View Full Version : Core 2 Quad Q6600 - Is it Gamer Choice
----Price cuts from Intel----
For Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU - Is it Gamer Choice.
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/core%202%20extreme%20qx6850_07160710719/15134.png
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038&p=15
Question?
What would you choose Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.0GHz) -OR- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz). They both cost same $266.00 US. dollars....
:)
Albuquerque
16-Jul-2007, 13:51
Edit I got it wrong.
The 6850 is still a 65nm part, but a later "G0" stepping. Most of the folks who got one early said it overclocked better than the previous versions, with people getting the 6750 version (2.66ghz) up to around 3.6 -> 3.8ghz mark without trying too hard.
I think if I had only the choice between the E6850 and the Q6600, I'd do the quad core. But more realistically, I'd save some money and buy a lower speed processor -- like the E6750.
pjbliverpool
16-Jul-2007, 14:08
If I were buying today I would have to say yes, the Q6600 seems to be an amazing buy. Unfortunatly I purchased an E6600 for more about 6 months ago and I can't justify another upgrade at this point.
Happy days for anyone buying now though :smile:
Must resist urge to buy...Penryn relatively near...must fight against the craving:D
Albuquerque
16-Jul-2007, 14:31
See, at the moment I'm really torn -- a (cheaper) dual core will overclock better, and there are only two or three apps on my rig that would use more than two cores. So faster speed + dual core seems more suited for now.
But...
I know quad core support is definitely coming, both in games and in future apps. By the time Penryn is out, I think it will be a good time to draw the line in the sand and say "From here out, it's quad core". Just IMO of course...
tongue_of_colicab
16-Jul-2007, 15:50
I'm thinking hard about getting a core2quad at the end of summer. I first wanted a core2duo and just overclock it (3ghz doesnt seem to be a problem) but I suppose 4x2.4Ghz gives alot better performance in 3dsm than 2x3ghz and maybe better in games too.
Albuquerque
16-Jul-2007, 16:22
Well, consider that even the Quads are still overclocking quite nicely. If you're using aftermarket cooling and aren't scared of a tiny bump in voltage, there's likely no reason why a QX6600 couldn't do 3ghz with 100% stability. Hell, it might be likely that you could do it even without the voltage...
I'm thinking that when Penryn comes out, the new 45nm process is going to be a clock monster. Combined with the additional performance features in Penryn, I bet we see some really REALLY good stuff come out for the enthusiast market by the end of this year.
Right now is an exciting time for people buying CPUs :)
pjbliverpool
16-Jul-2007, 16:29
Right now is an exciting time for people buying CPUs :)
Hehe, its hard to remember the days of the old 3Ghz P4 that we seemed to have forever and the CPU market was about as exciting watching paint dry. I still remember the talk of the clock speed wall and how the days of rapid CPU performance increases were gone....
These days the CPU market is as exciting than the GPU one! If not more so!
It's a nice price but I'll be going with the 6750 and overclocking that one instead. Can't be beat for $180ish, and down the track I can always upgrade to a quad core Penryn when there is a lot more support for multiple cores.
ballsweat
16-Jul-2007, 20:18
why is the cpu used so heavily in a game sponsored by a company who wants to push gpgpu's?
up until i saw this benchmark, i thought my core 2 duo e6300 was enough, but i guess not.
i thought with dual 8800 gtx's, my cpu wouldn't have to be ultra high-end, but apparently i was wrong.
on the other hand it doesn't really bother me, b/c my now-weak cpu still can't prevent me from playing at the highest settings (except not 2560x1600).
this is a stupid post, by a stupid person, but i had never really looked closely at cpu benchmarks before, other than heat, so it's fairly new to me.
also, it's not good how intel is making such huge differences in heat with the same processor. fortunately, my e6300 was made before the hot ones were made. I was hoping that was the only time intel would pull a stunt like that (the january 2007 manufactured ones), but unfortunately, it's probably going to be pretty prominent (now that it's being done with these newer skus.)
on the other hand, i'm sure that everyone else is fine with intel making hotter, less oc-able revisions, since i don't like that.
Albuquerque
16-Jul-2007, 21:08
this is a stupid post, by a stupid person
Hey, watch it. That was uncalled for; it's a valid question no matter who asks it.
also, it's not good how intel is making such huge differences in heat with the same processor. fortunately, my e6300 was made before the hot ones were made.
I'm not following you; what is it you're trying to say here? Newer models put off a bit more heat than your E6300, mostly because they have considerably more cache, more internal clock speed and higher front side busses. Quad cores obviously put out more heat because there's 2x more cores to suck up power.
on the other hand, i'm sure that everyone else is fine with intel making hotter, less oc-able revisions, since i don't like that.
