Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 review: Quad Core is here!
Posted by Julio Franco on 02 November 2006 - 05:29 · 21 comments & 13128 views
- Advertisement
-
-
(5 replies)
#1 Posted by boogerjones on 02 Nov 2006 - 05:34
- Cool stuff.Quote -using a cool 1.34 volts of power.
Volts are not a measure of power. -
#1.2 Posted by Quick Reply on 02 Nov 2006 - 06:01
- 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).
-
#1.3 Posted by eFX on 02 Nov 2006 - 06:26
- Quote - Quick Reply said @ #1.2No 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. -
#1.4 Posted by Computer Guru on 02 Nov 2006 - 07:37
- Yeah, but earlier in the article it says QUAD CORE on 130 WATTS.
THAT's cool! -
#1.5 Posted by +guylaroche on 02 Nov 2006 - 13:31
- Quote - eFX said @ #1.3Quote - Quick Reply said @ #1.2No 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.
Indeed....
-
(1 reply)
#2 Posted by msmcougar on 02 Nov 2006 - 05:34
- 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!
-
#4 Posted by Quick Reply on 02 Nov 2006 - 06:06
- It's not the "Conroe micro-architecture", it's the "Core micro-architecture". Kentsfield isn't an architecture either, it's a codename for a Processor.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by Kushan on 02 Nov 2006 - 07:46
- 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.
-
#7 Posted by OAKside on 02 Nov 2006 - 08:46
- 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. :drool:
-
(2 replies)
#8 Posted by ambiance on 02 Nov 2006 - 08:58
- 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.
-
#8.1 Posted by +Shadowdruid on 02 Nov 2006 - 09:34
- Quote - ambiance said @ #8I 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. -
#8.2 Posted by ambiance on 02 Nov 2006 - 09:52
- 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.
Last edited by ambiance on 02 Nov 2006 - 10:03
-
#9 Posted by ishtar on 02 Nov 2006 - 11:11
- I still see nothing earth shattering big deal sisoft registers high everything else the same and even less lets compare it to a new fx and you'll see the gaming numbers are a few fps less big deal
-
#11 Posted by Roger MS on 02 Nov 2006 - 19:16
- 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.
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
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.