Quad-core Intel Kentsfield processors
Performance
We tested the CPU at both nominal 2.66 GHz and at 3.46 GHz. We
also used the following components:
Let's first take a look at the results of synthetic
benchmarks.
3DMark 06 and PCMark 05 are solely synthetic applications
which demonstrate theoretic performance in
multithreaded applications. Therefore, all the cores are loaded to the
full (note that part of PCMark tests use up only 2 cores).
The following test is called Cinebench and is more close to
reality:
As we see, full load upon all the four cores gives a 3-fold
performance boost as compared to a single core. If we compare the
speeds of Kentsfield versus single-core processors of the previous
generation, the difference is 5-fold!
Now let's look at the software suites for processing graphics.
These are 3DMax, POV-ray, and Photoshop CS.
As we can see, the 4-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is 1.5 times
faster than the dual-core Conroe (i.e., the same 3-fold boost as
compared to the single processor). As to other single-core stuff,
QX6700 is almost 4 times faster!
POV-ray demonstrates 100% of loading of all the cores, which
provides a 4-fold increase in speed (i.e. close to the results of
synthetic applications).
But Photoshop has not revealed any advantages of the new
processor. The thing is that optimization implies loading two cores.
Therefore, the speeds of Kentsfield and Conroe cores are equal.
Then we move on to tests of processing streamed data. These
are VirtualDub+DivX 6.4 for processing video, and Microsoft Media
Encoder (audio processing).
Both these programs did not reveal advantages of the 4-core
CPU over the 2-core CPU. However, there are its own traits: DivX loads
all the cores, although non-uniformly (i.e. there is an evident
restriction from other system components). But MS Encoder is able
operating only two cores.
The following test is compression with WinRAR which offers a
multi-threading optimization.
There is advantage of the 4-core architecture, albeit
insignificant.
And finally, the only multithreaded game - Quake 4:
This game is aimed at the single-core configuration and,
provided there are additional processor cores, it loads them up
non-uniformly and occasionally. That is, there is no difference between
the Kentsfield and Conroe.
Interim conclusions
So, if we classify all the software by the multithreaded
optimization, we get the following pattern.
- Software with 4-core optimization.
Such programs load the CPU Kentsfield almost to the full and the
performance boost reaches 300%!
- Software with 2-core optimization.
Conceptually wrong solution: as far as optimization is concerned, it
must not be dependent on the number of cores. Anyway, such optimization
is better than no optimization at all. And the only advantage of
Kentsfield in such situation is in the possibility to run 2 similar
programs which would handle various data and thus load up all the four
cores.
- Software without optimization.
No comments. There is no advantage of whatever Kentsfield and Conroe
over the single-core processor.
Regarding the latter, we should note that the vast majority of
programs for home-based users have no multithreaded optimization. In
other words, all games do not allow for making use of the advantages of
multi-core processors. In any case, there are already first positive
moves in this direction. In particular, Ghost Recon: Advance Warfighter
offers such optimization and is able loading up two cores.
Besides, developers of the 3D strategy Paraworld promised to
implement such an optimization, but we did not find it in the demo
version. On the screen, there were no more than ten units, so there was
no need for the second core. Perhaps, the increase in the number of
rendered objects to several thousands will result in loading additional
cores.
The following games supporting the multithreading optimization
are being prepared for release soon: Supreme Commander (THQ / Gas
Powered Games; to be released in Q'1 2007), Splinter Cell : Double
Agent (Ubisoft, late 2006, up to 6 executable threads). But by and
large, this is merely a drop in the ocean.
Actually, we'll come back to games later, but now let's
examine the attraction of new processors from the viewpoint of
professionals. If the software used offers multithreading optimization,
then Kentsfield processors, beyond any doubts, are the best solution.
They provide a 2-3-fold performance boost (depending on the extent of
their optimization) and have no serious shortcomings. Even the price at
about 1000$ is not a shortcoming when assembling workstations.
Depending on the user's incomes, a processor like that will pay back
within 2-3 months (from the employer's viewpoint).
But I repeat it once again that there is still very little
optimized software. Even the marketing people at Intel while announcing
this processor recommend quite a scarce list of test software which
includes Adobe Premier Pro, Adobe After Effects, Adobe Photoshop,
Pinacle Studio, and some programs to handle video and audio.
Now let's look at the performance of Kentsfield in games and
applications without optimization. Here, you even don't have to look at
the graphs, because it is evident that the operating speed will be
almost matching to the speed of Conroe/Allendale, and the minor
difference can be easily explained by different motherboards having
different BIOS versions.
 |
Top Stories: |
 |
 |
|
MoBo:
| |
|
|
VGA Card:
|
|
|
|
CPU & Memory:
|
|
