Amazing Quad Core Xeon E5405 2.xx GHz 80W 12MB for just $210 .
Printable View
Amazing Quad Core Xeon E5405 2.xx GHz 80W 12MB for just $210 .
320$ for a 2.33ghz 50W quad? Give me a 3000 series or desktop!
Harpertown, which will succeed the current 65 nm Clovertown processors (Xeon 5300 series), will receive 5400 sequence number, with X, E, and L letters indicating performance, regular and low-power versions of the CPU.
"The mainstream lineup (80 watts) will reach from the E5405 with a clock speed in the low 2 GHz range up to the E5450 with 3.0 GHz. The X5460 will clock in at 3.16 GHz and will be rated at a thermal design power of 120 watts. Intel also plans to introduce two low-power versions, rated at 50 watts, with 2.33 and 2.66 GHz speeds (L5410 and L5430). All Harpertown processors will include a 12 MB L2 cache, up from 8 MB in Clovertown. The front side bus is expected to be a FSB1333 version across the board, while the slide published by VR-Zone still indicates that the E5405 could run at a slower clock speed.
The dual-core version of the CPU, code-named Wolfdale, apparently will be available with processor speeds of 1.86 GHz and 3.33 GHz (both rated at 65 watt TDP). There will also be a 3.16 GHz low-power version of the processor, running at 40 watts.
Harpertown and Wolfdale are expected to launch late in Q4 of this year."
Source:http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-...ews-25727.html
I remember my when my voodoo 2 had 12mb, and I though that was too much :)
NEWSFLASH! GW Bush is POTUS! Oh wait, that was known... as was the above ;)
Yea that's hardly any news. :D
About 1-1½ year too late with the news :P
Tell that to Tom. :D *j/k*Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
And we also got the prices :P
E5450 3.00 GHz 80W 12MB $851
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690
E5430 2.66 GHz 80W 12MB $455
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316
E5410 2.33 GHz 80W 12MB $256
E5405 2.xx GHz 80W 12MB $209
L5430 2.66 GHz 50W 12MB $519
L5410 2.33 GHz 50W 12MB $320
Hard decision... not. I'll take the 2.xxghz model!
Ryan
Also known as the lottery edition. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by FghtinIrshNvrDi
2.xx will have merits....I think it's a 1066FSB part, which means a higher stock multi for a low price :)
E5440 2.83 GHz 80W 12MB $690
E5420 2.50 GHz 80W 12MB $316
Half-multipliers make me sad, just silly price points.
these penryn processors are suposed to be comming out on the 22nd of july right
No, in Q4.Quote:
Originally Posted by billdavis
The price cuts are for them to make room for the 1333MHz FSB Dual and Quad Core, 65nm Conroes and whatever else.Quote:
Originally Posted by billdavis
Intel Rules
this used to be thread about yorkfield ES now what happend? :down:Quote:
Originally Posted by XeRo
I want some leaked numbers...
The original poster asked to have it removed till the 22nd when NDA is up. It only had a stock cpuz screen anyways, anyone can imagine that, no? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
Huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by -thc-(cZ)
Heh, now that you say that I'm not all that sure anymore myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
but I think Jacky meant to say "THERE used to be a thread.." not THIS thread.. and there was, and I posted in it and now it's lost and and.. and my post count went down :ROTF:
Yer damned right! :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I can buy TWO!
Ryan
yes, removed by request and for what it's worth he seems genuine to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by -thc-(cZ)
Let's wait till the 22nd..Just 4 more days my friends.
July 15 was supposed to be Penryn NDA break according to TGDaily but that turned out to be a rehash of the June 24th FSB1333 articles plus the QX6850.. And that June 24th date was in turn supposed to be on July 22nd along with the price cuts, and now July 22nd is Penryn leak day. Huh? BTW, I thunk I saw that 2.33GHz Yorky elsewhere. Could be the same person, I personally don't think so though..
I talked with this guy and he seems very straight and honest to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
I don't know if his cpu's were on that other post you read.
Let's wait and see what gets posted on sunday the 22nd..;)
I did not have the NDA date, and thought it was OK to post. After a PM from another user, giving me a lecture on the NDA, I had to remove it.
I did post a few pictures on in the threat I asked moderator to remove. (One stock with cpu-z, one with the CPU laying in my hand, and one of my testbench)
I am sorry I got some of you exited, but I promise I‘ll make a new one when the NDA is off.
