Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX6700: The Multi-core Era Begins
by Anand Lal Shimpi on November 2, 2006 2:14 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Application Performance using SYSMark 2004 SE
No article looking at a new processor release would be complete without benchmarks. However, let us preface the benchmark section by stating that the benchmarks don't tell the whole story. There are numerous benchmarks and tasks that you can run that will actually show quad core processors in a better light. A lot of people will never use the applications related to these benchmarks, so in one sense we could say that most people should already know whether or not they need quad core processing. There is also definitely an element of future proofing your system by purchasing quad core now, with the hope that it will be more useful at some point during the life of the system. We definitely do not expect to see large gains in performance in most of the benchmarks we will run, simply because they were not designed or optimized to run on multi-core systems. We will also have some benchmarks that clearly do show vast improvements by moving from dual cores to quad cores, although we've already seen coverage of this in our Kentsfield preview.
We'll start with SYSmark 2004, a benchmark suite that does have some multitasking components and multithreaded applications, but which also includes plenty of work that benefits very little from dual cores let alone quad cores. The overall scores show the quad core processors to basically be equal to their dual core counterparts in terms of performance, with the margin of error accounting for the slight differences in score. Having two more processor cores did almost nothing for SYSmark 2004, and we would expect that to be the case with many business/office applications. Drilling down into the individual results gives us a bit more information, however.
The Internet content creation score clearly does benefit by adding extra processing cores, although not a lot. The Core 2 Quad systems are more or less able to match Core 2 Duo chips clocked one bin higher. The Office Productivity scores show the exact opposite: Core 2 Quad chips are slower than Core 2 Duo chips with the same clock speed. In an ideal world, this shouldn't happen, as all other things being equal having more processor cores should not slow down your overall performance. At some low level, however, there appears to be some resource contention or operating system inefficiencies. The SYSmark 2004 overall score is a good representation of what the end-user will truly experience for this sort of application: the difference between dual cores and quad cores really isn't very apparent if you are a more or less "typical" user.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
59 Comments
View All Comments
JJWV - Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - link
I bought a QX6700 for crunching at numbers. The reasoning was simple twice the power, only one MB, disk, PSU, case...The result is disappointing, the maximum throughput I get is not twice an E6700, it is just a little more than one an half : 1,6 to be precise. The bottleneck is definitely the memory. The Northbridge cannot communicate fast enough with the memory. 5I came to this conclusion by varying multiplier, FSB...) Perhaps it would be worthwhile with the faster memory available 9200, but I am afraid even that kind of memory is to slow. The Quadcore is where Intel went over the edge with their memory architecture.
Kougar - Tuesday, November 14, 2006 - link
Any ideas on the Apache benchmarks I am seeing with a QX6700? They are appalling at best, with a QX6700 performing on par to a E6400!! A little of the same problem seems to have shown up in Office Productivity benchmarks. Any thoughts on this?in1405 - Monday, November 6, 2006 - link
<<<No article looking at a new processor release would be complete without benchmarks. However, let us preface the benchmark section by stating that the benchmarks don't tell the whole story. There are numerous benchmarks and tasks that you can run that will actually show quad core processors in a better light. A lot of people will never use the applications related to these benchmarks, so in one sense we could say that most people should already know whether or not they need quad core processing.>>>Some interesting comments here on the relevance of Benchmarks .. This looks interesting as this point of view never came up while the AMD CPUs were being glorified a few months back in this same site!! Wonder where the sudden wisdom comes from.
LTC8K6 - Sunday, November 5, 2006 - link
Why not compare dual to quad by trying to run things in the background while you do something in the foreground? Encode something and play Oblivion, for example. Would we finally be able to do anything like that with quad cores? Are we able to get good framerates in such a situation yet?Webgod - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
How about running http://www.driverheaven.net/photoshop/">DriverHeaven.Net's Photoshop CS2 benchmark? I think one of your standard magazine benchmarks has Photoshop 7, but the DH benchmark is newer and it's somewhat popular. Anybody can download a demo from Adobe, and run the benchmark on their own PC.coldpower27 - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
Check Intel's current price list here:http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/proce...">http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/proce...
JarredWalton - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
Actually just the 820 and 914 - 805 didn't get a price cut this month. But I fixed the other two, thanks. :)coldpower27 - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
oh yeah my bad, didn't mean to add the 805 in there.by the way, check your email please.
OddTSi - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
On page 7 you say "Apple's OS X and its applications have also been well threaded for quite some time..." yet the only two Apple apps in the test (Quicktime and iTunes) didn't scale AT ALL from 2 to 4 cores. I'm not trying to bash Apple here I'm just trying to point out that the facts don't seem to support your assertion. If Apple's media rendering apps - which are some of the easiest to multithread - don't scale well I doubt that the rest of their apps do.mino - Thursday, November 2, 2006 - link
Maybe cause there is a catch?You see, WinXP is not very OSX like, not to mention its apps ;)