Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 review: Quad Core is here!

Since the release of Intel's Conroe micro-architecture, the company has been making waves, massive waves. In terms of performance, Intel washed away main competitor AMD, and they have continued to do so during the past three months with the success of their Core 2 Duo and Extreme processor series.

Step aside dual-core, it is now the time of the quad-core and you better believe it. The new quad-core series consists of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 and the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. Both feature a dual 4MB L2 cache, operate on a 1066MHz FSB, and have a thermal output of 130 watts. However, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is not scheduled for release until early next year, and so today we will be looking at the more powerful Core 2 Extreme QX6700 version, which Intel had promised to make available this month, humming along to the tune of just 2.66GHz using a cool 1.34 volts of power.

The very same technologies that made the Conroe so powerful are all included in the new Kentsfield architecture. In fact, there are no new additions, so it is merely a quad-core version of the Conroe, but of course this is hardly a bad thing. So how does the Quad Core QX6700 performs? Read on and find out.

View: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 review @ TechSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Natural Selection 2 Announced!

Next Story

Microsoft Max Killed Off

18 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

There is a far more in-depth review of this proc at Anand's. It details more positives and negatives than TeckSpot points out. In addition, it appears there is a no-brainer choice for EE procs at this time: the dual EE is still priced the same as the quad EE (tho' that will likely change in the next couple of months, if not weeks). If you're heavily invested in graphics and video work, or 3D rendering, the quad EE is the easy choice for today.

Some good news: if you're into gaming, the quad should excell in games that use the Alan Wake or Unreal3 engines. I would surmise that by February, most or all common benchmark apps should be optimized for quad, so that we'll have a better idea of the differences and comparisons between all current procs on the market.

I was expecting far greater benchmarks. I think Intel loses on this one, and consumers win because of the Core 2 price drop. Maybe HT3.0 coming in the new AMD chips will put them in their place, or not. Either way keep battling and save us money.

Quote - ambiance said @ #8
I was expecting far greater benchmarks. I think Intel loses on this one, and consumers win because of the Core 2 price drop. Maybe HT3.0 coming in the new AMD chips will put them in their place, or not. Either way keep battling and save us money.

in order for their to be far greater benchmarks, the software has to be optimzed for quad core, otherwise it would just use 2 cores.

Please read the article again, as the author mentions this.

I read this article before I saw it posted on Neowin so don't assume that I didn't read it. I am aware that there is limited software available that takes advantage of multi-core processors. I also noticed the gaming was sub par, but multi-tasking and encoding times are improved. Do I have to type an essay to convince you that I read articles? I think not, as you make judgments based on assumptions.

Bragging rights: Awesome. Reality: Software (and programmers) are not prepared.
It's cool to see how fast we went from dual to quad-core, compared to vintage singles
to dual. At least the high-end CPUs now will not be so high-end-priced after quads
take their place. Impressive, but waiting on AMD's release.

As nice as this is, I can't get excited about multi-core stuff until developers start designing their apps to be multi-threaded.
Same goes for AMD's 4X4.

If either company could figure out some sort of reverse HT, then I'd be excited.

Yeah I agree with you there, till more software comes out that actually takes advantage of this cool stuff. It's more for bragging rights I think (for now)

Amazing! Great if you do video editing according to the benchmarks. Gamers and others might not see the performance benefits. If you multi-task or do heavy multi-threaded processing, this is awesome!

Until they start writing games that are properly theaded and take advantage of multi cores this may be a slow transitions.

Games are only starting to take advantage.

No it's not. Watts are a measure of power. Volts are just one component of the equation to measure power (Volts x Amperes = Watts).

Quote - Quick Reply said @ #1.2
No it's not. Watts are a measure of power. Volts are just one component of the equation to measure power (Volts x Amperes = Watts).

Agreed. Volts = potential.