TMCnet News
Intel Skulltrail Performance Preview(www.sharkyextreme.com Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Introduction It is safe to say that the single-core processor is on life support, if not in the casket waiting for an official burial. Dual core is now the entry-level and quad core is the new mainstream performance solution. The Phenom 9500 and 9600 are very inexpensive options, and once Intel gets their 45nm release schedule in gear, the number of reasonably-priced quad core processors will increase significantly. But this begs the question of where a true enthusiast is supposed go when everyone and their dog will be running a quad core system. If this is your particular quandary, then Intel has a potential solution, in the form of the ultra high-end Skulltrail dual-CPU, multi-GPU platform. Although the Skulltrail platform itself will not be officially launched until later in the first quarter of 2008, we're taking an early peek at its performance, and offering our opinion on how it stacks up against the best from Intel and AMD. Taking a Walk Down the Skulltrail We have to admit that the Skulltrail brand name is a kick-ass choice, especially coming from the usually conservative Intel. If the name got our attention, the hardware configuration kept it - the Skulltrail offers true 8-core processing on a high-end workstation-level motherboard, up to 8GB of system memory, and support for any multi-GPU technology you can throw at it. This is serious business, and it starts with the Intel D5400XS motherboard. This is based off the Intel 5400 Express workstation chipset, and supports two LGA771 sockets at 1066/1333/1600 bus speeds, for up to 8-core processing. The standard Skulltrail configuration is a pair of Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors, but for future upgrades, the Intel D5400XS supports both Core 2 and Xeon LGA771 processors. The Intel D5400XS uses the EATX format, so a larger, compatible case will be a requirement, and while the chipset has a passive heatsink, there is a substantial heatsink-fan below it for extra component cooling. [IMAGE] Since it is based on a workstation chipset, the Intel D5400XS uses up to four slots of FB-DIMM dual-channel memory at either DDR2-667 or -800 speeds. This does add to the overall cost, while limiting enthusiast memory choices and speeds. Although fully stable, note that 800 MHz FB-DIMMS can become extremely hot with extended use. Another major feature of the Intel D5400XS and Skulltrail platform is support for both ATI CrossFire and NVIDIA SLI, the last of which is the first for an Intel board. SLI is realized not through chipset support, but by using a pair of nForce 100 MCP chips between the PCI Express slots and the Intel 5400 chipset. [IMAGE] Other board features include 4 PCI Express x16 (1.1) slots, 2 PCI slots, Intel High Definition Audio, Intel Matrix Storage Technology (RAID 0,1,5,10), Intel PRO 10/100/1000 LAN, 10 USB 2.0 ports, 8 SATA 3.0 Gb/s ports (including 2 eSATA), and a Parallel ATA (2 devices) connector. The only glaring flaw is the lack of PCI Express 2.0 support. The board has an enthusiast design, and includes onboard Start/Reset buttons and LED POST reporter for easy configuration and trouble-shooting, as well as a 24-pin main power connector and dual ATX12V CPU power connectors. Intel recommends a 1000W power supply, but we used an 850W unit for our main testing, and fired it up with 550W and 600W units with no problems. [IMAGE] Eight is Enough The CPU portion of the Skulltrail platform consists of dual Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors, which are based on the LGA771 Xeon (Harpertown) architecture. Although descended from the Xeon branch, this 45nm processor features specifications on par with the Core 2 Extreme QX9770, including a 3.2 GHz core speed, 4 individual cores, a 1600 FSB, and 2x6MB of L2 cache. The 150W TDP is a bit higher than the 136W of the QX9770, but otherwise, these are virtually equivalent processors. As with all Core 2 Extreme models, the QX9775 is unlocked and allows excellent overclocking control. [IMAGE] True to its workstation lineage, the Intel D5400XS features a Dual Independent Bus, which provides independent, high-speed point-to-point interconnects between each of the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors and the chipset. The two buses can deliver a total throughput of up to 17 GB/second at 1066 MHz, 21 