And BTW. I have never shown these pictures/screenshots anywhere else but on this forum :)
Thanks for sharing those,but stay low until the 22nd :).Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamE
damn can't wait until the 22nd (if that's the day the nda is lifted, now please don't tell me it isn't :( )Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamE
Yorkfield xtreme edition gets priced, 999$ (digitimes)
yeah "motherboard makers confirm" we can expect 45nm extreme editions for christmas :)
I'm looking at a roadmap on XbitLabs.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/c...50/roadmap.jpg
Are mainstream and performance Yorkfields really coming out in Q1'08? I was really looking
forward to some cheap Yorkfield action and had it all planned to buy a whole new PC at the
end of the year. Big dissapointment. :/
And BTW, the next Intel lineup is unfathomable. Yorkfields are desktop 45nm processors, right?
What are Penryns and Wolfdales? Could someone clear this up for me please?
We will get Yorkfield and server versions in Q4.
Anyway:
Yorkfield=Quadcore Desktop
Wolfdale=Dualcore Dekstop
Penryn=Dualcore Mobile
Thank you ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamE
That lets you a lot of time to run a lot of benchmarks :D
I have never mentioned the 22nd as the date they are no longer under NDA.
Personally I don’t think it’s the 22nd, I think it’s later…
Yes, there is some confusion on that and I think it's due to Intel having it's price cut on that day..Some may have mixed the 2 up.Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamE
what about this new thread about a yorkfield ES
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=151920
can we trust the numbers/the source?
do we have to expect "only" 5-10% ipc improvement? :down:
oh and the chips seems to run a little hot and I hoped for even lower vcore ... 5x °C at idle if the readings are correct (stock cooling?)
EDIT: HUH? so you don't even know when the NDA ends? movieman said something about the 22nd so I thought it may be 22nd but I asked you, because you never mentioned the date... aaaah so no benchmarks coming?! just give us some hints or anything then...
It will "only" be 5-10% faster in IPC. Remember, its mainly just a dumb dieshrink with SSE4+50% more cache+Radix+Supershuffle.
For the heat part, I dont think you can rely on those numbers. Also Intel demoed 3.33ghz and run around with 3.2Ghz Quads at crysis and some warcraft3 stuff etc with those. And they use a stock cooler. BIOS thermal sensor numbers for the CPU is a lottery event. Voltage dont seem to be so wrong tho. But could change. 1.2V I presume vs current 1.35V
Which would be the better buy, Yorkfield Extreme or equivalent server version?
Like the current Q6600 is the exact same thing as the Xeon 3220 Quad, just a different name and supposedly binned higher because it's a server grade CPU?
I'm so hurting for this new PC lol, still on 5yr old 2.4c Northwood :rofl::shakes:
The 3000 series.
QFTQuote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
however I saw 10% increase in cinebench and 20% in HL2 over at anandtech in their preview and I was optimistic and hoped to see some more 10%++
eventually it will depend on the individual workload, for instance SSE4 will show "some more" improvements than 10%...
now contributing some news:
arstechnica summing up some of the news about penryn
The anandtech comparison was comparing a 2.93ghz Conroe vs 3.33ghz Wolfdale I believe, so it wasn't clock for clock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
5-10% IPC improvement with some significant outliers is more than reasonable.
Benchmark Yorkfield Performance Advantage
3DMark '06 V1.1.0 Pro CPU.... (score) ..: 21.8%
3DMark '06 V1.1.0 Pro Overall.. (score) ..: 7.6%
Mainconcept H.264 Encoder (seconds) .: 18.0%
Cinebench R9.5 (CPU test).................: 24.9%
Cinebench R10 Beta (CPU test)...........: 25.5%
HL2 Lost Coast Build 2707 (fps) ...........: 37.3%
DivX 6.6 Alpha w/ VirtualDub 1.7.1 (seconds) 111%
But the performance difference in more than the 10% speed difference. Lord help the competition if optimzations are used:shocked: Sorry guys, IMHO, 3DMarks anything is a waste of benchmarking time.
Don't pay much attention to those numbers Donnie,since it is in controlled env. and under unknown test conditions(which optimizations were used,ie SSE etc).
But ,you can look forward to some 5-10% just thanks to bigger L2 and other already mention arch. improvements.SSE is another point,and will need apps that support it to take advantage of it.