Obviously you're not keeping up very well... The E6550, 6750 and 6850 chips (which are the brand new ones) are overclocking better than their predecessors. Anand did 3.7Ghz on stock voltage and on stock cooling... Xbit did better, and at least one person on XtremeSystems has one at 4ghz with a 5% voltage bump.
So what you meant to say was, everyone is glad that Intel is making cooler, more oc-able revisions except for you?
Hehe, its hard to remember the days of the old 3Ghz P4 that we seemed to have forever
No its not
I just look at my current pc :(
But more realistically, I'd save some money and buy a lower speed processor -- like the E6750.
The e6750 is a lower speed processor than the q6600? Or are you counting the additional 2 cores as making it 'faster'?
It's funny, over here we have the e6600 (2.4ghz, 1066mhz bus) for $290. Then we have the e6750 (2.66ghz, 1333mhz bus) for $264. Where's the logic in that? We can buy a better CPU cheaper... I guess it must be because everyone buys the e6600, therefore raising it's average price? (is this Counter Strike or something?!) :razz:
Albuquerque
17-Jul-2007, 02:08
The e6750 is a lower speed processor than the q6600? Or are you counting the additional 2 cores as making it 'faster'?
It's funny, over here we have the e6600 (2.4ghz, 1066mhz bus) for $290. Then we have the e6750 (2.66ghz, 1333mhz bus) for $264. Where's the logic in that? We can buy a better CPU cheaper... I guess it must be because everyone buys the e6600, therefore raising it's average price? (is this Counter Strike or something?!) :razz:
Sorry, I was referring to the original question in the first post: E6850 or QX6600. If my choice was ONLY the two, then QX wins.
However, I feel the E6750 is a better price/performance than the E6850. It is slower than the E6850, but would likely overclock nearly to the same level. So spend less money, get equal speed in the end. Did I make more sense that time? ;)
Quite! :smile:
I was considering building another system soon too, thinking of getting 6750 (not sure if we're getting any price drops on q6600's here in Aus anyway), some good ram, and a decent motherboard (crossfire for sure).
Blazkowicz
17-Jul-2007, 04:13
the quads feel power hungry, if I were to build a system I'd rather get an E4400 and pray for the motherboard to support the 45nm CPU. (alternatively, a 65nm X2 3600+ then later a K10)
Skrying
17-Jul-2007, 04:17
I would buy the Q6600, stop looking to the future so much, and enjoy my system.
Dresden
17-Jul-2007, 04:35
Every household is going to require a Yorkfield for the utmost in gaming optimization! Did I read that those were going to be eight cores? Anyway here's to prices drops in the quads section, I need my new processor.
Edit- When are the next waves of Quads being released?
Every household is going to require a Yorkfield for the utmost in gaming optimization! Did I read that those were going to be eight cores? Anyway here's to prices drops in the quads section, I need my new processor.
Edit- When are the next waves of Quads being released?
Intel Core 2 Quad (Yorkfield) CPU is expected to be released in Q3-2007 and it's based on a 45nm process.
Yorkfield is the successor to Intel Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield). Yorkfield will feature two 6MB L2 caches - total of 12MB L2 (which is 2x6MB). Yorkfield is expected to feature 50 additional Penryn new Instructions (SSE4) and feature a clock speed of 3.46 to 3.73Ghz. With new SSE4 instructions it introducing to the core streaming operations and enhancing the performance of media and high performance computing applications. Intel Penryn has faster division operations (twice the speed), also improved cache management, enhanced power management - including a C6 'Deep Power Down' state, plus support for up to a 1600Mhz FSB, Also Enhanced Dynamic Acceleration technology, Intel's Enhanced Dynamic Acceleration technology allows heavily utilized cores to increase their clock speed whilst staying within a specified thermal and power envelope.
Lets get back to the topic :)
I would buy the Q6600, stop looking to the future so much, and enjoy my system.
Yees yees... i still have daily day/nightmares of the rushed decision to buy a P4@3.2. Think of the future to avoid regreting the past, dont you think?
Skrying
17-Jul-2007, 09:03
Yees yees... i still have daily day/nightmares of the rushed decision to buy a P4@3.2. Think of the future to avoid regreting the past, dont you think?
