Intel's Core 2 Extreme QX9650 review roundup confirms the 45nm Penryn hype

Intel's first 45-nm processors have just rolled off the assembly line in the form of the quad-core QX9650 desktop CPU. This 3.0GHz Yorkfield-class proc based on Intel's Penryn microarchitecture brings a 1,333MHz front side bus to Intel's Core 2 Extreme family of processors. Sounds a lot like Intel's 65-nm 3.0GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6850 Kentsfield-class processor launched in July, eh? Not so. According to benchmarks already announced by Bit-tech, Hot Hardware, PC Perspective, and more, the new processors are smokin' fast while consuming "much less" power in the process. With final thoughts like, "the new Core 2 Extreme QX9650 is simply the fastest processor for gaming, media encoding and just about anything else you could do on your PC," really, what else does the average consumer need to know? Overclockers, silencers, and enthusiasts: these links are for you:

[Via I4U News]

Read -- PC World review
Read -- Hot Hardware review
Read -- Bit-tech review
Read -- PC Perspective review

[koob @ Oct 29th 2007 9:34AM]

for xbox 360? i hope.

[Blackster @ Oct 29th 2007 9:58AM]

hmm, it seems youre a mac and ps3 user! ^^

[allens555 @ Oct 29th 2007 4:56PM]

^^actually i have have a zune, xbox 360 elite, and a windows computer...

[Andir3.0 @ Oct 29th 2007 9:00PM]

"^^actually i have have a zune, xbox 360 elite, and a windows computer..."

I'm sorry.

[Zut @ Oct 29th 2007 10:02AM]

MWUHAHAHA!! Screw ALL consoles! Only three cores? Pathetic!

Seeing as how the X360 uses an entirely different CPU architecture, I doubt it!

[Ian @ Oct 29th 2007 10:23AM]

Looks like this will spawn a whole new range of processors with increased capabilities and lowered prices on current CPUs.:) I particularly like the incredibly low power drain on standby.

[jaysins @ Oct 29th 2007 10:34AM]

It's smaller siblings are going to be a overclockers dream when they come out. For a third the price or less, add decent heatsink and bam, you have a processor that will be much faster.

[paul.davis @ Oct 29th 2007 11:06AM]

Intel looks like it's doing everything possible to stay ahead of AMD. Even though I've used AMD since 2000, i'm ready to make the switch over to Intel. Even their prices on the older quad cores have dropped dramatically. HURRY AMD!!! SAVE US!!!

[Constable Odo @ Oct 29th 2007 11:19AM]

How's this Intel's fastest processor? The new MacPros will be using Intel Penryn 3.2 GHz quad cores with 1.6 GHz FSB with 12MB caches which I think would be theoretically faster.

[L2 @ Oct 29th 2007 11:35AM]

Of all the boards this chip can be placed on who would want to see it on a 360? The chip cost more than the Elite itself!!

How about 2 of them in a Mac Pro with
2GB of DDR2 (PC2-7200 / 900 MHz) RAM
500GB 7200 RPM HD
24x double-layer SuperDrive (with a Blu-Ray second tray option!!)
Built-in Bluetooth & Airport Extreme (802.11 g/n)
One of these: http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/29/nvidia-debuts-cooler-cheaper-smaller-geforce-8800-gt/
Out of the box! Oh and a new case!! Now that's a "PRO" workstation!

...since we're on the subject, how about upgrading the current cinema displays to have a 1500:1 contrast ratio with a glossy display option too?!

I know, I know...wishful thinking but hey a little day dreaming wouldn't hurt much.

Take note Cupertino, CA......please?!

[TIB @ Oct 29th 2007 12:13PM]

Seconded. Apple needs to get their shit together. 4 x NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT 256MB is the best card you can get for the Mac Pro. That's more than enough for me as I can easily play C&C 3 at the highest quality with no lag using the last gen 20" Intel iMac, but it's kinda shitty that you can buy a computer with 16GB of RAM, two quad-core 3.2 Ghz processors, and a bunch of other shit but the best graphics option you have is mediocre. They need to come out with a mid-range configurable tower too, if somebody wants to buy a Mac they can upgrade they have to get a $2500 beast.

But I don't know shit about graphics cards.

[Raymond @ Oct 29th 2007 12:49PM]

Yeah, go ahead and put all that hardware inside your Mac. But don't even dare of touching it or your hands will melt.

Dude, Macs just aren't made for that kind of hardware.

[GhostDoggy @ Oct 29th 2007 12:25PM]

I remember the days when gaming drove the consumer computer component markets, but I think that has waned to a point that its more inclined to help those in media editing and CGI.

[roach @ Oct 29th 2007 1:47PM]

You don't follow much news do you? Even the big boys are getting into the gaming arena.

[wrabbit @ Oct 29th 2007 1:32PM]

Don't you even dare turning this into another Mac/Apple thread, we have enough of those already.

So back to Intel. I've been an AMD user up until about a year ago - when I bought my new system there was just no comparison, Intel beat AMD in price, performance, power consumption, etc. And it looks like it's going to be going strong for a while. However, I hope AMD manages to make a good comeback because obviously Intel needs competition to keep things going.

[modified @ Oct 29th 2007 2:00PM]

From PC World, "Intel's new high-end CPU, the 3-GHz Core 2 Extreme QX9650, showed only modest gains over its predecessor in our tests with mainstream applications."

Hyped confirmed how?

[wrabbit @ Oct 29th 2007 2:09PM]

The performance gains aren't big in part because for regular applications they don't take advantage of the new SSE4 instructions and for gaming the graphics card has the biggest effect on performance.

The hype is confirmed because at a performance that is better than all the other CPUs (even if marginal) the Penryn processor has very low power consumptions, almost at the bottom of the heap, and very good overclocking potential. Both these things not only good by themselves but also mean that intel will be able to produce models of this CPU that will be priced lower while offering better performance to the consumer.

It's not revolutionary but it's also only the first step - expect to see more performance increases without higher impact on your wallet. That's good enough for me.