GB/second at 1333 MHz and a blazing 25 GB/second at the 1600 MHz FSB. Intel has also tried to make the Skulltrail more enthusiast-friendly, by offering a System BIOS complete with voltage and clock speed tweaks for the processor, memory, chipset, and PCI Express slots. Test Setup The Intel Skulltrail + 2x Core 2 Extreme QX9775 is the fastest Intel platform money can buy, especially with multi-threaded games and applications. So we're going to put it to the test against a selection of the fastest dual and quad core models from both AMD and Intel. The Intel side includes the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 (3.2 GHz), QX6850 (3.0 GHz) & QX6700 (2.66 GHz), and Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4 GHz) quad core models, along with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93 GHz) dual core speedster. The AMD competition includes Phenom 9900 (2.6 GHz), 9700 (2.4 GHz), 9600 (2.3 GHz) and 9500 (2.2 GHz) quad core results, as well as scores for the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.0 GHz) for AMD dual core comparisons. These high-end processors are matched with corresponding platforms and peripherals, while ensuring consistency with the overall reference system mix. Naturally, the dual Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors are matched to the Skulltrail Intel D5400XS motherboard, along with 2x2GB of DDR2-800 FB-DIMMs (5-5-5-15). The dual and quad core Intel processors have been paired with an Intel X38 Express motherboard, along with DDR2-800 (4-4-4-12) for the 1066 MHz models, while 1333/1600 MHz CPUs can get DDR2-1066 (5-5-5-15). The AMD Phenom processors utilize the latest 790FX platform, while the Athlon 64 X2 models run on an nForce 590 SLI motherboard, both equipped with DDR2-800 (4-4-4-12). The default hard disk configuration is comprised of dual Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB NCQ-enabled SATA drives set for RAID 0, which provides top-end disk performance and ensures consistent benchmarking. The video component is high-end mainstream, and consists of a PNY GeForce 8800 GTS PCI Express card. The operating system remains Windows XP Pro SP2, as Vista is still a bit inconsistent when it comes to some popular benchmarks, and XP Pro allows the use of multiple CPUs. The benchmark list includes a wide range of system, CPU, memory, and gaming tests. These include PCMark05, SiSoft SANDRA XII, WinRAR, and CINEBENCH 9.5/10, along with TMPGEnc Xpress 4.0 for MPEG-2, DivX, WMV and HDV encoding. We also utilize popular 3D game tests like Supreme Commander, 3DMark06, F.E.A.R., Company of Heroes, Quake 4, FarCry, and Lost Planet. Our default game benchmark setting is 1024x768x32, which is demanding enough for CPU comparisons but still realistic as an actual game play resolution. * Please note that unless otherwise stated, such as the media encoding times, all performance graph results equate to the standard "higher is better" routine. Test Systems: Intel LGA771 Reference System: Processors: 2x Core 2 Extreme QX9775 Memory: 2x2GB Micron DDR2-800 FB-DIMMS (CAS5) Motherboard: Intel D5400XS Motherboard chip set: Intel 5400 Video Card: PNY GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB LCD: Dell 2407WFP 24" NVIDIA reference drivers: ForceWare 163.71 Hard-Drive: Dual Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB in RAID 0 Mode CD/DVD: AOpen DUW1608 16X DVD+/-R DL Power Supply: CoolerMaster Real Power Pro 850W Operating System: Windows XP Pro SP2 Intel LGA775 Reference System: Core 2 Processors: Core 2 Extreme QX9770, QX9650, QX6850, QX6700 & X6800, and Core 2 Quad Q6600 Memory (1333 MHz): 2 x 1GB OCZ DDDR2-1066 (CAS5) Memory (1066 MHz): 2 x 1GB Ultra DDDR2-800 (CAS4) Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-X38-DQ6 Motherboard chip set: Intel X38 Express Video Card: PNY GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB LCD: Dell 2407WFP 24" NVIDIA reference drivers: ForceWare 163.71 Hard-Drive: Dual Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB in RAID 0 Mode CD/DVD: AOpen DUW1608 16X DVD+/-R DL Power Supply: CoolerMaster Real Power Pro 850W Operating System: Windows XP Pro SP2 AMD Socket AM2+ Reference System: Processors: Phenom 9900, 9700, 9600 and 9500 Memory: 2 x 1GB Ultra DDDR2-800 (CAS4) Motherboard: ASUS M3A32-MVP Deluxe Motherboard chip set: AMD 790FX Video Card: PNY GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB LCD: Dell 2407WFP 24" NVIDIA