All the SW and versions was shown, no fancy stuff with custom optimization besides DiVX (But you can download that publicly).Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Intel have proven more than once that the benchmarks holds water. Unless you wanna argue against the early Conroe benches too.
SSE enabled games seems to gonna like the supershuffe engine.
yeah but they probably choose the best benchmarks anyway (those showing 10%+ ipc wise :D ). btw does superpi use SSE?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
I don't see any reason for them to fudge any of those results and even they gave a disclaimer about optimized software.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
If you take away or try to factor the in 10% difference (just for scale, an example only) you're talking 8 to 27% clock for clock, not counting the optimized app. I'm sure we all use optimized free apps, right?
I agree with Shintai, after the Conroe pretty much proved itself, Intel would be stupid to blow any of the credit they've earned.:up:
QFT!Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
But if something AMD launched was 10% faster, most of you guys would say AMD spanked Intel.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Jacky
http://www.hardspell.com/doc/hardware/39109.html
Translator says Yorkfield will be 2% of Q407, Q108 5%, Q208 6%. Wolfdale will be 13% Q108, 23% Q208. In summary, for desktop, 2% 45nm in Q407, 18% in Q208, 29% in Q308.
Try this?Quote:
Originally Posted by red
http://www.hardspell.com/english/
"With Intel set to launch 45nm quad-core (Harpertown) and dual-core (Wolfdale-DP) server processors in fourth quarter 2007, 45nm processors are scheduled rapidly increase in shipment proportions to account for almost 50% of total 2-way server shipments by second quarter 2008, according to sources at server makers."Quote:
Originally Posted by red
digitimes
"Intel 45nm notebook CPUs to account for 50% of total shipments in 2Q08
In reports similar to those for server platforms, Intel plans to ramp up its 45nm mobile processors (Penryn) and related platforms to account for over 50% of the company's total notebook shipments in the second quarter of 2008, according to sources at notebook makers...."
more at digitimes
Ooops, sorry guys with the 22nd NDA thing :p: I was clearly thinking the price cut date, stupit..Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
But I couldn't check, 'cause the thread got removed.. :D
Anyways, is there a date for NDA riddance yet?
OK quick question or riddle.
What's wrong with this?
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/int...spx?i=2955&p=3
Quote:
Date: March 28th, 2007
Topic: CPU & Chipset
Manufacturer: Intel
Author: Johan De Gelas
Nehalem Micro Architecture: Intel Embraces the IMC and IGP
Surprisingly, Intel gave away quite a few details about Nehalem. Although Nehalem is still based on the 4-issue Core architecture, it takes "multithreading" to a whole new level. First of all, Nehalem can contain up to eight cores per die. Combined with 2-way Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT or Hyper-Threading), you'll have the ability to execute up to 16 threads on one chip!
Nehalem will also use multi-level shared cache. Pat Gelsinger indicated that only the highest level of cache would be shared, meaning that Nehalem could very well have a similar cache hierarchy to AMD's Barcelona (independent L1/L2 caches per core, but a shared L3 cache). The power of each core is "dynamically managed" which might indicate that Nehalem goes one step further than AMD's Barcelona core: it could have independent power planes.
Nehalem will no longer use a FSB but a serial point to point interconnect. Even more revolutionary is the fact that Nehalem will have an integrated memory controller (IMC) and that the number of serial interconnects is variable (Intel's version of "HyperTransport"). Another potentially groundbreaking move is that some Nehalem CPUs will have a GPU integrated (Intel's version of "Fusion"). With an integrated memory controller, new interconnect, and potentially integrated graphics, Nehalem will obviously require a new socket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
it's from march.
That's one!Quote:
Originally Posted by safan80
The rest/start of that old item.
http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/int...spx?i=2955&p=1
Ok slightly OT,but the edit button works for indefinite amount of time since original post,so you can use it to update your post and not post a new one after only 1 min :) (06:47 PM, 06:48 PM; previous page : 05:29 PM ,05:30 PM)
On topic,why did you post those already known news?Did Anand change something in them,or do they shed some new light on Penryn(and not Nehalem,since it's not Nehalem topic :) )
Yea baby!Quote:
Originally Posted by ferds
You wrote all of that to just say "Please make one post?" WOW LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
Some of Penryn's tech will be carried over to Nehalem.
