :banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Acid-

I wish it was that simple lol

---

Amen to that, then I'd be running 5nm sandies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shintai

But we believe AMDs numbers out of the box. You are funny nn_step. :slap:

---

nope, I believe AMD has yet to release official benchmarks for K10.