reference drivers: ForceWare 163.71 Hard-Drive: Dual Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB in RAID 0 Mode CD/DVD: AOpen DUW1608 16X DVD+/-R DL Power Supply: CoolerMaster Real Power Pro 850W Operating System: Windows XP Pro SP2 AMD Socket AM2 Reference System: Processors: Athlon 64 X2 6000+ Memory: 2 x 1GB Ultra DDDR2-800 (CAS4) Motherboard: Asus M2N32-SLI Motherboard chip set: nForce 590 SLI Video Card: PNY GeForce 8800 GTS 320MB LCD: Dell 2407WFP 24" NVIDIA reference drivers: ForceWare 163.71 Hard-Drive: Dual Maxtor MaxLine III 250GB in RAID 0 Mode CD/DVD: AOpen DUW1608 16X DVD+/-R DL Power Supply: CoolerMaster Real Power Pro 850W Operating System: Windows XP Pro SP2 General Settings: Desktop Resolution: 1920x1200 Color Depth: 32-bit V-Sync: Disabled 3DMark06 Specifics: Version 1.10 w/ October HotFix PCMark05 Pro Specifics: Version 120 SiSoft SANDRA XII Specifics: Rev 2008c PCMark05 Pro Performance PCMark05 Professional is one of the popular PCMark system benchmark series from FutureMark, and is revamped to highlight current hardware and features additional multithreaded and multi-tasking performance tests. There is the usual selection of individual System, CPU, Memory, Graphics, and Hard Drive benchmark suites, and these continue to bridge the gap between synthetic and application-based benchmarks. For our purposes, the System, CPU and Memory areas will be where we concentrate our benchmarking efforts. The PCMark05 System benchmark suite includes a wide range of tests, from Windows XP hard drive startup to video and audio encoding, and features a selection of standard desktop routines like text edit, virus scanning, and image decompression. Three of the benchmark scenarios are multithreaded, with the first two including two simultaneous tests, and the final one utilizing four program tests running simultaneously. This helps make the PCMark05 System benchmark a great analysis tool for our dual and quad core processors. For this test, the latest 1.2 patch has been applied. The Intel Skulltrail platform starts off with a very slim victory in the PCMark05 System benchmark, posting a score that is virtually on par with the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. This shows that the overall system score is not influenced that heavily by the 8-core processing power of the Skulltrail, but let's see how the Memory and CPU tests come out. [IMAGE] The PCMark05 CPU results are almost a direct copy of the System benchmarking, and once again, the Intel Skulltrail platform and its dual Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors don't impact the score at all. [IMAGE] The PCMark05 Memory benchmarking is where we see the noted difference between standard DDR2-800 FB-DIMM memory on the Intel Skulltrail and the low-latency DDR2-1066 used with the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. [IMAGE] SiSoft SANDRA XII 2008 Bandwidth Performance SiSoft SANDRA XII 2008 is a very popular system benchmark, and each revision sticks to its roots and supplies a wide range of individual benchmarks and system utilities. These tests include processor, system, network, and hard drive benchmarks, along with many other performance metrics. The memory bandwidth test is the most popular section of the SiSoft SANDRA benchmark suite, and it highlights the potential performance levels of the CPU-memory subsystem. As the Integer and FPU memory bandwidth scores are quite similar, we are only including the first one in our benchmark testing. The SANDRA XII 2008 memory benchmarking also doesn't show off the Intel Skulltrail platform in the best light, and equipped with CAS5 DDR2-800, it trails the other systems by a noticeable amount. This is the only real flaw of the Skulltrail, as its reliance on a server-based chipset and FB-DIMM technology does limit the type of enthusiast-level memory you can use. [IMAGE] The SiSoft SANDRA XII 2008 Cache & Memory benchmark goes well beyond memory performance, and measures the bandwidth of the combined processor cache and memory subsystem. This test can show off the architectural advantages of each processor, as well as the benefits of larger and faster L1/L2 data caches, and help give us an overall view of how the processor and memory match up in high-speed data transfers. The Cache & Memory benchmark gets us back on track, and this shows the Intel Skulltrail + 2X QX9775 platform hitting an exceptional score, well ahead of