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

Already tested: Two Quad-Cores in a Mac Pro, makin

[chriss]

A few weeks ago Anandtech already tried to plug two 2.4 GHz Quad-Core Clovertons (Xeons) samples into the new Mac Pro featuring two LGA-771 sockets. Worked like a charm, a nice eight core machine. And since dual socket motherboards are quite expensive, the Mac Pro might even be a cheap version.

Well, All I have to say is...

[HuckleCom]

Quake 3 Voice: QUAD DAMAGE!

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.

Re:Should have wait...

[EatHam]

Well, for sure now is the time to buy a quad core. I doubt there will be any new chips released for the next several years at least.

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:Time to refine operating systems...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

So why does an app or a library have to care how many CPUs or cores the PC has? Surely that's the job of the OS?

Yes and no. Programs can split the hard work across several threads and all of those threads will be managed by the task scheduler regardless of how many cores there are. The hard part is making an algorithm that can split the heavy processing work to multiple threads, that threading has to be programmed. If the program has all the hard work in one thread, then it's not going to use more than 100% of one CPU, 50% each of two CPUs, etc.

Re:ExtremeTech has more benchmarks

[mikemuch]

Well that linking format didnt' work: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2021888 ,00.asp

Re:How about quad memory capacity?

[Doctor Memory]

Oblivion will grab whatever it can, so 1gb for that cpu isn't unfeasible

Do you know that your Oblivion process will stay on whatever core it starts on? If it's any kind of a useful application, it's going to have to do I/O sometime, and at that point will give up the CPU. Once the I/O completes, it'll be placed on the run queue and should be picked up by the next available processor. It shouldn't matter how many processors you have, any program that takes a given amount of memory to do a given amount of work will take up that much memory. If you're planning on running more programs to take advantage of your additional CPU power then yes, you'll want more memory. But if all you want to do is execute your current software and workloads faster (assuming they run faster on a multicore system), then you won't need any more memory.

I can imagine other, more memory intensive apps trying to run in tandem

You've got a better imagination than I do, then. I can't see applications forking off copies of themselves and jockeying for position! If you meant "I can see running other, more memory-intensive apps in tandem" then duh, you'll use more memory. Exactly the same as you would on a single-core system. If you've got an app that scales well, it'll still take the same amount of memory no matter how hard it's exercising however many CPUs. Input set sizes are pretty much fixed, whether they're hard-coded or dynamically configured based on system size: your app will allocate the same amount of memory either because it always grabs 32M or because it always grabs 1/16th of total system memory. Number of CPUs has nothing to do with it. Unless there's some software that allocates one thread per CPU, and allocates some fixed buffer size per thread, which now that I mention it actually sounds reasonable for some classes of software, but I've never heard of it actually being done.

Did Intel learn *anything* from Java2?

[Kostya]

What the hell is with this Core2 Quad crap? It should be Core2 and Core4. You would have thought Intel would have learned from the nightmare Sun/Java went through with the whole "Java2 1.4" branding nightmare. Sun finally wized up and started calling everything Java 4, Java 5, and Java 6. Why would Intel start such a fiasco?

I get that they are trying to say "Hey look, it is a totally different architecture!" But calling it Core2 isn't going to do that. People will just end up calling them Dual Core or Quad Core anyways, not Dual Core2 and Quad Core2. It's just going to detract from their branding, not help it.