You still have to have an idea of the future, but going "But so and so is coming" is just going to have you in circles for a long time depending on how far you look. The Quad Core is very cheap right now (considering) and I am very doubtful Penryn is going to be tremendously faster than current Conroe/Kentsfield processors are now. I mean honestly, if you've made it this long on your current processor why the hell buy a new one right now that is cheaper than the quad core (but not a lot cheaper) and then upgrade in the relatively near future? That to me is far worse to do than buying a Q6600 and riding it out for a good while. The E6750 now and then Penryn later just comes off as a waste of money in the E6750 part.
You still have to have an idea of the future, but going "But so and so is coming" is just going to have you in circles for a long time depending on how far you look. The Quad Core is very cheap right now (considering) and I am very doubtful Penryn is going to be tremendously faster than current Conroe/Kentsfield processors are now. I mean honestly, if you've made it this long on your current processor why the hell buy a new one right now that is cheaper than the quad core (but not a lot cheaper) and then upgrade in the relatively near future? That to me is far worse to do than buying a Q6600 and riding it out for a good while. The E6750 now and then Penryn later just comes off as a waste of money in the E6750 part.
I never said going for an E6750 its not a waste, you made it sound as if i wanted to purchase now to upgrade again in a "relative near future" on the contrary, and the "so and so is coming" applies in this particular case, why? Imo if you want to make a more future proof purchase by looking at the direction both Intel and AMD are taking frenetically to multicore designs and applications, going quad core makes all the sense to me. But since AMD hasn't launched its 4 core Phenom wich im very curious to see how much it was worth waiting (even if doesn't prove to be), its a wiser choice.
Their shared L3 cache might give a good boost in performance compared to intel with applications that really make use of the 4 cores, but might be neglectible with applications that only push 2 at most. And even considering Intel constant push on the manufacturing process to offset those shortcommings to their favour, will only mean cheapper prices on the competition side, wich even makes a better "bang for the buck".
So resuming, yes i think going 4 core is the best decision, but its even better to just stick to whatever we have now (even if its P4) than rush into a intel quad ignoring the near product from the competition.
Albuquerque
17-Jul-2007, 12:19
the quads feel power hungry, if I were to build a system I'd rather get an E4400 and pray for the motherboard to support the 45nm CPU. (alternatively, a 65nm X2 3600+ then later a K10)
I'm not really sure that the Quad Cores are "power hungry", except for the obvious fact that there are four processors to feed instead of just one. Still, compared to the power consumption, thermal design and computational power of the Prescotts, the Quad core stomps all over even some of the single core Prescott offerings.
I'd rather have some use for my 600W power supply :)
tongue_of_colicab
17-Jul-2007, 16:57
So now what would be the best quad to buy for under 300?
Dresden
17-Jul-2007, 17:42
So now what would be the best quad to buy for under 300?
I've only seen one quad thus far, Intel, and it's price averages in the high $400's, depending on where you buy it.
Someone said a price drop will be happening on the 22nd.
So now what would be the best quad to buy for under 300?
From reports, the only quad that will be below $300 is the Q6600 after July 22.
tongue_of_colicab
17-Jul-2007, 19:25
Ah oke, its already 260 here so. But does it matter alot that it has a slower bus? I havnt really keeped up with hw specs for the last couple of years.
Unknown Soldier
17-Jul-2007, 19:37
Ah oke, its already 260 here so. But does it matter alot that it has a slower bus? I havnt really keeped up with hw specs for the last couple of years.
No, depending on the Mobo.. you can overclock the Q6600 to 3.2Ghz. I have mine at 3Ghz because I use aircooling to keep my CPU cool(Zalman 9700). At 3.2Ghz it starts getting a bit hot but is still completely stable.
I'd definitely get the Q6600, especially if you looking for a CPU that's future proof and the Quad is more future proof than the Dual.
And at 3Ghz it performs better than the QX6700 ;) so it's very quick.
US
Skrying
17-Jul-2007, 19:46
I never said going for an E6750 its not a waste, you made it sound as if i wanted to purchase now to upgrade again in a "relative near future" on the contrary, and the "so and so is coming" applies in this particular case, why? Imo if you want to make a more future proof purchase by looking at the direction both Intel and AMD are taking frenetically to multicore designs and applications, going quad core makes all the sense to me. But since AMD hasn't launched its 4 core Phenom wich im very curious to see how much it was worth waiting (even if doesn't prove to be), its a wiser choice.
Their shared L3 cache might give a good boost in performance compared to intel with applications that really make use of the 4 cores, but might be neglectible with applications that only push 2 at most. And even considering Intel constant push on the manufacturing process to offset those shortcommings to their favour, will only mean cheapper prices on the competition side, wich even makes a better "bang for the buck".