even the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. [IMAGE] The SANDRA multi-core benchmark results aren't quite so definitive, but the Skulltrail is still at the top of the list, nicely ahead of the AMD and Intel competition. [IMAGE] WinRAR 3.71 Performance WinRAR is one of the most popular compression programs, and it even includes an internal benchmark program that measures the performance of the RAR compression and decompression algorithm using a demanding worst-case data set. This multi-threaded test offers a data throughput rating, and while it does not relate specifically to cache or memory transfers, we have found that the overall throughput numbers do adhere closely to the overall architecture. A faster clock speed certainly helps, but the score also ties in closely with memory, cache and CPU performance. The WinRAR results are a bit of a surprise, since this test usually scales quite well to CPU power, system bandwidth and bus speeds, but memory performance is also a determining factor - this last part is likely why the Intel Skulltrail is in second place. [IMAGE] Multi-Threaded Performance As we are covering multi-core processors, a more in-depth look at multi-threaded processor performance is certainly needed - without the limitations of single-threaded applications or component-specific benchmarks. We offer up three different multi-threaded benchmarks: CINEBENCH 9.5, CINEBENCH 10 and SiSoft SANDRA XII 2008. CINEBENCH 9.5 & 10 Performance CINEBENCH is a performance suite, which utilizes CINEMA 4D for both CPU and video-based testing. We use the multi-threaded CPU benchmark, which processes a large, detailed image file on-screen, and displays the test results. Both CINEBENCH 9.5 and 10 dynamically shift image processing on the fly. If one core is finished its job, the program automatically segments the remainder of the image, thereby speeding up processing times considerably. The main difference between the two is the image workload, with CINEBENCH 9.5 offering a more mainstream test, while CINEBENCH 10 gives the CPU a much tougher workout. The CINEBENCH 9.5 benchmarking leaves no doubt that with the proper software, multi-core platforms like the Intel Skulltrail can really lay down the law. The performance scores here are exceptional, and show a marked improvement over even an ultra high-end quad core processor. In fact, the dual Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors offer a jump of over 40% compared to the powerful 3.2 GHz QX9770. [IMAGE] The CINEBENCH 10 benchmark scores are even more impressive, and now the dual-CPU Skulltrail posts a score that is a 60% improvement on the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. [IMAGE] SiSoft SANDRA XII 2008 ALU and FPU Performance The SANDRA Arithmetic CPU benchmarks are fully multi-threaded, and we see the Intel Skulltrail platform posting exceptional scores compared to the dual and quad core competition. [IMAGE] [IMAGE] TMPGEnc Xpress 4 MPEG-2 Encoding Performance Since the release of the Intel Yorkfield, we've totally revamped our media encoding tests, upgrading to TMPGEnc Xpress 4, and changing our default video file. TMPGEnc Xpress 4 not only provides real-world video encoding performance results, but also includes a host of specialized CPU support options. The program is full multi-threaded and supports virtually all CPU multimedia features such as MMX/MMX-2, SSE/SSE2/SSE3, 3D Now!/Enhanced 3D Now!, along with a Core 2 Duo/Extreme mode. Because of the increasingly high performance of quad core processors, we now use a higher-end, 8-minute AVI reference video file. In our first test, this file is encoded to 720x480 MPEG-2 DVD quality video using TMPGEnc 4 and the encoding time is recorded. The results are expressed in the form of time elapsed (minutes: seconds) and unlike our other benchmarks, a smaller bar denotes less time taken, and therefore better encoding performance. These benchmark results are certainly not unexpected. The Intel Skulltrail is a multi-processing demon, and it came very close to hitting the 1-minute market, settling for a sub-1:20 time in our still-demanding MPEG2 encoding test. This is most impressive when compared to the Core 2 Quad Q6600, as the Skulltrail encoded the video in less than half the time. [IMAGE] TMPGEnc Xpress 4 DivX Encoding Performance For the next test, we've taken the same video file, and encoded it to DivX (656x336) using TMPGEnc 4. This