"Penryn" is here!

ixfd64 · 2007-11-12, 18:26

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

db597 · 2007-11-14, 12:43

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.

fivemack · 2007-11-14, 13:46

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...top_processors is 2.66GHz quad-core for $316, which seems a reasonable deal in comparison to the current Q6600.

R.D. Silverman · 2007-11-14, 17:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by fivemack

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...top_processors is 2.66GHz quad-core for $316, which seems a reasonable deal in comparison to the current Q6600.

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)

paulunderwood · 2007-11-14, 17:51

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)

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.

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

2007-11-12, 18:26	#1
ixfd64 Bemusing Prompter "Danny" Dec 2002 California 7⁴ Posts	"Penryn" is here! Intel's "Penryn" processors are finally here. Just curious, is anyone here going to get one?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Stockfish game: "Move 8 poll", not "move 3.14159 discussion"	MooMoo2	Other Chess Games	5	2016-10-22 01:55
"Master" and "helper" threads	Madpoo	Software	0	2016-09-08 01:27
Aouessare-El Haddouchi-Essaaidi "test": "if Mp has no factor, it is prime!"	wildrabbitt	Miscellaneous Math	11	2015-03-06 08:17
Would Minimizing "iterations between results file" may reveal "is not prime" earlier?	nitai1999	Software	7	2004-08-26 18:12

2007-11-14, 12:43	#2
db597 Jan 2003 11001011₂ Posts	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.

2007-11-14, 13:46	#3
fivemack (loop (#_fork)) Feb 2006 Cambridge, England 2³·11·73 Posts	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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...top_processors is 2.66GHz quad-core for $316, which seems a reasonable deal in comparison to the current Q6600.