Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Harpertown (Penryn) Quad CPUs Benchmarked

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the we-have-the-technology dept.

unts writes "The Intel Developer Forum is currently running in San Francisco, and Intel is showing off the up-coming Harpertown processors based on the Penryn core. HEXUS got hands on with a test system and ran some performance tests: 'Harpertown is a better quad-core processor than Clovertown: it's as simple as that. More L2 cache will gobble-up larger application data-sets and a higher FSB, on select models, will ensure that per-CPU bandwidth is less of a concern.'"

8 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. New processor better than predecessor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am stunned.

    1. Re:New processor better than predecessor by Rob+Simpson · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno, the last time my cooking turned out like the Pentium 4, I had to use the fire extinguisher. :(

  2. The competition is getting good by downix · · Score: 4, Informative

    While invariably the comparisons will bemade between this and AMD, let us not forget that Intel is getting stiff competition from left field as well. The arrival of the SPARC Niagra II processor is about to make the realm of high-end computing a lot more competitive than it has been in years. I, for one, can't wait to see a real head-to-head-to-head, AMD and Intel quads vs the 8-core monstrosty that is SPARC.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:The competition is getting good by shawnce · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't ignore IBM's POWER processors (POWER7 is in the works) and of course Cell.

  3. Nothing but a press release by drspliff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article is extremely thin on the promised "benchmark" and looks like a fairly standard press release.

    Information in real CPU benchmarks: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/
    Information in the press release "benchmark": about:blank

    Give me graphs, comparisons with other models in the same series & other CPUs, information about power draw & heat etc. Not adverts, details I can find out anyway and dont really care about etc.

  4. Much more detailed coverage available at TR by EconolineCrush · · Score: 4, Informative

    A much more in-depth review is available at The Tech Report: http://techreport.com/articles.x/13224

  5. Depends what you mean by "high-end computing" by vlad_petric · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Niagra processor is a great idea for (web, db) server workloads, where you have a lot of inherent parallelism and very poor cache behavior. A while back, the Piranha research project figured out that for such types of applications, it's better to have many "wimpy", in-order cores than a few "beefy", out-of-order execution ones. Niagra is doing exactly this. However, outside this application realm Niagra doesn't do that well.

    Bottomline: The Niagra microarchitecture is meant for a particular niche.

    --

    The Raven

  6. Aggregate RAM bandwidth is what Intel really needs by Phatmanotoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just look at thre STREAM benchmark numbers and you'll see clearly that AMD has been way ahead of Intel when it comes to RAM bandwidth. I just benchmarked a dual-Quad-Xeon myself (Dell 2900) and I could not believe the poor results I got. One app running in the system can get up to around 3,500 MB/s. Put just two tasks running together (taskset'ed to different chips), and they will each get around 2,600 MB/s. From there on, total aggregate bandwidth tops at 5,200 MB/s and stays there, no matter how many simultaneous tasks you run (it will of course degrade if you run more than eight tasks, you get the point).

    Dual-socket Opteron machines from two years ago can get to 15,000 MB/s aggregate, easily.

    So, I'd really like to know if Intel is planning to improve things in this department.