is about on par with the previous DVD authoring test, but uses a difference codec. The performance results are expressed in the form of time elapsed (minutes: seconds) and as with the MPEG-2 results, a smaller bar denotes less time taken, and therefore higher performance. The DivX encoding test showed the Intel Skulltrail with a very fast time, but not with the same type of performance gap. [IMAGE] TMPGEnc Xpress 4 Windows Media Video Encoding Performance This time out, we're switching to Windows Media Video (WMV), and encoding the same video file as a 672x352 .wmv file. As with the previous tests, these are time-based and a smaller bar denotes higher performance. The Windows Media Video encoding benchmark tends to reward processor speed more than additional cores, and although the Skulltrail/dual QX9775 platform does post the fastest encoding time, it finishes in a dead heat with the QX9770 processor. [IMAGE] TMPGEnc Xpress 4 High-Definition Video Encoding Performance Our final media-encoding test ups the ante considerably, this time forcing the processors to handle a high-definition video job, taking the end resolution to 1440x1080, with a 25000 Kb/s CBR. This test forces many systems to their literal knees, and is certainly not for the faint of heart. The HD video testing gets the Skulltrail back on track, and this demanding test shows Intel's newest platform holding down the top encoding time. [IMAGE] 3DMark06 Pro Performance 3DMark06 is the latest version in the popular 3DMark series of gaming benchmarks, and like 3DMark05, it also requires DirectX 9.0 compatibility. The 3DMark06 program offers a high-end selection of both gaming and CPU tests, while upping the ante in terms of jaw-dropping graphics and 3D feature support. 3DMark06 is not only a prime way of determining potential DirectX 9 game performance, but the individual CPU performance score also makes it a valuable tool in processor reviews and performance comparisons. This CPU benchmark is performed at the standard 1280x1024 resolution and 32-bit color depth, with no anti-aliasing or filtering options enabled. Standard game benchmarks usually don't show any significant advantage with a multi-core setup, primarily because these are not written with multiple cores in mind. While this is true in the majority of cases, 3DMark06 Pro does offer a fully multi-threaded game benchmarking, and will help give us an idea of theoretical performance in true multi-threaded game environments. The Intel Skulltrail certainly gives us a warm feeling about next-generation gaming performance, and it offers a noticeable advantage over even the quad core platforms. [IMAGE] Quake 4 Performance Quake 4 is the latest in 3D first-person shooters from id Software and Raven, and while the actual storyline is standard fare and the game itself is based on the DOOM 3 engine, the graphics are exceptional and it is an improvement over previous games. The lighting and shadow effects are excellent, and the overall level design and architecture are a real treat. The overall load on the graphics card can be extreme, which is both a blessing and a curse, depending on the actual hardware you are testing. For this test, we have moved to the 1.4 revision, and enabled the game's multi-threaded functionality. Quake 4 is based on the same engine as DOOM 3, and due to a combination of multi-threaded graphics drivers and in-game multi-core support, it also rewards the extra performance of our dual and quad core processors. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to extend to an 8-core setup, as the Skulltrail platform, likely due to its DDR2-800 memory, falls just short of the Core 2 Extreme QX9770. [IMAGE] FarCry Performance FarCry is a first-person shooter that takes in-game graphics to the next level, although in a different direction than DOOM 3. Instead of darkness and confined spaces, FarCry places you outdoors, on bright sandy beaches, jungles or even on the water itself. This game gives our processors a different kind of a stress test, and rest assured that FarCry ranks up there with the very toughest 3D game benchmarks. For this test, we are using the full retail version, and a custom game demo. The performance trends shift a bit with FarCry, and although the Skulltrail's victory is hardly a resounding one, it still posts the highest framerate. [IMAGE] Company of Heroes Performance Company of Heroes is yet another new addition to our CPU