So resuming, yes i think going 4 core is the best decision, but its even better to just stick to whatever we have now (even if its P4) than rush into a intel quad ignoring the near product from the competition.
I wasn't talking to you specifically. Just the idea of a number of people in this thread of going with say a E6750 and then later Penryn, I find it the worst of all options. Anyway, I think waiting for AMD's option though is even worse now, it won't be faster... you heard it here first I guess.
Albuquerque
17-Jul-2007, 20:40
Whatever chances AMD has at being faster will be easily squashed by Intel IMO.
Let's think: by the time Barcelona really makes it into the market, Intel will be rolling their 45nm parts. Penryn or not, there's going to be less voltage, less heat and more clock headroom in that die-shrink.
So even if AMD can somehow get equal performance to Core2Duo by stretching for all they're worth, Intel needs only to add a tiny bit more voltage (already built into the VID-steppings that any current C2D-supporting motherboard bios has programmed) and a lot more clockspeed.
Seriously, think about it: Intel is sandbagging bigtime when you see people on a quad core do 25% overclocks on stock voltage and stock cooling. Can you say headroom?
pjbliverpool
17-Jul-2007, 22:03
Whatever chances AMD has at being faster will be easily squashed by Intel IMO.
Let's think: by the time Barcelona really makes it into the market, Intel will be rolling their 45nm parts. Penryn or not, there's going to be less voltage, less heat and more clock headroom in that die-shrink.
So even if AMD can somehow get equal performance to Core2Duo by stretching for all they're worth, Intel needs only to add a tiny bit more voltage (already built into the VID-steppings that any current C2D-supporting motherboard bios has programmed) and a lot more clockspeed.
Seriously, think about it: Intel is sandbagging bigtime when you see people on a quad core do 25% overclocks on stock voltage and stock cooling. Can you say headroom?
Unfortunatly I have to agree. I don't see Barcelona matching Conroe, nevermind Penryn and even Penryn is due to be superceded by Nehalem within a couple of quarters. And I expect Nehalem to obliterate Penryn with its onboard MC, multithreading and native quad core.
I pray AMD has something amazing up their sleeves but I don't hold out much hope.
ShaidarHaran
18-Jul-2007, 03:25
No its not
I just look at my current pc :(
You're not alone there. Trusty old P4 :warm: It'll be 3 years this November and still going strong. Modest RAM and GPU upgrades have helped make that possible though.
Unfortunatly I have to agree. I don't see Barcelona matching Conroe, nevermind Penryn and even Penryn is due to be superceded by Nehalem within a couple of quarters. And I expect Nehalem to obliterate Penryn with its onboard MC, multithreading and native quad core.
I pray AMD has something amazing up their sleeves but I don't hold out much hope.
Nehalem (the server product) will feature an IMC, but the desktop and mobile products most likely won't. Just because the family will feature CSI doesn't mean all products will utilize an IMC. Intel reps (Gelsinger) have said an IMC doesn't make much sense when their memory hierarchy is already so efficient, at least at the 1S/2S levels. Pile on the socket count and an IMC starts to make a lot more sense.
"We have the best memory hierarchy on planet today," Gelsinger said in response to a question about AMD's HyperTransport processor design approach. "The best cache is more important than an integrated memory controller, which is why Intel wins on benchmarks." - Pat Gelsinger C/O ZDNet (http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4748)
Nehalem (the server product)
I think desktop version of Intel Nehalem is going to be Bloomfield CPU at 45nm process; Bloomfield is based on the Nehalem architecture and it is successor to Yorkfield. Bloomfield is expected to feature 4 cores, each will feature an advanced version of Hyperthreading - allowing 8 threads to be executed simultaneously per CPU. Bloomfield is also expected to feature an integrated memory controller and will introduce the new Socket B (Socket 1366) platform.
ShaidarHaran
18-Jul-2007, 05:31
I think desktop version of Intel Nehalem is going to be Bloomfield CPU at 45nm process; Bloomfield is based on the Nehalem architecture and it is successor to Yorkfield. Bloomfield is expected to feature 4 cores, each will feature an advanced version of Hyperthreading - allowing 8 threads to be executed simultaneously per CPU. Bloomfield is also expected to feature an integrated memory controller and will introduce the new Socket B (Socket 1366) platform.
Some parts will feature an IMC, but I'd honestly be shocked to see Intel include an IMC on entry-level and mainstream parts. I dunno, I refer back to Gelsinger's linked comments. Maybe I'm reading too much into them. We'll know within a year.