That's for folks like you talking about Anand is on Intel's payroll. The conclusion has every piece of AMD BS that often misquoted here as well. Intel used IMC before AMD copied Alpha's. Serial Point to Point~ EV6 would be like Alpha, NOT AMD, so is the cache setup LOL! How can Intel copy Fusion when Fusion is a copy of Timna itself LOL?
So all of their Penryn info depends on which person at their site is doing the reporting. Same thing goes for the Inq and others with multiple writers.
What does AMD has to do with Penryn in intel sticky?You again bring on the flaim bait with Fusion and the likes ,which has zero to to with Penry thread!
You might look up to the posters like ferds ,who with smaller amount of posts post real news to this sticky.
And yes,edit button can be used to edit your posts so you don't spam this and other topics with zillion posts in 30 minutes.
Thanks ferds,never saw that Yorkfield pic before.That dude says he can't post benches now,so NDA must be still on.Hopefully that will change soon.
Again, if you can't trust that info, you can't trust other the stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by informal
heh heh heh, isn't that the same guy who photoshopped the Penryn CPU-Z for April Fools day? That was classic :DQuote:
Originally Posted by ferds
This one looks genuine though :) :up:
1. 8 cores on one die is suspect. I'm sure it's 4 core max, and 8 core will be MCP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
2. Independent power planes might be incorrect. That's a big 'MIGHT'.
Not too sure what else could be wrong. Why is the date incorrect?
I don't see why you are nitpicking over 'who did what first'. Even if Intel did something first, AMD came out with the first mainstream (mass-market) version and thus popularized the concept.
Nehalem will "only" be 4 cores. 8 would be MCM. L3 cache? I dont see it. maybe on MP Xeons. There is no need due to shared cache. This aint K10.
The IMC and CSI for desktop is also a wrong one.
Nehalem with integrated GPUs. Possible with some mobile maybe. But I dont think so until 32nm.
Also the FB-DIMM would support DDR2, DDR3 etc. It doesnt matter since the memory controller only communicates with the AMB chip.
So overall, pretty wrong stuff. Unless ofcourse its me thats completely messed up.
Nehalem will have an L3 , shared for all the cores.Also , Pat Gelsinger said Nehalem was designed to have from 1 to 8 cores. ( I expect 8 cores to be 32nm )Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
Not at all.This information is very bogus , based only on Charlie's post.All Intel slides claim Nehalem will have CSI and IMC , no distinction is made on this , but on integrated graphics.Quote:
The IMC and CSI for desktop is also a wrong one.
"Nehalem" will only have 4 cores, there are Nehalem derivatives that are planned that have up to 8. The whole point of the new design was to have almost every portion of the die be interchangeable. the IMC can be removed (or possibly disabled), and cores can be added or removed from the raw layout relatively easily.
each of these derivatives will in turn come with a new reticle tapeout and product name.
Wrong is wrong=P Anyway, Nehalem is the So-Called native Quad Core Answer from Intel. Just more Marketing schlock (Native) IMHO! Remember MCM-ed Nehalem will not matter anyway since it will be Point to Point using CSI not a FSB. One Quad Core Penryn will not need an IMC. Current Q6xxx vs. $X$ (erum 4 X 4) pretty much proves that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Intel had no reason to hide Penryn from any of us, shouldn't AMD have done the same? Penryn has Improvements over Conroe and looks it will be a sweet overclocker.
Edit; Added later, it will do 8 threads because it also includes Hyperthreading 2. 8-core models can process 16 single threads.
You do know that the difference between 4x4 and Kentsfield is much, much, much more than the chip packaging, correct? Also, 4x4 is a dual socket model. You can't compare them like that.
I don't get what the last comment is for. The article said Nehalem will support up to 16 threads via hardware, ie it will have 8 cores. We already know the 4 core version will do 8 threads.
Intel to Launch 45nm Desktop Chips in Q4 – Documents.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...801221842.htmlQuote:
Intel Corp. has decided to bring the launch of its 45nm quad-core chips forward to the fourth quarter of 2007. This will allow the company to be in full position to compete against the new family of products by its main rival Advanced Micro Devices.
