Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad-Core Benchmarks

Slimpickin writes "Intel gave access to quad-core Kentsfield-based systems to select members of the press at IDF. The embargo has been lifted on a preview of performance numbers with the new 2.66GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor. HotHardware showcases Intel quad-core performance from a few different angles, from digital video processing and encoding, to 3D modeling and rendering, along with a few of the more standard benchmarks. the new Intel quad-core puts up performance numbers, depending on the application, at nearly double the performance of a 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo processor based system. Core 2 Quad will also drop right into existing motherboards that are compatible with the Core 2 processor line."

Comments

Intel FSB vs. AMD Hypertransport?

[ricky-road-flats]

If the Intel Core 2 Duos are good (generally agreed I think) , and this chip - their first quad-core - is looking so good, at what point will the apparent advantage of the AMD platform (no FSB, just Hypertransport links) kick in? If not at four cores, at eight? 16? More to the point, before Intel gets round to releasing CSI?

I know on the face of it this chip is a kludge (two dual-cores connected to one FSB in a single-socket package, as opposed to AMD's forthcoming 'true' quad-core CPU), but if it performs well, so what?

Re:Intel FSB vs. AMD Hypertransport?

[jiushao]

It can equally well be argued that AMD's solution is a "kludge". Intel has four processors arranged in two pairs, within each pair the processors are connected by shared L2 cache, but the pairs are connected by the FSB. AMD on the other hand have all four processors communicating over HyperTransport links. Shared L2 is clearly better than HyperTransport links, and the HyperTransport links are better than Intel's current FSB.

The physical packaging simply doesn't tell much about the quality of the interconnect. Sure it is harder to make a truly great interconnect with separate packages, but looking directly at the interconnect tells the much more accurate story.

Either way, it is not an all that great suprise that the dual-FSB design of modern Intel platforms manages four cores decently, but yes, AMD probably still has a clear edge on 8 core systems.

Time to refine operating systems...

[b0r1s]

For years, most operating systems have been designed for 2-4 processors, with some handling more, and others doing better with less (I'm sorry, FreeBSD fans, I use it myself, but let's be honest, SMP was horrible until 5-REL, and it still isn't up there with Linux and *ugh* Microsoft).

With 4 core out this year, and 80 cores out in 5 years, it's time to rethink multiprocessor operating systems. There needs to be a significant change in the locking and threading metaphors, because 4 and 8 way will be obsolete by this time next year.

Re:How about quad memory capacity?

[Travoltus]

That's what I meant by average... I know cpu's don't "demand" memory, but having enough memory for each CPU is a good idea.

The apps I run at home (video conversion, maybe a VMWare instance) would each use very close to 512mb apiece. I might even run Oblivion in one cpu while turning a DVD converter loose on another process; AFAIK Oblivion will grab whatever it can, so 1gb for that cpu isn't unfeasible.

I can imagine other, more memory intensive apps trying to run in tandem and running into problems if you have under 2gb for four cores, if you're using all four cores to the max.

Quad Core Gaming

[Psiven]

Currently the only game in the near future that will take advantage of multithreading is Crysis, shortly followed thereafter by HL2:EP2. In the case of Crysis, lead designer Cevat Yerli is quoted as saying that they are "scaling the individual modules, like animation, physics and parts of the graphics with the cpu, depending how many threads the hardware has to offer" (incrysis.com). But he has also stated that the game will get a 10-15% boost per thread in a 64bit environment compared to 32bit. If this is true, then what are the implications on performance when operated in AMD's upcoming 4x4 processer?

The AMD 4x4 is pure 64bit, so does this mean that when compared to Kentsfield, a quad 32bit processor, Crysis would behave 40-60% (4x10% or 4x15%) faster?

My favorite application will

[benhocking]

If I add more cores, it's so I can simulate bigger neural networks in close to real time. Depending on my level-of-detail, 10,000 neurons take anywhere from 250-750 MB. In order to run 100,000 neurons I need dozens of CPUs (currently done via Beowulf clusters), and each CPU needs a lot of RAM. (Up to about 100k neurons, synapses scale roughly as n^2, not n - at least in our model of the hippocampus.)