The New Intel Penryn

By cfitzarl
Jul 21, 2007
  1. Due on the 1st Quarter of 2008 comes a revolution that shall change computers as we know it :p . So far the Intel Core 2 Duo has been a great success to Intel; defeating AMD and brining them to their knees (even though I personally use the Athlon 64). So, now Intel has finally come out with the trick that has been up their sleeve; it's name is the Intel Penryn, and it's a Dual-Core/Quad-Core CPU running on the upcoming 45nm Core Processing, also now running past 3.0GHz in labs :eek:! Each die also contains up to 6mb L2 Cache :grinthumb ! Here is a quote on performance on a Blog @ Intel's Official site (link):

    All of this makes you wonder whether AMD is still going to be able to run on the market; although they have something up their sleeves too; due later this year :) .
  2. MetalX

    MetalX TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 1,388

    Depends on how good Barcelona really is...
  3. cfitzarl

    cfitzarl TechSpot Chancellor Topic Starter Posts: 1,975   +9

    True; although I don't think that AMD has a huge chance at blowing away the Penryn; as Intel has seemed to be in the lead for quite a while now ;) .
  4. chance1138

    chance1138 TS Rookie Posts: 62

    Regardless of which processors end up being better, here's hoping that competition is continually spurred on. Keep those low prices coming!
  5. _FAKE_

    _FAKE_ TS Rookie Posts: 116

    Thats not new news, I've been hearing about Penryn ever since last year, well the name Penryn, not much details on it.

    Whats to get excited about. Intel got their P4 CPU's over the 3GHz barrier a few years ago. I'm more excited about AMD getting over the 3GHz barrier than Intel as I believe its a first for them. X2 6000+ 3GHz and the upcoming X2 6400+ at 3.2GHz

    Your forgetting that performance isn't everything. AMD can manage to keep up with most of Intel's CPU's at stock speed, and 80% to 90% of the worlds population don't overclock their CPU's.

    Business's who are running servers care more about power usage over performance. And currently AMD is winning at that part, maybe not at full load, but definitely at idle. And servers are generally more on idle than full load. And current "real" benchmarks have shown that the quad core Barcelona uses less power than the current dual core X2's. So its using significantly less power than Intels C2D quad core's. But the benchmarks did show that Barcelona was only slightly more poweful than the current Opterons, But these benchmarks where taken a while ago back when Barcelona still had a few bugs.

    I wouldn't really call 1 and a half years being a while. AMD did have the lead for about 4 years, now thats a while. And for what I have read (this goes for the overclockers) Penryn and the higher 1333FSB doesn't allow very good overclocking, well not as good as the current C2D at 1066FSB?. And I'm sure the enthusiast will prefer AMD on the next round as it will provide up to 8 cores (2 quad cores) which is something Intel doesn't have, and as fast as Penryn maybe it won't be able to compete with that (well maybe in gaming).

    But still, I have been hearing a lot of stuff about AMD and Barcelona but hardly anything about Penryn. I will keep my money in my pocket until both CPU's are released than decide on which to go for.
  6. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 3,481   +44

    The number for people becoming more knowledgable of pc hardware is getting larger every year. The big deal is that Intel is setting yet another milestone. Yes the p4's hit the 3Ghz mark, but frankly compared to a lower end c2d a p4 3ghz can be outperformed. Most people thought that intel would stop working on infantry(the megahertz line) especially since the c2d and quad cpu's performance is so much better than those recent p4's that are at the 3ghz mark. Frankly I'm impressed.

    I'd like to see what amd comes up with. Their new line of cpus are suppose to be 2.2ghz to 2.9ghz. Looks like they have trouble if intel keeps on this route

    I sease to never be suprised about the amd fanboys, I myself am no ones fanboy. I buy what's best on the market at time of purchase. I think the point of this post is just a heads up of future intel processors. And maybe...just a little to show how amd might be in trouble.
  7. _FAKE_

    _FAKE_ TS Rookie Posts: 116

    Actually, the highest clock at release will be 2 GHZ from what I have been told, with higher clocks being released later. I have also read on other forums, and websites that AMD will need to hit at least 2.5-2.6GHz in order to compete and/or beat the Intel Penryn. So I'm guessing that AMD has the upper hand when it comes to clock for clock performance, its just a matter of if AMD can clock them high enough to compete against Intel.

    I'm not exactly a fanboy, although I currently prefer AMD over Intel. I'm just the type of person who likes to assist those who fall down, unlike most people who just point and laugh. And I also like to see those little guys compete against the bigger guys, sort of reminds me of David vs Goliath.

