Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: intel, core2, penryn
Categories: Hardware
Penryn-Based Core 2 CPUs – Models, Prices and a new Boxed Cooler
Intel is launching the Penryn family with a single processor, namely the Core 2 Extreme QX9650. This situation won’t change until next year, as the introduction of further Penryn-based processors is expected for the first quarter of 2008. These will run at lower clock speeds and also cost less. Still, up to five months may pass before the smaller processor versions become available. All of the new models will use a 333 MHz FSB.
| Model | Clock Speed | Cache | Availability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core 2 Extreme QX9650 | 3.00 GHz | 2x 6 MB | November 12 |
| Core 2 Quad Q9550 | 2.83 GHz | 2x 6 MB | Q1/2008 |
| Core 2 Quad Q9450 | 2.66 GHz | 2x 6 MB | Q1/2008 |
| Core 2 Quad Q9300 | 2.50 GHz | 2x 3 MB | Q1/2008 |
| Core 2 Duo E8500 | 3.16 GHz | 1x 6 MB | Q1/2008 |
| Core 2 Duo E8400 | 3.00 GHz | 1x 6 MB | Q1/2008 |
| Core 2 Duo E8200 | 2.66 GHz | 1x 6 MB | Q1/2008 |
Please note that the entries for the smaller models are not based on official information from Intel and may thus still change.
The upcoming models running at 2.5 GHz, 2.83, GHz and 3.16 GHz will require support for half-step multipliers, 8.5x for example, a technique implemented in the Penryn architecture. Our MSI P35 Neo2 board is already equipped to handle these processors and offers appropriate multipliers. Despite the fact that we used a brand-new BIOS emailed to us directly from Taiwan, our Gigabyte X38 board GA_X38-DQ6 did not yet support such multipliers.
For now, if you want to call a Penryn your own, be prepared to pay about €1000 for the QX9650. If that’s a little outside your budget, you’ll have to wait a few months until other models become available.
Chipsets
Intel’s X38, P35, and G33 chipsets officially support Penryn processors.
A quick anecdote for your entertainment: When we received our review sample from Intel, we couldn’t wait to test it. However, the Gigabyte and MSI motherboards refused to even start with this processor. When we asked the manufacturers for an updated BIOS, the reply came from Taiwan that they’d love to help us – but hadn’t received Penryn CPU samples yet. Apparently, Intel jumped the gun here and supplied the press before thinking of the motherboard makers – a situation we have never experienced before.
Officially, neither the 965P nor the 975X officially support 45 nm processors.
New Boxed Cooler
Together with the review sample, we received Intel’s new official specifications - all 96 pages of them. Under the entry Boxed Cooler, we found not only the familiar model but also a completely new design.
Below is an overview of all currently available Core 2 CPUs.
| Name | Codename | Clock Speed | Cache | FSB | Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core 2 Extreme QX9650 | Yorkfield | 4x 2933 MHz | 2x 6144 kB | 333 MHz | 45 nm |
| Name | Codename | Clock Speed | Cache | FSB | Process |
| Core 2 Extreme QX6850 | Kentsfield | 4x 3000 MHz | 2x 4096 kB | 333 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Extreme QX6800 | Kentsfield | 4x 2933 MHz | 2x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Extreme QX6700 | Kentsfield | 4x 2666 MHz | 2x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Extreme Q6700 | Kentsfield | 4x 2666 MHz | 2x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Quad Q6600 | Kentsfield | 4x 2400 MHz | 2x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Name | Codename | Clock Speed | Cache | FSB | Process |
| Core 2 Extreme X6800 | Conroe XE | 2x 2933 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6850 | Conroe | 2x 3000 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 333 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6750 | Conroe | 2x 2666 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 333 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6550 | Conroe | 2x 2333 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 333 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6540 | Conroe | 2x 2333 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 333 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6700 | Conroe | 2x 2667 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6600 | Conroe | 2x 2400 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Name | Codename | Clock Speed | Cache | FSB | Process |
| Core 2 Duo E6400 | Conroe-2048 | 2x 2133 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6300 | Conroe-2048 | 2x 1866 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6420 | Conroe | 2x 2133 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6320 | Conroe | 2x 1866 MHz | 1x 4096 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6400 | Allendale | 2x 2133 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E6300 | Allendale | 2x 1866 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 266 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E4600 | Allendale | 2x 2400 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 200 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E4500 | Allendale | 2x 2200 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 200 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E4400 | Allendale | 2x 2000 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 200 MHz | 65 nm |
| Core 2 Duo E4300 | Allendale | 2x 1800 MHz | 1x 2048 kB | 200 MHz | 65 nm |
| Name | Codename | Clock Speed | Cache | FSB | Process |
| Pentium Dual CoreE2180 | Conroe-L | 2x 2000 MHz | 1x 1024 kB | 200 MHz | 65 nm |
| Pentium Dual CoreE2160 | Conroe-L | 2x 1800 MHz | 1x 1024 kB | 200 MHz | 65 nm |
| Pentium Dual CoreE2140 | Conroe-L | 2x 1600 MHz | 1x 1024 kB | 200 MHz | 65 nm |
- Previous page Operating Temperature – 12°C Lower
- Next page Performance Comparison Old vs. New –...