benchmark suite, and as a newer game, it offers one of the most demanding benchmark environments ever. CoH is a WW2 real-time strategy game, which again provides us with a nice change of pace from the usual FPS benchmark. We use the game's built-in performance test for all of our benchmarking. To give our AMD and Intel processors a viable test, we've increased the physics load, while dropping many of the graphics settings. This will help provide a more CPU-specific benchmark test, while ensuring that the graphics card is not the limiting factor. Company of Heroes gets us back to familiar ground, and shows the Intel Skulltrail platform trailing the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 by about 10 frames-per-second. This trend is very familiar through virtually all gaming benchmarks, even ones that we tested but did not include in the review, and it seems that the slower, CAS5 memory is the logical culprit. Pairing the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 with CAS5 DDR2-800 offers similar performance drops, and it's logical to assume this is one of the few chinks in the Skulltrail armor. [IMAGE] F.E.A.R. Performance F.E.A.R. is one of the newer additions to our game benchmark suite, and it features jaw-dropping graphics and a physics engine that can bring any system to its knees. The game even includes a wide selection of System and Video settings, along with an in-game testing module to keep things 100% comparable. In this case, as we are dealing with CPU performance, we have racked the system and physics settings to maximum, while lowering the graphics quotient to minimum, in an attempt to get rid of any GPU limitations. F.E.A.R. is a great game for processor testing, as it allows the CPU portion of the test to be ramped up, while dropping the graphics component. Unfortunately, we seem to have reached a limit with the latest quad core models, and even adding an extra 3.2 GHz processor doesn't raise the bar. [IMAGE] Supreme Commander Performance Supreme Commander is a high-end real-time strategy game, similar to a next-gen Total Annihilation, combining killer graphics with top-level AI. The game is also multi-threaded, but due to processor affinity, it only shares the burden when a core is at 100% usage. This translates into more of an advantage for dual core platforms, but in-game speed and responsiveness can still benefit from quad core processors. In this test, we use the Sim score, which rates performance in the simulation portions of the game. Due to the 4-digit results, our Supreme Commander Sim scores can be difficult to quantify, but we're still seeing the Intel Skulltrail performing on par with the Core 2 Extreme QX9770 quad core. [IMAGE] Lost Planet: Multi-Threaded Gaming Performance Lost Planet is one of the few games that actually makes use of extra CPU cores. Many games offer multi-threading support, but usually this translates into noticeable gains for dual core processors, but with virtually no impact on quad core or higher platforms. Many next-generation games will be coded from the ground up to support multiple cores, and to give gamers a much-needed boost when using a 2, 4 or even 8-core system. To demonstrate what kind of performance impact an 8-core system like the Intel Skulltrail is capable of, we've benchmarked Lost Planet (Cave segment) using different settings on the "Concurrent Operations" option, moving from 1 to 2 to 4 to 8, while maintaining the Skulltrail platform and dual QX9775 processors. The first benchmark run was at 800x600 to ensure that little if any GPU influence was present, and the framerate differences are quite obvious. Moving from 2 concurrent threads to 8, more than doubled the framerates. The big jump is still from 2 threads to 4, but we still see a nice increase when moving up to 8 threads. [IMAGE] We then raised the game resolution to 1024x768, and while there was still a noticeable performance increase at each stage, we start to see some GPU limitations sneak into the equation. This will be true in the real world as well, and heavy-duty graphics will be necessary to make full use of the Skulltrail's multi-threading capabilities. [IMAGE] Total System Power Consumption Testing The dual-processor Intel Skulltrail platform is certainly a performance marvel, but we're a little bit concerned with its power requirements. Each of the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors has a TDP of 