Intel's Wolfdale processor gets benchmarked

Calm down, you haven't overslept by a couple of months or anything, as the Wolfdale we're talking about here is in fact simply a 2.33GHz engineering sample of the forthcoming dual-core processor. Nevertheless, HKPEC labs was able to pit it against the 2.33GHz E6550, and the results weren't too shabby. In a slew of tests including PC Mark, CineBench, Science Mark, SiSoft Sandra, and individual application trials, the Wolfdale managed to best the E6550 in every single facet. Of course, it didn't exactly blow the current Core 2 Duo out of the water, but increasing performance by nearly 11-percent in Doom 3 and Far Cry, 5.53-percent in PC Mark, and around 8-percent in Office applications isn't anything to sneeze at. Still, we've got quite a ride ahead before seeing a finalized Wolfdale, but feel free to humor yourself with the preliminary benchmarks below.

[Via The Inquirer]

[GuyJ86 @ Aug 8th 2007 8:57AM]

I think the main significance in this new line of processor's is the fact that they will be able to do everything and if not more than the last generation whilst being more effecient in terms of power usage and heat generation.

Are there any comparisons in terms of heat and power consumption out there?

[Preston @ Aug 8th 2007 10:00AM]

What's with everybody using the word "whilst" lately?

[Yojimbo @ Aug 8th 2007 10:46AM]

"Whilst" is what OTHER English-speaking countries use (UK, AU, NZ especially). If you have the time and the resources, travel more :) Then you wouldn't have to ask questions like that anymore.

[Mile @ Aug 8th 2007 9:11AM]

The Office stats are impressive - I would have thought the HD would have been the bottleneck with the current CoreDuo chips. Office really is a pig!

[Jonathan Keim @ Aug 8th 2007 9:41AM]

I did a bit of research and thought someone may be interested in a summarization...

Right now Intel is the best, based on performance and benchmarks. I recently built my dream machine using one of Intel's 1066 FSB processors (the ones that were just outdated a few weeks ago with the 1333 FSB processors). The speed difference between the two when using the same clock speed is averaged at 1% which is obviously not a reason to upgrade from the semi-latest processors.

The new 45 mm architecture is a worthy upgrade though and the processors are expected to pass 3.0 GHz (just a few weeks ago 2.6 GHz was the top-of-the-line Core 2 Duo when excluding the $1000 extreme chips).

My plans are to keep what I have and then after a few months, over clock it to the maximum potential with air cooling. At some point I will upgrade my motherboard and all the things inside (Ram, graphics, etc.) but the current technology and the 45 mm technology isn't worth doing that after I just got done building a 'then powerful' machine, considering that I can overclock.

I hope this helps someone in their own research.

[Corey @ Aug 8th 2007 10:57AM]

It's nm, not mm bro. Think about that for a second.

[Chuckles McGee @ Aug 8th 2007 11:33AM]

@Corey

Wow, at this rate, we might someday get chips under the size of a football field!

[steve @ Aug 8th 2007 9:43AM]

i think the big question is, how does it overclock?

[Eric @ Aug 8th 2007 10:25AM]

And... Will it blend?

[Alvin @ Aug 8th 2007 2:29PM]

Hey, at least we know it can play Doom

[Alvin @ Aug 8th 2007 2:31PM]

Well, at least we know it can play Doom

[Andrew62 @ Aug 8th 2007 12:58PM]

I just hope AMD can surpass Intel, that'll keep them both pushing hard

[Mike Salem @ Aug 8th 2007 1:34PM]

wait wait wait, A dual-core 2.33GHz...does that mean 4.66GHz?
my pentium 4 is 2.33GHz and it blows

[steve @ Aug 8th 2007 2:34PM]

this is not ddr memory here, so no, it does not have a "effective" clock speed.

Also, your p4 is netburst, which sucks.

[John Doe @ Aug 9th 2007 1:00AM]

Hard.

[Mike Salem @ Aug 10th 2007 2:13PM]

okay but whats an effective clock speed?
and if my shitty processor has the same GHz how can i tell that this one is better? thx in advance

[Alvin @ Aug 8th 2007 2:32PM]

DAMN YOU ENGADGET COMMENT SYSTEM

Rank me low. kthnxbye

[??? @ Aug 8th 2007 8:48PM]

i think in the ars article they said that it had 10 watts less power consumption, and that it consumed less power under max load than conroe did idle.