- Is Cache Size Really The Key To Boosting Performance?
- Budget Overclocker - AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5000+ Black Edition
- Parallel Processing, Part 1: CPU Cores
- Keeping Your CPU Going If Your Cooler Fails
- [IDF]Centrino 5 Explored
- AMD K10: The Architecture of the Revival?
- Feeling the Squeeze: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6400 Black Edition
- Can CPUs (Finally) Make PCs Faster as Well as Quieter?
- Overclocking to new limits: Testing the new Core 2 Stepping
- Do More Cores Beat More Clock Speed?
Just a small typo on the first line on thelast page... i'm sure the word that is meant to be there is "reticent". Other than that an excellent, informative and thorough review, thank you
wow... poor amd
the green bars are getting smaller for AMD
i still going to get an AMD64 5000+ Black edition as my server needs an new cpu, mobo and ram
i do not want to replace my motherboard just yet as it performs Fully stable for me and i not looked into stable/good OC boards for Intel yet
but darn that CPU has some power behind it lol
Yup.... AMD seems pwned for the time being
Bad for them and surely bad for us 
I hope their quadcore (on a single chip) solution is a success...
Are THG listening to the readers? This is a lot better than articles of recent times!! Now what about the follow up article... 'Penryn Hitting 5Ghz on ambient watercooling!!'.
Thanks guys!!
Bob
PS Like the detail on the new SSE4.1 instructions + history of SSE instructions - nice touch!!
I agree with Bob- It's nice to get a decent, in depth technical article, the likes of which got me reading THG in the first place!
I like the picture at the bottom of page 9. Nice toastie air blowing right into the arse end of that video card, just as well its not a scorchy pentium 4
)
Yes indeed it will be nice to see how well it performs with a watercooling system, who knows even liquid nitrogen will be nice.. If they reach with Intel Pentium 4 more than 5GHz I wonder how much GHz might give a 45nm processor heheh
P.S. With liquid nitrogen I'd like to see how well it performs TOO!! [of course a more simple solutions like a watercooling overcloking still is a good thing, especially if it's in a video to see exactly what is going on]
Sounds like a 805 ... only more expensive, faster and twice the cores
I thought I left some feedback a few days ago.. oh well I was just saying why not a review of an overclocked intel processor reaching lets say 5Ghz? or even 6GHz with some liquid nitrogen perhaps. I currently have an Athlon 64 X2 5000+(running on more than 3.1GHz on water from 2.6GHz and planning for some peltier stuff soon to reach over 3.5-4 GHz)
I think 4GHz is slightly disapointing and production samples will rapidly push past 4GHz once they hit their second spin.
If we're already seeing 3.6GHz+ air cooled on Q6600's @ 65nm then another 20% hike in speed should be pushing it to 4.2GHz easily.
The scary thing for all should be what the hell happens when Intel take away AMD's only defense in the way of adding a memory controller to the die. Low latency access with a shared L2 and ridiculously scalable frequency leaves AMD looking a rather poor second choice.
With Intel sandbaging already and enjoying healthy margin that is only going to be worse for AMD later on.
Whilst the article makes for very interesting reading why did TH choose to test the QX9650 CPU? This is one of the most expensive processors on the market today and well beyond the reach of all but the most well off users.
I understand that you want to achieve the best results possible and therefore chose the best performing processor for the job. However, this particular processor is the only one available with an un-locked multiplier. The majority of users don't have this luxury and only have an option to increase the FSB if they want to overclock their system. This sort of makes the test you've performed redundant for the majority.
A much better processor to test would have been the Q9550. While it's eventual clock speed wont match that of the QX9650, percentage wise it should be near as damn identical.
Otherwise, great article :-)
Whilst the article makes for very interesting reading why did TH choose to test the QX9650 CPU? This is one of the most expensive processors on the market today and well beyond the reach of all but the most well off users.... Blah Blah
Wakey, wakey idiot... This thread is months old and thats all that was out at the time...
Bob