Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 review

Windows Media Encoder 9 provides us with an application that utilizes multiple threads well. Encoding a thirty second fragment to HD quality (720p) takes 40% less time for the Kentsfield than for its predecessor with two cores:

	Windows Media Encoder 9 x64
	Core 2 Extreme QX6700	73.7
	Dual Opteron 2216	106.3
	Core 2 Extreme X6800	112.7
	Core 2 Duo E6700	122.7
	Athlon FX-62	138.0
	Athlon X2 5000+	147.7
	Core 2 Duo E6400	152.3

The next applications claim to be multithreaded, but in practice they appear to cause a load of less than 40% on the quadcore, making them not very impressive. We’re talking about the 7-zip compression program and the MP3-coded LAME:

	LAME 3.97 x64 Multi-threaded
	Core 2 Extreme X6800	145.3
	Athlon FX-62	151.3
	Core 2 Extreme QX6700	157.3
	Core 2 Duo E6700	161.3
	Athlon X2 5000+	164.3
	Dual Opteron 2216	177.0
	Core 2 Duo E6400	199.7

	7-Zip 4.42 x64
	Core 2 Extreme X6800	78.7
	Core 2 Duo E6700	83.3
	Core 2 Extreme QX6700	84.7
	Core 2 Duo E6400	100.7
	Athlon FX-62	123.3
	Athlon X2 5000+	144.7
	Dual Opteron 2216	191.7

However, for the fun of it, let's also have look at what happens when we run them together: the test system has to compress a 116MB database dump (with compression level set to 'Ultra') while a 718MB .WAV file is saved into the MP3 format. This time, we do find the promised performance gain:

	LAME + 7-zip (7-zip time)
	Core 2 Extreme QX6700	81.7
	Core 2 Extreme X6800	115.3
	Core 2 Duo E6700	127.7
	Core 2 Duo E6400	145.0
	Athlon X2 5000+	158.0
	Dual Opteron 2216	161.0
	Athlon FX-62	175.0

	LAME + 7-zip (LAME time)
	Core 2 Extreme QX6700	158.3
	Core 2 Extreme X6800	174.0
	Dual Opteron 2216	178.3
	Athlon FX-62	182.0
	Core 2 Duo E6700	185.3
	Athlon X2 5000+	212.7
	Core 2 Duo E6400	242.7