Some parts will feature an IMC, but I'd honestly be shocked to see Intel include an IMC on entry-level and mainstream parts. I dunno, I refer back to Gelsinger's linked comments. Maybe I'm reading too much into them. We'll know within a year.
Also consider the context of his comments. If you were an Intel rep and were asked about something AMD has and you don't ATM, and won't for a while, would you say:well, yea, it rocks your socks off?:D Or would your answer be:we have this uber thing(other than the competitor's part) and we win benchmarks(which is true)?But you're right, it's a bit too early to call, but I see little reason for Intel not to opt for an IMC.
Unknown Soldier
18-Jul-2007, 17:25
Question?
What would you choose Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.0GHz) -OR- Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz). They both cost same $266.00 US. dollars....
:)
I would choose Q6600 ;)
http://forums.prophecy.co.za/attachments/f76/11279d1183727816t-650i-vs-680i-q6600-667-3ghz-air-8800gts320-675-936.jpg (http://forums.prophecy.co.za/attachments/f66/11364d1184770915-overclocking-help-q6600-712-3.2ghz-air-8800gts320-675-936.jpg)
Also consider the context of his comments. If you were an Intel rep and were asked about something AMD has and you don't ATM, and won't for a while, would you say:well, yea, it rocks your socks off?:D Or would your answer be:we have this uber thing(other than the competitor's part) and we win benchmarks(which is true)?But you're right, it's a bit too early to call, but I see little reason for Intel not to opt for an IMC.
I like AMD processors, I was even thinking to upgrade my system to AMD Athlon 64 X2 series until Intel introduced Core 2, (Especially Core2 Quad CPU) Q6600 affordable price.
tongue_of_colicab
18-Jul-2007, 21:40
I always liked amd too, my first pc I bought myself had a amd too, but with the core2 series there just isnt a good reason to buy amd. Intel is dirt cheap and offer a ton of performance. I dont think anyone thought you'd get a cpu like the quad6600 for as low as 260euro.
I like AMD processors, I was even thinking to upgrade my system to AMD Athlon 64 X2 series until Intel introduced Core 2, (Especially Core2 Quad CPU) Q6600 affordable price.
Ermmm...ok. That is connected to the post I made regarding Intel implementing an IMC through....?
Ermmm...ok. That is connected to the post I made regarding Intel implementing an IMC through....?
My apologies....
(Edit: Sorry:( I honestly did not understood the meaning of your reply :)
My apologies....
(Edit: Sorry:( I honestly did not understood the meaning of your reply :)
No problem. I simply failed to see the link and thus I asked;)
Some parts will feature an IMC, but I'd honestly be shocked to see Intel include an IMC on entry-level and mainstream parts.
Could you please guess or try to answer - what is so special about upcoming Socket B (Socket 1366) and why so many extra pins is needed compare to current Socket 775.
Even upcoming Intel Penryn will do just fine on socket 775 and no extra pins needed.
Albuquerque
19-Jul-2007, 15:30
Lots of people want to say that companies change sockets so they can make more money. I don't really think that's as much the case, because it costs the company money to design and fabricate all this stuff and make it work -- and more pins = more parts = more materials = more cost.
Typically socket updates are done to facilitate upcoming features or to help signal quality. A whole lot of the pins in S478 and LGA775 are simple grounds -- you need a lot of common grounding and common power planes to make sure signal propogation works the way it should.
But of course, you can also use more pins to facilitate more cores, more / wider data transport interfaces, and other such items.
It's likely that the new socket design will carry Intel forward into Octal-core processors (or even further) and may also include individual data busses per-core. I'm 100% speculating right now, but it's a good place to start IMO.
karlotta
20-Jul-2007, 17:11
...
Even upcoming Intel Penryn will do just fine on socket 775 and no extra pins needed. Fine is a subjective...
Fine is a subjective...
A subjective dot dot dot? What's a dot dot dot?
If you don't think it'll function properly, then by all means feel free to provide just a tad more information :wink:
ShaidarHaran
22-Jul-2007, 00:05
Could you please guess or try to answer - what is so special about upcoming Socket B (Socket 1366) and why so many extra pins is needed compare to current Socket 775.
Even upcoming Intel Penryn will do just fine on socket 775 and no extra pins needed.
Certainly the obvious answer would be the inclusion of an IMC, but you have to keep in mind that Socket B is the solution for the multi-socket market (i.e. server/workstation) whereas Socket H is the replacement for the current Socket T and has *less* pins (715 vs. 775).
So, IMC = less pins? I doubt that very much.
