Saturday, April 19, 2014
Search
  
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
 Penryn 3.33GHz Quad-Core Benchmarks Released
You are sending an email that contains the article
and a private message for your recipient(s).
Your Name:
Your e-mail: * Required!
Recipient (e-mail): *
Subject: *
Introductory Message:
HTML/Text
(Photo: Yes/No)
(At the moment, only Text is allowed...)
 
Message Text: Intel unveiled the first benchmark numbers of its recently announced Penryn quad-core processor, which runs at 3.33GHz, at the IDF event in Beijing, China.

Intel presented the benchmark numbers of a Penryn 45nm 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 2 Extreme processor QX6800 introduced last week at 2.93 GHz with 1066 FSB and 8MB cache. Another dual-core version of the Penryn family with 6MB L2 cache was also included in the comparison.

Intel said that the three test systems were configured with identical hardware, including a GeForce 8800 GTX graphics card, 2GB of DDR2-800 memory with 5-5-5-15 timings, and a 32-bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate. The results are available below.

  Penryn dual-core 3.33GHz Penryn quad-core 3.33GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93GHz
3DMark06 - CPU (score) 3061 4957 4070
3DMark06 - Overall (score) 11015 11963 11123
Mainconcept H.264 encoder (sec) 119 73 89
Cinebench R9.5 - CPU benchmark 1134 1935 1549
Cinebench R10 Beta - CPU benchmark 7045 13068 10416
Half-Life 2: Lost Coast (FPS) 210 210 153
Divx 6.6 Alpha with Virtualdub 1.7.1 (sec) 22 18 38


The quad-core Penryn's performance advantage over the current QX6800 ranges from just over 7% in 3DMark06's overall score to a stunning 53% in the Divx encoding test. The Half-Life 2 results do seem a little odd, though, if only because both dual- and quad-core Penryn chips are a whopping 37% faster than the QX6800.

We expect to confirn those results as soon as we have the Penryn processors in our hands.
 
Home | News | All News | Reviews | Articles | Guides | Download | Expert Area | Forum | Site Info
Site best viewed at 1024x768+ - CDRINFO.COM 1998-2014 - All rights reserved -
Privacy policy - Contact Us .