Folding@Home benchmarked on quad core

Joe42 · 2 Nov 2006 at 15:51

Many websites have a review of the new Core 2 Extreme QX6700, but the Tech Report has taken this opportunity to introduce a folding benchmark to their benchmark suite here.

While it doesn't do as well as the faster cpus on single units, the fact that it can do 4 units at once gives it a whopping 748ppd.

Exciting to say the least.

I have my eye on one of these when the price comes down a bit.

Edit: Heat is a serious problem, it seems to get a decent overclock you need water cooling. This suggests to me that AMD 4x4 could be a very potent folding solution, as you get twice the space to dissipate the heat. By the looks of it prices will be about the same between the two.

Edit2: Now i've put this on imageshack and put it in the quick guide it may aswell go here too.

SiriusB · 2 Nov 2006 at 16:26

There is already a thread about the new Quad Core and some DC stats... shoulda posted in there

SiriusB

Joe42 · 2 Nov 2006 at 16:37

Where?

I don't think anyone has linked to the QX6700 benchies, those have only been published today.

SiriusB · 2 Nov 2006 at 16:53

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17646668

Quad Core tests using SETI@Home

SiriusB

Joe42 · 2 Nov 2006 at 17:00

There are no benchmarks of folding with quad core in there.
Or folding benchmarks on Core 2 Extreme QX6700, those are hot off the press. Stop trying to spoil my fun

SiriusB · 2 Nov 2006 at 17:14

Well I never said they were folding stats, i said DC and SETI, so neeer

Besides, they're both Quad Core. So neeer

SiriusB

oceaness · 2 Nov 2006 at 19:05

Joe42 said:
Many websites have a review of the new Core 2 Extreme QX6700, but the Tech Report has taken this opportunity to introduce a folding benchmark to their benchmark suite here.

While it doesn't do as well as the faster cpus on single units, the fact that it can do 4 units at once gives it a whopping 748ppd.

Exciting to say the least.

I have my eye on one of these when the price comes down a bit.

Edit: Heat is a serious problem, it seems to get a decent overclock you need water cooling. This suggests to me that AMD 4x4 could be a very potent folding solution, as you get twice the space to dissipate the heat. By the looks of it prices will be about the same between the two.

AMD 4x4 are also lower wattage to start with

Joe42 · 2 Nov 2006 at 22:24

oceaness said:
AMD 4x4 are also lower wattage to start with

Yes but they are only dual core, two of them = 120w x 2 (i think its 120) whereas Core 2 quad is 144w for all 4 cores.
The reason i think that 4x4 will be easier to cool is that 240w is spread over double the area so its only 120w per heatsink, whereas core 2 quad is 144w and only one heatsink.

oceaness · 2 Nov 2006 at 22:33

Joe42 said:
Yes but they are only dual core, two of them = 120w x 2 (i think its 120) whereas Core 2 quad is 144w for all 4 cores.
The reason i think that 4x4 will be easier to cool is that 240w is spread over double the area so its only 120w per heatsink, whereas core 2 quad is 144w and only one heatsink.

Ah yes I see what you mean that makes perfect sense.

Just have to ensure good case airflow and cooling should be fairly easy.

joeyjojo · 2 Nov 2006 at 22:33

It's still 240W to 144W for the same number of cores. I'd say that was very inefficient on AMD's part, 100 more watts for the same core-age?

Conversely, 144W for a quad core intel is incredibly efficient. About the same as an oced single core opty, or a medium oced 805d.

oceaness · 2 Nov 2006 at 22:44

joeyjojo said:
It's still 240W to 144W for the same number of cores. I'd say that was very inefficient on AMD's part, 100 more watts for the same core-age?

Conversely, 144W for a quad core intel is incredibly efficient. About the same as an oced single core opty, or a medium oced 805d.

Yeah but bear in mind that AMD will be releasing a native 4 core CPU at somepoint and they have been boasting that it wont draw any more wattage than a dual core does now. Where as Intel have just bodged two Conroes together so there actually very inefficient.

Joe42 · 2 Nov 2006 at 22:48

joeyjojo said:
It's still 240W to 144W for the same number of cores. I'd say that was very inefficient on AMD's part, 100 more watts for the same core-age?

Conversely, 144W for a quad core intel is incredibly efficient. About the same as an oced single core opty, or a medium oced 805d.

Yes thats very true. They may well lower that to 89w or something for the 4x4 cpus.
But as i said, because its split between two heatsinks they should be easier to cool, although they aren't likely to be very overclockable. Its a shame that Core 2 Quad is temperature limited because it has the same potential as the Core 2 Duos.

Edit: The Inq did some temperature testing on Kentsfield here.