Certainly the obvious answer would be the inclusion of an IMC, but you have to keep in mind that Socket B is the solution for the multi-socket market (i.e. server/workstation) whereas Socket H is the replacement for the current Socket T and has *less* pins (715 vs. 775).
So, IMC = less pins? I doubt that very much.
On some website The rumor quoted that desktop version will use same or could be similar desigh socket as for Intel-Nehalem server chip.
ShaidarHaran
22-Jul-2007, 03:47
On some website The rumor quoted that desktop version will use same or could be similar desigh socket as for Intel-Nehalem server chip.
Socket B & Socket H - TechReport (http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11064)
Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but not straight from the horse's mouth so I won't bother arguing as though it's written in stone.
Socket B & Socket H - TechReport (http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11064)
Seems pretty clear-cut to me, but not straight from the horse's mouth so I won't bother arguing as though it's written in stone.
I believe you; but Intel Bloomfield CPU is going to be desktop version of Intel Nehalem CPU.
The next generation Intel processor based on the Nehalem architecture is clearly exciting as VR-Zone has learned. Successor to quad core Yorkfield which forms part of the 45nm Penryn architecture, Bloomfield will come along and sit right on top of the 45nm Nehalem desktop processors in mid 2008. Bloomfield will have 4 cores and is capable of 8 threads like the old Hyper-Threading technology but only more advanced. Bloomfield will contain an integrated memory controller that requires a new socket refresh called Socket B with 1366 contact pads.
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4322
As far I could tell Socket B with 1366 pin will have IMC for servers and desktop as well.
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor - Retail $299.99
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115017
ShaidarHaran
22-Jul-2007, 06:23
I believe you; but Intel Bloomfield CPU is going to be desktop version of Intel Nehalem CPU.
http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=4322
As far I could tell Socket B with 1366 pin will have IMC for servers and desktop as well.
Still doesn't make much sense to me to have such a high pin count for a mainstream part (especially when we know there is a new mainstream socket) but we'll see next year.
Still doesn't make much sense to me to have such a high pin count for a mainstream part (especially when we know there is a new mainstream socket) but we'll see next year.
If you consider based on the fact that their would be absolute no reason to have Socket H. 715 pin. If you have 45nm Penryn CPU running on socket 775 w/ decent Motherboard; their is no point to ditch your setup and move to Socket H. 715 pin. What's the point?
ShaidarHaran
22-Jul-2007, 07:47
If you consider based on the fact that their would be absolute no reason to have Socket H. 715 pin. If you have 45nm Penryn CPU running on socket 775 w/ decent Motherboard; their is no point to ditch your setup and move to Socket H. 715 pin.
Intel doesn't do things for "absolutely no reason" ;)
Intel doesn't do things for "absolutely no reason" ;)
Logically assuming for alternate choice! (Still make no sense to me)
Old thread I know - but on July 22nd Intel was supposed to drop prices on this chip.
Anyone find it odd that many of the online resources are now sellling the Q6600 for over 340 U.S. Dollars? Seems a lot of price gouging is going on all of a sudden.
Old thread I know - but on July 22nd Intel was supposed to drop prices on this chip.
Anyone find it odd that many of the online resources are now sellling the Q6600 for over 340 U.S. Dollars? Seems a lot of price gouging is going on all of a sudden.
The only place I see doing that much wallet raping is NewEgg. Other places offer it for $290 or under.
Old thread I know - but on July 22nd Intel was supposed to drop prices on this chip.
Anyone find it odd that many of the online resources are now sellling the Q6600 for over 340 U.S. Dollars? Seems a lot of price gouging is going on all of a sudden.
Sale price: $284.99
http://store.memorylabs.net/inco2quprrto.html
Dresden
25-Jul-2007, 22:40
Sale price: $284.99
http://store.memorylabs.net/inco2quprrto.html
I think I'll wait until the price drops on Newegg. Call me crazy, but I'm always skeptical when "Product may differ from image shown" is written on the page.... Does that give them leeway to ship you a brick?
CHECK THIS OUT! ZOMG!
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1212009
I think I'll wait until the price drops on Newegg. Call me crazy, but I'm always skeptical when "Product may differ from image shown" is written on the page.... Does that give them leeway to ship you a brick?
How about :)
Frys.com
$ 289.00
http://shop1.outpost.com/product/5101696;jsessionid=1nRWDHSBgexGwvu9qcmF3Q**.node2? site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
Skrying
26-Jul-2007, 02:30
CHECK THIS OUT! ZOMG!