This is good enough to get it's own full thread really, rather than being stuck at the end of the Penryn thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by onethreehill
That was the only way to get 4 cores vs. 4. Soon that will changed. Oh, correction I mean one Woodcrest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
quad penryn confirmed
due Q4 '07
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/02/i...-market-q4-07/
http://www.legitreviews.com/article/488/2/Quote:
Originally Posted by SaII
What I thought was more impressive was that the Dual Core Wolfdale was faster than the Q6850 QC:) But that's with Optimized software can do and you know we'll not see enough of that. Add to this that this was a real app and not some synthetic test. This series of tests were shown at multiple sites.Quote:
The DivX results are particularly stunning, showing the power of SSE4 and what it will mean for applications that take advantage of the new instructions. The 3.33GHz Yorkfield processor is 52% faster than the 2.93GHz Kentsfield in this benchmark.
Theinq is seriously being more retarded than fudzilla now, and thats some of a record by itself.
Theo cant be taken serious...ever.
Anyway, let me asure people there will be atleast a 3Ghz Wolfdale and higher. And there will be 2.66 and 3Ghz Yorkfields too.
i hate it .... Xtreme only 8 multiplyer... I want an UNLOKED CPU... i'l pay well.
Those are test processors, geesh! E6600 was sent out last time. Intel showed a 6700 before the 6800, so whoopty do;) "All four CPUs are listed as samples and MSI hasn't posted any information with regards to which boards these CPUs works with, as it only states "under testing". Now surely folks don't think speeds are this limited, do they?Quote:
Originally Posted by ediflorianus
here's the textQuote:
Originally Posted by XeRo
Quote:
Motherboard makers fiddle with Penryn parts
By Theo Valich: Friday 03 August 2007, 17:59
AS THE TIME of launch for new processors approaches, more and more interesting information starts to leak from Taiwan. Thanks to our friends at Au-ja.de, we hear that motherboard vendors are now testing 45nm Penryn processors.
These tests are regularly done to prepare BIOS updates for motherboards that are already present, and to discover possible incompatabities - something that makers of Socket 775 motherboards are very well aware of.
We hear that motherboard makers are in possession of four different processors of the Penryn generation: two Wolfdales and two Yorkfields.
Wolfdale is a dual-core, single-die processor core with integrated 6MB of L2 cache, and the clock-speeds in play are 2.33 and 2.66GHz. Since these rely on the 1.33GHz FSB,the multiplier is set at 7x333 for the 2.33GHz part and 8x333 for the 2.66GHz one.
Yorkfield is simply waht Conroe was to Kentsfield: two Wolfdale dies are placed onto single Socket 775 organic package - so the amount of L2 cache is doubled to 12MB. And, right now, two things are being tested, the 2.33GHz and 3.33GHz models, with respective multipliers. The 2.33GHz part uses 7x333, while the 3.33GHz Extreme one works at 10x333.
As it stands right now, it looks like the difference between the regular version and the Extremes will be more pronounced. Unlike the original Conroe and Kentsfield with a difference of a mediocre 266MHz, Yorkfield EE is clocked at 3.33GHz with 12MB of L2 cache, while the fastest regular Yorkfield is set at 2.33GHz, a clear 1GHz difference in clock.
That should make up for the difference in price. µ
It's definitely a good indication of current CPU health. Let's hope upcoming steppings solve the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
This is also proof that the 3.33ghz demos were cherry picked. If they weren't, then the 3.33ghz ES samples would be much more prevalent.
TOTALLY Disagree. Like with the hidden Barcelona tests, let's just wait and see;) Now don't be surprised if Intel launches higher end models for more money. Then ship slower ones later. Again, these are test processors just like the 2.2 and 2.4GHz Conroes ES that they sent out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
There is something more interersting than maximum Penryn clock. I'm talking about minium clock of the cheapest Penryn. After all, prices on Penryns will depend on it in particular.
Please do tell us how you managed to come by this conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowmage
Can I remind you that current C2Ds on a 65nm process manage to reach 3GHz.Based solely on the shrink to 45nm , that brings you 20% more headroom. ( in other words Intel can make a 3.6GHz QC with as much effort as it takes to make a QX6850 ).Add high-k and metal to the mix and you can bring another few %.
