Much of the focus was on Harpertown, a 45nm quad-core version of Xeon with 12MB of cache, running in conjunction with Stokley, which support a 1600 MHz front side bus. Intel will also be releasing Wolfdale, a dual-core version with 6MB of cache. Although Penryn is primary a shrink of the existing architecture, rather than a complete new architecture, the new chips do s have some new features, notably including more cache and support for the faster bus; as well as a new divider that is supposed to be faster, and new SSE4 instructions…
The Tech Report compared a 3GHz Harpertown Xeon E5472 (expected to be released Nov. 12) against a 2.5GHz AMD “Barcelona” Opteron 2360SE (expected by the end of the year) and found that the Xeon pretty much won all the tests. The Xeon beat the Operton by 4% at Specjbb (a server business logic benchmark), the new Xeon beat an older 3GHz Clovertown Xeon by about 10%; and the 2.5GHz AMD part by about 4%. On almost all the other tests, Harpertown does even better, ahead of Barcelona by 20 to 34% in real world applications (and more in some synthetic benchmarks I’m more skeptical about).
Anandtech has even more benchmarks, most showing Intel ahead by 27% to as much as 60% (though I’m skeptical of the later tests). But it shows AMD ahead on performance/watt (with a larger improvement the less work is being done), almost certainly because of the more efficient memory scheme.
Both Barcelona and Harpertown seem to have some headroom in clock speeds. AMD is only shipping 2GHz now, but has promised 2.5GHz for December; let’s hope it can eventually match the 3GHz clock that Harpertown will start with. Intel is promising a 3.16GHz Harpertown; and on the desktop side showed a a demo of a 5.5GHz quad-core desktop with a ridiculous amount of cooling.
Looks like AMD has not yet caught back up but we’ll keep an eye out for more quad-core news and comparisons. I certainly hope AMD catches up and not necessarily because I am a fan. AMD has been good to me for quite a while but I don’t hold any loyalties between the two. I like competition. It’s always better for the consumer as, with healthy competition, it pushes the competitors to outdo each other in performance as well as price – two nice things as a consumer I appreciate. Competition can typically make a product better, faster, as well.
System builders who received samples a week or two ahead of today’s worldwide launch say they aren’t ready to issue benchmarks just yet. Nevertheless, sources tell ChannelWeb that the processor AMD calls “the first native quad-core” is faster than they had anticipated. They say three key advances are testing out as advertised — a tri-level memory cache hierarchy with fully shared L3 cache for all four cores, a floating point unit with 2×128-bit loads/cycle, and independent power supplies for each of the processor’s four cores and to the memory controller. The last feature distinguishes AMD’s quad-core product from Intel’s, in that it’s possible to idle one, two or three CPU cores for a workload to better manage power consumption.
If you have set aside a cool US$1100 for your processor alone at the time of this review release, then you should take a look at the QX6850 I will be reviewing today.