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1212009
Eh, those results are a bit hard to believe and I won't till TAT or CoreTemp is used. SpeedFan had/has a well known issue with reading Core 2 based processor temperatures either way to low or just simply wrong, and on a consistent basis as well. I want to see more "legitimate" program and then I'll believe the temperatures are that low.
I pulled the trigger...
q6600
8800ultra SLI
evga 680i
alea jacta est.
wifey is going ballistic when she learns this.
ncix has excellent prices.
Nice review for Q6600
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/07/25/overclocking_intel_core_2_quad_q6600/1
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/07/25/overclocking_intel_core_2_quad_q6600/4
bigtabs
26-Jul-2007, 03:08
Eh, those results are a bit hard to believe and I won't till TAT or CoreTemp is used. SpeedFan had/has a well known issue with reading Core 2 based processor temperatures either way to low or just simply wrong, and on a consistent basis as well. I want to see more "legitimate" program and then I'll believe the temperatures are that low.
From the link Before you start flaming that speedfan core temp couldn't possibly be this low, keep in mind that speefan 4.32 takes in the 100c Tjunction temp into account so you've to ADD 15c on top of Idle/Load temps.
CHECK THIS OUT! ZOMG!
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1212009
zomg again.
3.6ghz stable on air!
Unknown Soldier
26-Jul-2007, 06:52
CHECK THIS OUT! ZOMG!
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1212009
Hmm.. wierd that he doesn't run it at 400Mhz x9 instead of 450 x 8 .. both will hit 3600 but the ration for x9 will be 1:1
Maybe he was testing potential of the FSB. I'd prefer to run it at x9 though.
US
RussSchultz
30-Jul-2007, 21:16
I was under the impression that the multiplers were locked on normal consumer parts.
SugarCoat
30-Jul-2007, 22:49
I was under the impression that the multiplers were locked on normal consumer parts.
upward only. speedstep uses the unlocked downward multi to throttle the CPU and lighten power draw when the computers idle. You can force a lower multi operation through bios though.
Unknown Soldier
30-Jul-2007, 23:06
Nope .. maybe you got confused with fully unlockable .. like the QX6x00's they can be unlocked at the multiplier at any multiple I believe. The Q6600 though can only use 6, 7, 8 and 9(default).
QX6x00 can do 10 and 11
US
willardjuice
31-Jul-2007, 01:19
Hmm.. wierd that he doesn't run it at 400Mhz x9 instead of 450 x 8 .. both will hit 3600 but the ration for x9 will be 1:1
Maybe he was testing potential of the FSB. I'd prefer to run it at x9 though.
US
More memory bandwidth, 1800 FSB (450x4) vs 1600 FSB (400x4). Remember that it's easier for a CPU to reach higher FSB at a lower multiplier (for instance, just because a CPU can do 450 FSB with an 8x multiplier, it doesn't mean it can do 450 FSB with a 9x multiplier). I personally would rather have 450x8 than 400x9.
Besides FSB:Memory ratios haven't really matter for some time:
There still are synchronization losses inherent in an async mode on any system, but the adequate FSB bandwidth of the P4 allows the additional memory bandwidth produced by async operation to overcome these losses and produce a net gain.
I'll assume this still applies to C2D chips too (please correct if I'm wrong).
Unknown Soldier
04-Aug-2007, 12:01
Sorry, I think 400x9 would be better than 450x8. Better timings etc. Only thing why going x8 would be better is because you can most probably clock it higher. I've noticed that using x9 the memory clocks cannot get as high as with x8.
As for why I say x9 is better. I did a test and found that at 356x9 I get a better 3DMark06 score than at 400x8 both which translate to 3.2Ghz. My memory timings for both was 356Mhz 4.4.4.11 while 400Mhz had 5.5.5.15.
US
willardjuice
04-Aug-2007, 16:23
Sorry, I think 400x9 would be better than 450x8. Better timings etc. Only thing why going x8 would be better is because you can most probably clock it higher. I've noticed that using x9 the memory clocks cannot get as high as with x8.
As for why I say x9 is better. I did a test and found that at 356x9 I get a better 3DMark06 score than at 400x8 both which translate to 3.2Ghz. My memory timings for both was 356Mhz 4.4.4.11 while 400Mhz had 5.5.5.15.
US
Buy better ram.
