The benchmarks shown here were conducted during the Intel Developer Forum in fall of 2006. As the test systems and their suite of test benchmarks were all chosen by Intel, we were thus unable to test the systems with the benchmarks we usually use. The benchmarks, in addition, are limited to ones that actually take advantage of the Quad core processor. We should hopefully have a sample Kentsfield processor in our labs before its launch in November, and so at that time we will be able to test how the CPU performs compared to a larger variety of Intel and AMD CPUs.

3D Mark 2006’s CPU Test shows the benefits of the quad core architecture of the Core 2 Quad QX6700. Compared to the Core 2 Extreme X6800, which is the fastest processor that is currently available for retail, the QX6700 performs 60% faster.

The 2 Cores Extreme X6800	The 2 Cores Quad QX6700

The results of the 3D Mark 2006 benchmark, as far as the final performance score, shows that the dual-core solution performs similar to the Quad-core test system. This is most likely the result of the higher clock speed of the X6800. The final score was 8941 points (QX6700) against 8297 points (X6800). Looking at the performance tests with a little more detail, we see that the final test that gave the QX6700 a performance advantage was the CPU test, while the video performance tests had pretty much the same performance scores.

All tests in pixel per second

In the POV-Ray multi-threaded beta standard benchmark, the use of the Quad core QX6700 resulted in a substantial increase in performance. It held an advantage of 81% compared to the X6800 processor. As a side note, the results we obtained from the X6800 weren’t weak results. The Core 2 Extreme X6800 actually had outstanding performance, meaning that the QX6700 had to really bring up its game to beat the X6800.

all tests in seconds: lower is better

In the above test, the Core 2 Quad QX6700 encoded the video 27.355% faster than the Core 2 Extreme X6800. In this case, because we were able to take advantage of all four cores, we were able to compensate for the lower clock speed of the QX6700.

all tests in seconds: lower is better

The Core 2 Quad QX6700 was able to shave off 33.76% of the time the Core 2 Extreme X6800 spent in the above test. The tests were converting some clips in standard HD using Sony Vegas 7.0a. In this case, the use of the Quad Core architecture allowed for considerable reductions in the time.

all tests in seconds: lower is better

Here, the Core 2 Quad QX6700 rendered the Dragon_Character_rig.max scene in 38.5% less time than the Core 2 Extreme X6800 was able to.

We would like to emphasize that it was not possible for us to run our own benchmarks on the two test systems that Intel had at IDF. We will have to wait around 2 months for this processor to be released for retail sale. At that time, we will publish our own analysis of the CPU using our own benchmarks.