Beijing (China) – Don’t pretend you haven’t been waiting for these numbers: Is Penryn really as good as Intel claims? As long as we have not reviewed the CPU in our labs, we can’t say for sure. But if the chip is as capable as the benchmark results provided by Intel indicate, then it is clear that Intel has no intentions of handing the performance crown over to AMD.
The numbers were presented in a similar environment as the Conroe numbers at the Spring IDF last year. We had no influence on configuring the (pre-production) system, which means that the benchmark numbers should not only be taken with a grain of salt, but they also could change until the final product arrives in H1 of next year.
Up for comparison were two 45 nm Penryn processors, one 3.33 GHz dual-core (6 MB L2 cache) and one 3.33 GHz quad-core (12 MB L2 cache). To allow a comparison with today’s processors, Intel refrained from using an AMD product, but chose the firm’s currently fastest CPU instead - a quad-core, 2.93 GHz QX6800.
Perhaps most interestingly, the 45 nm quad-core achieved 4957 points in 3DMark06 (CPU), which represents a 22% improvement over the QX6800 (4070). The dual-core Penryn crossed the line at 3061 points or about 20% more than what an EX6800 reported in a benchmark previously conducted by Tom’s Hardware (2544).
While we cannot directly compare Intel’s benchmarks with any other tests Tom’s Hardware has done in the past, we were tempted to look back and see how AMD’s processors have done in the 3DMark06 CPU discipline. The fastest performing AMD system was a dual-socket, dual-core FX-74 machine that came in at 3764 points, or about 31% less than the Penryn quad-core. A single-system AMD FX-62 reported 2352 points - 30% less than the dual-core Penryn.
Here are the Intel benchmark numbers in detail (click the image to see the enlarged view):