Throwing ram timings into the equation isn't what we were talking about. We were talking about why someone would prefer 450x8 over 400x9. Obviously if your ram is on the lower quality side, you won't be able to obtain higher FSB speeds (at least not at the desired timings). That has no reflection on the 450x8 vs 400x9 debate. Perhaps 356x9 may translate to better for performance for you, but for those who have high quality ram, they will see better performance at 400x8. It's not a big difference, but it's hard to argue that having a higher a multiplier with lower FSB would be more beneficial than a lower multiplier with a higher FSB (assuming one's ram is capable at higher FSB speeds).
What about something like my RAM, Corsair 8500C5D which is rated 4.4.4.12 @ 800Mhz or 5.5.5.15 @ 1066Mhz. I haven't really done any benchmarks comparing the 2, but I'm currently running around 850ish at 4.4.4.12 and not really sure which would be the better way to go. Pushing as much Mhz out of it @ 5.5.5.15 or lower Mhz @ 4.4.4.12?
ShaidarHaran
16-Aug-2007, 00:59
Sorry for derailing the thread again, but to continue where Shtal and I left off...
Nehalem IMC for Server/Workstation & Extreme Edition only (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=41693). Granted it's L'inq, but it's better than Fuad...
Considering the Fact that AMD only has 2MB L2 cache for Athlon-X2/FX CPU’s compare to Intel Core 2 4MB L2. AMD CPU’s don’t rely as much as Intel CPU’s to have larger L2 cache (To boost performance) because of AMD IMC and Intel does not. Nehalem will be interesting CPU’s “If combine larger L2 cache + IMC” what kind impact of performance it will have?
ShaidarHaran
17-Aug-2007, 02:06
Considering the Fact that AMD only has 2MB L2 cache for Athlon-X2/FX CPU’s compare to Intel Core 2 4MB L2. AMD CPU’s don’t rely as much as Intel CPU’s to have larger L2 cache (To boost performance) because of AMD IMC and Intel does not. Nehalem will be interesting CPU’s “If combine larger L2 cache + IMC” what kind impact of performance it will have?
IMCs + serial links greatly reduce latency for CPU-RAM communication when you don't already have an effective latency-reduction implementation in-place, i.e. Intel's large caches + aggressive pre-fetch algorithms on shared-FSB + discrete shared-MC approach. Shared-FSBs are the main bottlenecks for throughput (and to a lesser extent latency), as they are more parallel than the serial link approach used by AMD (so more complex) and thus can only be scaled to a certain clockspeed, generally quite a bit lower. Additionally, because of the nature of shared-FSBs there is a much heavier load placed upon them, which also contributes to a lower overall clockspeed (and ultimately transfer rate) compared to serial links. Shared (off-die) MCs are the main bottleneck for latency because of the additional distance the information has to travel, and the extra "hop" going from one chip to another and then to memory (and back).
These bottlenecks become especially apparent in multi-socket systems. However, even the IMC approach is not the perfect latency-hiding solution, since >4S systems have an additional hop in the worst-case scenario (i.e. when a CPU not directly linked to another needs to access the other's memory).
Speaking of latency!
If you ever looked at AMD IMC between DDR1-S939 vs. DDR2-AM2 socket.
Using IMC for DDR1 you get a lot lower latency access time vs. going to DDR2, but using DDR2 results higher memory bandwidth available for Athlon X2/FX CPU's which resulted that AMD CPU's are not limited by bandwidth.
But going to DDR3 using IMC, not sure of any advantage.
Must resist urge to buy...Penryn relatively near...must fight against the craving:D
I was very close myself to buy (Intel core2 Q6600 quad) but I have to wait for 45 nanometer Penryn do to it will have SSE4 support which I really need.... :D
willardjuice
18-Aug-2007, 00:45
I was very close myself to buy (Intel core2 Q6600 quad) but I have to wait for 45 nanometer Penryn do to it will have SSE4 support which I really need.... :D
You're missing out man; I just got mine today! :grin:
But the rest of the computer is coming Wednesday...:evil: ...so I can only stare at my Q6600 for the next few days...:cry:
I was very close myself to buy (Intel core2 Q6600 quad) but I have to wait for 45 nanometer Penryn do to it will have SSE4 support which I really need.... :D
Buy now, then upgrade and sell later.
I don't see the value in depriving yourself from enjoyment now.
You're missing out man; I just got mine today! :grin:
But the rest of the computer is coming Wednesday...:evil: ...so I can only stare at my Q6600 for the next few days...:cry:
Just interesting how much did you paid for your Q6600 and where did you bought it from!
willardjuice
18-Aug-2007, 03:35
Just interesting how much did you paid for your Q6600 and where did you bought it from!
I got it from ClubIT for $295 (not sure what it is now). I know I paid a little extra but I wanted a guaranteed G0 stepping.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.