According to Intel, Penryn performance was tested on a pre-production BadAxe2 motherboard with a dual-core Wolfdale chip with 6MB of cache and a quad-core Yorkfield chip with 12MB of cache. Both chips ran at 3.33GHz on a 1333MHz front-side bus. For comparison, Intel has included results from a Core 2 Extreme QX6800 running at 2.93GHz on a 1066MHz front-side bus. Intel says test systems were otherwise configured with identical hardware, including a GeForce 8800 GTX graphics card, 2GB of DDR2-800 memory with 5-5-5-15 timings, and a 32-bit version of Windows Vista Ultimate, yielding the following results. The Divx and H.264 encoding scores are in seconds, so lower is better.
|Penryn dual-core 3.33GHz||Penryn quad-core 3.33GHz||Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93GHz|
|3DMark06 - CPU||3061||4957||4070|
|3DMark06 - Overall||11015||11963||11123|
|Mainconcept H.264 encoder||119||73||89|
|Cinebench R9.5 - CPU benchmark||1134||1935||1549|
|Cinebench R10 Beta - CPU benchmark||7045||13068||10416|
|Half-Life 2: Lost Coast||210||210||153|
|Divx 6.6 Alpha with Virtualdub 1.7.1||22||18||38|
The quad-core Penryn's performance advantage over the current QX6800 ranges from just over 7% in 3DMark06's overall score to a stunning 53% in the Divx encoding test. Penryn is working with a faster front-side bus and processor clock, of course, but it's unlikely the extra MHz alone accounts for the 18-25% performance advantage Penryn enjoys through the bulk of Intel's results. The Half-Life 2 results do seem a little odd, though, if only because both dual- and quad-core Penryn chips are a whopping 37% faster than the QX6800. Intel used build 2707 of Lost Coast, which doesn't take advantage of quad-core CPUs, but it's unclear what display resolution and in-game detail levels were used for that test.