    But yea, I'm not at all excited over Penryn, its just an upgraded version of the C2D where as Barcelona is a completely new architecture.
  8. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 3,481   +44

    I personally dont plan on buying a new intel cpu until next year sometime. Although I am going to try to clock my quad to 4Ghz when I get my new cooling setup.
  9. _FAKE_

    _FAKE_ TS Rookie Posts: 116

    Well yea. Like I've said, I've read that Penryn won't be as good at overclocking as C2D, so if you can manage to clock your quad core c2d to 4GHz (good luck with that btw :grinthumb ) there is no need to rush into a Penryn. To be honest, I really don't think intel should release Penryn unless its just to prove that they can get good functioning CPU's working on 45nm before they bring out Nahelam (I also forget how to spell that).

    Bringing out 2 completely different CPU's in less than one year seems a little odd considering that CPU's usually have a 2-3 year lifespan before being upgraded to a new architecture.
  10. LinkedKube

    LinkedKube TechSpot Project Baby Posts: 3,481   +44

    yeah people dont like to wait 3 years anymore, we not playing solitaire anymore right? lol or maybe I'm wrong.
  11. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,467   +1,760


    I get stuck on Spider once in a while. I'm hoping with time and therapy I'll be able to work through the problem.
  12. madboyv1

    madboyv1 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,322   +263

    though I am currently looking into building a new system, I am waiting for the new AMD processors and the new AM2+ and AM3 (with that new architecture, L3 Cache and HT3) sockets to see what people think of it. I've always liked AMD in the past, but I haven't bought a new system in 5 years (its hard to keep up with the current technology without playing with the new toys), so I've decided to be cautious of my choices this time as well.

    This new processor seems like it may be an attempt to snuff out AMD's new processor as they are coming out of the gate. Being though AMD has a larger hold in the Server processors market, I'm not sure if its going to work that well.
  13. CMH

    CMH TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,039   +9

    You'll always be waiting for new technologies. I would upgrade as soon as I feel the need to.

    Or unless there's a really significant jump in technology coming right up. I suppose AMD's native Quad Core may be worth the wait.
  14. madboyv1

    madboyv1 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,322   +263

    I know, thats what I do, well at least the last time I did any major upgrades anywho.

    Well I figure I like to have options to weigh against. Currently Intel has a good grip on the market with desktop processors with those "next gen" dual core processors, the C2D's. Realistically, AMD took a major hit in this department because they never seemed to try to revamped the K8 line and the X2's to at least meet the newer features of the C2D or the C2Q for that matter. They're reasoning for this (at least I like to believe to be), is because they believe the K10 line will be that much better. If they were willing to gamble part of that nearly 600 million USD that they lost in net income last year, and the the hundreds of millions that have already potentially lost this year, its like the ultimate "putting all your eggs in one basket" scenario. Though this isn't the first time AMD has done this, the past results in doing this has been very good. AMD seems to be lucky in that respect.

    I honestly am an AMD person, but because of the lack of new consumer technologies by AMD, I've been thinking of Intel for a good while. If AMD can't seem to dazzle me come the end of the year/next year, my money will go to the only other elsewhere there is. At the same time I'll keep an eye on intel and try to keep track at what they are doing.

    In foresight, I hope AMD's new arrivals pushes the prices for Intels higher end and Quad cores down substantially. I love new, shiny, and fast parts, but I can't see myself spending almost a thousand USD, if not more for a C2Q.
  15. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 11,467   +1,760

    Por Quanto Lo Compra......?

    That does assume you absolutely, positively, gotta have the Extreme Edition.
    Humbling be though it may, you could have the Q6600 today for about $320.00 (USD)
  16. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,689   +395

    Intel's future wasn't looking all that hot before the Core 2 Duos. The Pentium 4 wasn't anything special anymore. AMD will be fine.

    I remember a post or a comment by Rick (working for Intel at that time) before the C2Ds came out, when intel was getting spanked by AMD, where he said that Intel had something up its sleeve that would be very impressive. AMD is probably doing something similar, and even if they don't have something ultra awesome, I don't see them going under or anything severe like that.
  17. CMH

    CMH TechSpot Chancellor Posts: 2,039   +9

    AMD's doing alot better when they released the K9 line.

    I would really support AMD if their product was similar to Intel's in terms of speed (or computing power, so not to be confused). However, given the huge difference in performance between the products of the 2 companies, I was forced to buy Intel.

    Why support AMD? Well, an Intel monopoly isn't going to do us much good in the long run, and realistically, AMD is the only other guy out there.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add New Comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...