And please tell us how you came to that conclusion. It's not just math, there are more factors that play role. they might have problems with new process. Process shrink doesn't automatically stands for better clocks, at least not right away.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
And what about stock TDP?Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
Lowest change right now. I think the 1.6Ghz Pentium 2140 is on the way out for a 1.8Ghz. Or simply dumped as an yet more cheap dualcore. The 4000 series got EOL on the 1.8Ghz..2Ghz is lowest there. So I would say 2Ghz and up. Most likely around 2.33 or 2.4Ghz, because I will expect 65nm to cover the lowend all that time. For quads its 2-2.33Ghz i think, but 45nm is also a bigger economic issue there due to total diesizes. The 50W quad xeons is 2.33 and 2.66Ghz. Today its 1.86 and 2Ghz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obscured
Shintai Same thoughts here.) And by the way notice that the minimum multiplier for Conroe-generation CPUs is x7 (with the exception of EIST, of course). So... may be... the lowest mutiplier for Penryn-generation CPUs'll be the same. Then we can expect even 2.33GHz as the lowest clock for 333MHz bus speed CPUs.
I know, hell I can't afford any of the Top models anyway. Mid-range at best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obscured
All I want for Christmas is .................................................. Native Quad 45nm :yepp:
But... if the lowest clock for Penryn-generation CPU would be 2.33GHz then the lowest price will be correspondingly high. (i guess in a range of 224$)
Same 130w.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obscured
Maybe in AMD's world...Quote:
Originally Posted by dexman
savantu
Comparing 3GHz quad-core and 3.6GHz quad-core?Quote:
Same 130w.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/...2142515,00.asp Seems it surfaced before but no one noticed but here it is again, Penryn's partner in performance
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2.../comp08_10.jpg
X35 is enough for me:) I've not gotten it yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by red
Quote:
Originally Posted by red
reminds me of something i read in a barcelona thread :ROTF:Quote:
Demo: next-gen desktop processor, Yorkfield quad core processor, two ATI 2900XT cards in Crossfire mode with x16 bandwidth, as well as X38 chipset. Demo of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2 (which has yet to be released). A0 silicon on X38. One of the silicons of the Yorkfield, whatever that means.
poor neglected nvidia :p:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqT_5Nv8gs0Quote:
Originally Posted by hollo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CD-mJMB7Lw
:p:
As firts results for Penryn show up,http://forum.coolaler.com/showthread...=158813&page=4,
we can put to an end the talk and FUD about Penryn pefromance.
As for gaming benches OCed Penryn and Kentsfield score almost the same in CPU test in mark06
http://img.coolaler.com.tw/images/wd...jylnvnqtzn.png
http://img.coolaler.com.tw/images/ih...j3inlymtug.png
Difference at OCed speed is mere 2%.(where Kentsfield nullifies the FSB advantage of Yorkfield since it is reaching high FSB)
So the scores are practicly the same.
SPI benches show also a small advantage for Penryn(1.5s faster) that equally clocked Conroe at 2.33Ghz.
Where is the fast radix and other improvements intel was bombing the press?The only thing responsible for this small improvements is 6MB of L2 and higher FSB of Penryn.
Next look at Tmpengc perfomance in that topic.NO IMPROVEMENT AT ALL,and that test uses 128bit SEE! Where is so much desired improved super duper shuffle engine?Funny stuff indeed.
So Penryn is almost the same as Conroe,only featuring larger L2 and higehr FSB(later gets absolete since most of overclockers reach the same FSB with their Core2Duo & Quad systems).
Advantages are the SSE4 which COULD bring improvements once there is SSE4 aware software,possible higher OC(this hasn't been confirmed yet) and lower wattage at same clock as Conroe.Everything else is just a PR.Generally it is 5-6% faster or the same as Conroe and Core2Quad.
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?ti...iew&rid=837360
"In addition, Intel former generation 65-nanometer products at the highest vein about 3GHz, clock more than 3GHz, power there will be significant growth, and 45-nm products up to a maximum of about 4GHz."
===
Conroe 65nm 2.33
Power - 61W
Temp - 41C
Wolfdale 45nm 2.33
Power - 43W
Temp - 31C
===
Conroe
Power - 83W
Temp - 49C
Wolfdale
Power - 59W
Temp - 37C
===
Divx 6.6 Alpha w/SSE4 +115.63%
Mainconcept H.264 Encoder (no SSE4?) +12.49%
Half-Life 2 +31.12%
CineBench 9.5
Single-Core/CPU +10.26%
Multi-Core/CPU +7.55%
C4D Shading +8.87%
OpenGL Software +19.20%
C4D Shading +9.24%
ScienceMark 2 +6.22%
===
Doesn't seem like an apples to apples comparison with two mobos specified, but still, Wolfdale on load cooler than Conroe idles plus decent boosts all around for a tweaked Conroe :) Wonder how results would be paired with X38