• 50.25% (Neutral)
  • Member Topic Starter

Some people tell me this new intel processor is not that much faster than the conroe(hell its not even out yet)....I think Its kinda wacky saying its comparable to the quad....ok...anyway, just want some feedback on this, I'm not a computer wiz...

Super Dave
I have to wonder how much of that performance gain is attributed to having 50% more L2 cache (6MB on the sample Wolfsdale versus the current Conroe's 4MB).

Significant performance improvements are possible in situations that are bandwidth and floating point intensive. Also improved performance of single-threaded workloads due to Enhanced Intel

Dynamic Acceleration Technology. This feature allows one core within

the processor to take advantage of the power budget of a second core,

when that second core is not being fully utilized. I believe there will be noticable gains in performace with Penryn, but not nearly as significant as those that will come with Nehalem.


 It is indeed accurate....but the 115% is only in relation to SSE4 capable applications. video encoding can get a huge boost from penryn in terms of a SSE4 instruction set...But for normal comparisons...except to see anywhere from 1-15% boost...


1 to 15% is about what I've been seeing when reading on Penryn, can't wait to actually have one in hand.  Wondering about how hot they run in relation to overclocking. 


Well I was thinking of buying maybe a 45nm Quad-Core not the 65nm, but I am not sure if it will be a good idea. Is the double price worth it for that little speed increase? Will newer applications use the SSE4?

methious wrote:

1 to 15% is about what I've been seeing when reading on Penryn, can't wait to actually have one in hand.  Wondering about how hot they run in relation to overclocking. 

The overclocking depends. For the yorkfields...they have a lower multiplier compared to the q6600..So they won't be able to OC to the actual potential of the chip. Their is a FSB wall around 500-525 (more likely low 500's)....So 8x500 = 4ghz for yorkfield, q6600 = 9x500 = 4.5 ghz...But this doesn't mean that the chips can hit that speed. This is just in regards to the FSB wall if the processors were capable of hitting those speeds. I expect the q6600 and yorkfields to OC similarly. The q9450's should be able to OC farther...but with the 8x multiplier on the q9450 (without a doubt the most desired yorkfield), it'll hit the limit of the FSB wall before reaching the chips potential. Personally, this is a great business strategy by intel. Drop the price of the q6600 to 200, meanwhile the q9450 will offer similar over clocking potential on a smaller process node. Both will be desired, te q6600 for heavy oc'ers for the 9x multi, and the q9450 for the lower power draw, temps, etc. But we'll have to see what x38/x48 is capable of with the q9450's...Time willt tell.



 Knowing my beer budget I'm probably going to the Quad 6600, price for performance when Nehalam comes out it's going to be a pretty good deal.  With a dual water cooling system, runing 2 pumps, and 2 triple radiators I'm not much worried about heat.


 I am going to try to hold out until the QX9775 is available at a reasonable price. @ 3.2 GHz with 1600 MHz FSB it's too impressive to settle for less. Hopefully by then there will be a motherboard thats allows for these in a single-socket configuration instead of the dual-socket DX5400. Although by the time these become affordable the latest and greatest from Intel may be far more impressive.


 i myself have a E8400 and love it.  so much overclocking potential its amzing.  currently running at 3.7ghz with a coolermaster hyper TX2 heatsink (it suxx)  and some crap thermal paste.

The voltage is a bit high since i didnt really test to see what the lowest it wouyld go.  just put it to something reasoanble and let it do its thing.  Need to do a bit more tweaking now that i have my new Beta BIOS in.


Shipping dates on the processors have not changed from what I can see, they are showing the new processors as coming down the chain starting March 21st for those that are interested.  I want a 12MB cache processor sooner though [:(]


i see that they have a lot of problems these days with intel cpus