Review

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 review

Hot on the heels of the Core 2 Duo launch, Intel came out and released the world's first quad-core processor last November. Given how powerful the Core 2 Duo had proven to be, we wondered how much of a performance gain this new quad-core version could offer.

According to our previous tests, there are currently no games that take advantage of the additional two cores; however software such as Photoshop, Pinnacle Studio Plus, QuickTime and 3D Studio Max all greatly benefited from the power of four dedicated cores. For example, the QX6700 was 15% faster than the Core 2 Duo E6700 in Photoshop, and gains as big as 43% were seen in Pinnacle Studio Plus. The biggest performance gap was found in 3D Studio Max where the QX6700 was 89% faster than the E6700.

Even though there will be those out there that will want the power of the QX6700 for image and video editing, the processor's steep price ($1000) might set high barriers for getting one. Today Intel is releasing a second quad core processor called the Core 2 Quad Q6600. This new entry that comes clocked at 2.40GHz does not belong to the Extreme family of processors and will begin life at $530, making it a much more affordable alternative than the QX6700.
  View: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 review @ TechSpot

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Free PC Tools Firewall Plus 1.0.0.7

Next Story

IE7pro 0.9.5

13 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I really considered getting a quad core cpu for my current desktop but once I found the CEB form factor for dual 771 Xeons and a 5000X chipset I ordered a dual Xeon 5120 setup which I will pin mod to 5140's and since I dont see a need for SLI I'm getting an 8800GTX to accompany them. I figure that the 70Mhz loss in speed the dual independant FSBs will make up for against a Q6600.

Right, considering FB-DIMMS required by the 5000X platform don't cost that much and don't add that much of a performance loss?

Anyway, the cache coherency requirements on separate FSBs would actually slow down performance.

At the moment, the requirements for games aren't that stressful on the CPU as any game that can still use the performance boost of an 8800GTX is definitely not CPU limited.

Plus, socket 771 Xeons and certified motherboards that take socket 771 chips cost an arm and a leg and are aimed at workstation users, not games for obvious (re: performance and cost) issues.

Cal

Core 2 is the name of the architecture. The number of cores is a configuration thing:
core 2 solo/duo/quatro

Think of the "2" as the IV in pentium IV.

Well I'm guessing that maybe it would sound as though Core 2 would be seen as "old, and obsolete", but keeping the same name allows Intel to have both Dual Core and Quad Core processors on the go until such times as it becomes ready to move onto the 4 core marketing properly.

Its all about perception remember

ramesees said,
Well I'm guessing that maybe it would sound as though Core 2 would be seen as "old, and obsolete", but keeping the same name allows Intel to have both Dual Core and Quad Core processors on the go until such times as it becomes ready to move onto the 4 core marketing properly.

Its all about perception remember

no its not, its about versioning vs cores... read my post above

weemies said,
Why didn't they call quad cores Core 4 instead of Core 2?

well the nameing should be simple to understand, its in this format

[Product] [Revision] [Cores]

So you have

Core Solo
Core Duo
Core 2 Solo
Core 2 Duo
Core 2 Quad

when the next version comes out it will be

Core 3 Duo
Core 3 Quad... etc

Not really. This is the last from Core series. What follows is a completely new generation of Intel microarchitecture.

funny that the only ones the quad core did bad on where things that are single threaded to start with of course a single threaded operation will be slow on a multi core chip, its not dividing the task amount processors...