150W, and the motherboard itself sports a large cooling fan on the chipset. In order to measure power consumption, we took each of the AMD and Intel reference systems, ran the outlet through a Power Analyzer, and then compiled total system consumption figures (in Watts) for Idle and Load scenarios. In order to keep the systems and results consistent, we used the same configuration for the AMD and Intel processors as listed on the Test Systems page. The first test measures the total system power usage when the processors are set to power-saving mode. For AMD, this means enabling Cool'n'Quiet, while for Intel we need to activate Enhanced SpeedStep. We are unsure whether the latest Skulltrail BIOS fully enables Intel SpeedStep, so keep in mind the numbers in the first chart could drop slightly upon release. The power usage test was performed after the operating system has loaded, and all of the various software and hardware components have initialized and we hit a consistent power reading. The Skulltrail's 214W power usage may seem high, but when you take into consideration the dual processors, dual cooling fans and high-end workstation-level motherboard, it's really not that bad, especially compared to the 163W a single-processor Phenom 9900 configuration uses. [IMAGE] The second test changes the operating conditions from Idle to Load, and the SANDRA Multimedia CPU benchmark pushes processor usage to 100%, while ensuring that no extraneous hard drive or peripheral activity artificially ramps up the power consumption rates. The results using SANDRA are also incredibly consistent, with the wattage numbers remaining stable through the entire test. The Intel Skulltrail ramps up its power usage considerably, and the 360W total is by far the highest in the chart. Given the configuration, this was a bygone conclusion, and it's up to the individual user whether the additional processing capabilities are worth the jump in power requirements. [IMAGE] Please keep in mind that these numbers relate to total system power consumption, of which the CPU is only one part. In evaluations like this, relative placing is sometimes more important than the base numbers, which can change based on the platform and peripheral Benchmark Analysis Like other multi-core performance evaluations, the Skulltrail's overall benchmark results are a real mixed bag. The Intel Skulltrail and its dual Core 2 Extreme QX9775 processors display incredible performance with true multi-threaded tests, while offering virtually no improvement in most games. For high-end desktop use, the Skulltrail is a real beast, and you could literally amaze your friends with how fast this puppy can zip through various tasks. Unfortunately, dual core is enough for most games, and even quad core is overkill to some extent. Our Lost Planet testing shows there is some hope, but the Skulltrail is more a solution for upcoming games than it is an across-the-board performance jump for existing ones. Value As today is not the official Skulltrail product launch, and Intel has not yet released pricing, the value section of our performance preview is a difficult egg to crack. Intel has given us some general guidelines and hints, such as the fact that the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 will be priced higher than the current shipping Core 2 Extreme QX9650. This latter CPU is currently sitting at over $1K, so you do the math. The Intel D5400XS motherboard is another part of the equation, as is the FB-DIMM memory requirement, and neither will come cheap. * Please note that these prices were taken at the time of review and are not meant to reflect long-term trends. Conclusion The upcoming Intel Skulltrail platform release certainly gives enthusiasts another performance option, and offers the fastest desktop that money can buy. And it will take a significant investment to get on the Skulltrail, as well as opening up your wallet in other areas, like the power supply, FD-DIMM memory and EATX case. But those that do take the plunge will get a performance demon that can eat multi-threaded code for breakfast, as well as the first Intel platform to be fully NVIDIA SLI compatible . Pros: * Superior Media Encoding Results * Exceptional Multi-threading Performance * Xeon LGA771 Upgradeable * More Desktop-Friendly than Xeon Workstation Solutions Cons: * Very Expensive * High Power Consumption * FB-DIMM Requirement Copyright ? 2008 Jupitermedia Corp. |