"Penryn" is here!
 

Intel's "Penryn" processors are finally here. Just curious, is anyone here going to get one?

Can't wait for benchmarks to appear. I remember seeing at least 1 hardware review site that used P95 to test the power consumption of the Penryn... but they didn't reveal the timings.... sigh.

At the moment the available Penryns are exactly as quad-core chips were at the very start of this year: either for dual-socket servers, or extremely expensive.

I may well pick up a single-socket quad-core when the next batch of Penryn releases appears in January 2008 - the Q9450 described at [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Quad-Core_Desktop_processors[/url] is 2.66GHz quad-core for $316, which seems a reasonable deal in comparison to the current Q6600.

[QUOTE=fivemack;118437]At the moment the available Penryns are exactly as quad-core chips were at the very start of this year: either for dual-socket servers, or extremely expensive.

I may well pick up a single-socket quad-core when the next batch of Penryn releases appears in January 2008 - the Q9450 described at [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_future_Intel_Core_2_microprocessors#Quad-Core_Desktop_processors[/url] is 2.66GHz quad-core for $316, which seems a reasonable deal in comparison to the current Q6600.[/QUOTE]


The latest issue of PC Magazine also states that the new quad core chips
only performed 26% better than the duo-core on certain benchmarks.
(details were lacking)

[QUOTE]The latest issue of PC Magazine also states that the new quad core chips
only performed 26% better than the duo-core on certain benchmarks.
(details were lacking)[/QUOTE]

With 321 at 1 million digits, I get very good scaling -- an estimate is >3.9. For current Prime95 LL, the bus speeds, memory speeds etc, seem to improve throughput, but a quad is still not much better than a core2 duo -- 2-3 scaling? So it depends on the applications that you want to run. My advice is to it suck and see. :smile:

With a 2.4Ghz core2quad (Q6600), on my current LLR work, I get 1.6 more throughput clock-for-clock than pentium4.
1.6*4*2.4GHz == ~15 Ghz (Pentium4)

Hafnium :nuke: :ermm: