bit-tech.net

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700

Comments 1 to 25 of 71

Reply
bubsterboo 2nd November 2006, 06:08 Quote
Cool, me wants.
Tyinsar 2nd November 2006, 06:17 Quote
Actually these are about the results I expected. Even now the biggest advantage I've seen from dual core CPUs is offloading background system tasks.

P.S. ;) Thanks for the review, you guys
geek1017 2nd November 2006, 07:25 Quote
If there's 4 cores, can you run a benchmark on doing 4 tasks simultaneously?

Obviously there would be nothing to compare to unless you happen to have a dual-socket board for X2 chips about.
Icerumba 2nd November 2006, 07:38 Quote
What impact do you think the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 would have on Oblivion?

Thanks.
zr_ox 2nd November 2006, 08:23 Quote
Nice review.

That must have taken a while given the comparitive analysis of the other hardware.

The enthusiast community will gain little use from these processors, the applications that we are all using currently are not designed to be run on 4 cores. Applications can obviously still gain extra performance, but it's minimal

Even the heaviest of multi-taskers will see little benefit of Quad over Dual core CPU's.

The future may hold more for Quad Core CPU's in the mainstream market, but it's currently looks like the Quad GPU situation - Lots of promise but immature.

I wont be buying it yet.
xrob 2nd November 2006, 10:22 Quote
So when it shipping ?
Emon 2nd November 2006, 10:32 Quote
I agree with zr_ox, sort of. Games taking advantage of multiple cores are on the horizon for 2007. Desktop use, though, most people don't use intensive applications, just a lot of small ones. Dual core is fine for most.
Tim S 2nd November 2006, 11:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrob
So when it shipping ?
page 1:

"However, since the QX6700 is a newer product, one can expect it to cost a little more than the X6800 when it first appears on the market on November 14th, but the two should cost about the same once the market starts to settle down when sufficient volume gets into the hands of retailers."
Tim S 2nd November 2006, 11:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zr_ox
Even the heaviest of multi-taskers will see little benefit of Quad over Dual core CPU's.
The great thing about the chip is that I can fill two of the cores and still have two cores left sitting idle. I've found that I can top out a dual-core chip in some of the more intense scenarios I find myself in, but with a quad-core chip everything's nice and smooth in even the most intense scenarios I've got myself into. :)
rupbert 2nd November 2006, 11:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
The great thing about the chip is that I can fill two of the cores and still have two cores left sitting idle. I've found that I can top out a dual-core chip in some of the more intense scenarios I find myself in, but with a quad-core chip everything's nice and smooth in even the most intense scenarios I've got myself into. :)

Yep, anyone who runs quickpar can easily hit 100% usage on a dual-core...
Mother-Goose 2nd November 2006, 11:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
The great thing about the chip is that I can fill two of the cores and still have two cores left sitting idle. I've found that I can top out a dual-core chip in some of the more intense scenarios I find myself in, but with a quad-core chip everything's nice and smooth in even the most intense scenarios I've got myself into. :)

Tim, any idea when a native quad will be coming out or am I just being greedy? lol

I'll be going quad in my new rig for the sole reason that it is possible to max a dual core setup, vista is a hungry hungry hippo and because I want to be able to actually multitask lol

With that in mind, do you reckon I need quad? lol i'll get it anyway, just wondered if i need it
Tim S 2nd November 2006, 12:00 Quote
AMD's K8L comes out sometime next year - that'll be the first native quad-core chip. Intel probably won't move to native quad-core til late 2007/early 2008.
specofdust 2nd November 2006, 12:46 Quote
Ah so AMD might retake top spot next year, that's comforting to know. Chip looks good. Even though it's not especially usefull for the majority of us, with a bit of luck it'll put C2D prices down a bit.
Mother-Goose 2nd November 2006, 12:49 Quote
ARGH, see now i'll want to wait for the AMD answer but let me guess, nothing til Q2 or 3? I guess by then there maybe an SP for Vista, this is the problem isn't it, always new stuff coming out to wait for, but I guess in this case with quad core and DX10 its worth waiting for it to bed in for a few months, or do you reckon I should just go with it? (that question is open to anyone).
Nature 2nd November 2006, 12:58 Quote
Oh I am such a filthy, filthy clam... Though it is positive to see the FX-62 never drop under five frames of the new quad thingy (in games)...
zr_ox 2nd November 2006, 13:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rupbert
Yep, anyone who runs quickpar can easily hit 100% usage on a dual-core...

I'm assuming your running this on a server anyway?

It's overkill running Quickpar on a desktop. It may sound fancy but otherwise .....hmmmm pointless. Server based yeah but then it would run as a back ground task on a server running other services, or dedicated server if necessary.

I'm sure in certain scenarios Tim you can make good use of this, but how long does it take you to load all those apps and still maintian an overview of what your doing. In a server environment Quad cores are a godsend, but given the lack of applications programmed for 4 cores I see no need for that amount of juice. It's nice to have the bragging rights though.

Maybe Quad cores were made by feminists, after all men are apparently very bad at multi tasking, this could be their effort to help us. Perhaps the real test of how much better multiple cores are would be to benchmark a woman using a PC with a P4, and a man using the QX6700 the results could be interesting.
rupbert 2nd November 2006, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by zr_ox
I'm assuming your running this on a server anyway?

Desktop, I use it to repair files.
stephen2002 2nd November 2006, 13:29 Quote
I'm looking forward to this thing for 3D rendering, while doing everything else the standard enthusiast does with their PC :D
Buzzons 2nd November 2006, 13:56 Quote
*shrugs at quad core* you could have had this like 2 years ago with a dual xeon setup lol :-)

When does alandale? (the quad core xeon) start to ship? -- 8 cores in a dual rig.
Tim S 2nd November 2006, 14:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzons
*shrugs at quad core* you could have had this like 2 years ago with a dual xeon setup lol :-)

When does alandale? (the quad core xeon) start to ship? -- 8 cores in a dual rig.
Clovertown is the Xeon part. To answer your question, it's later this month. :)
Cthippo 2nd November 2006, 14:37 Quote
It's nice, but come on K8L! ;)
Mother-Goose 2nd November 2006, 14:40 Quote
Just read up some more on K8L, hurry up with it AMD, i want a comparison! Has anyone got a relase Quater for the K8L?
Levell0rd 2nd November 2006, 14:40 Quote
Nice review. And nice sig Cthippo. Is that a volunteer brigade? Where do I sign up? lol
M4RTIN 2nd November 2006, 14:47 Quote
is there any reason its not QX6800, heat output or power usage? just seems odd its not 2 of the most powerful cpu's together. tho amd did the same thing clocking the fx-60 below the fx-57.
DeX 2nd November 2006, 14:48 Quote
Nice review. Good job on getting all the other types of processors benchmarked too.

It seems the general conclusion is that quad core would be great if more applications were able to run with more than 2 threads. But is that really the case? I was suprised to see that so few of the applications that are supposedly multi-threaded showed little gain with the QX6700. If you open task manager are you not able to see whether or not these benchmarks make full use of all four cores?

Even though this isn't usually done, I wouldn't mind seeing some artificial benchmarks to compare the 2 core and 4 core chips when at their best. Hell, if I can make a program that supports any number of cores there must be some decent benchmarks out there that fully support multiple cores. It would be nice to see whether it is possible to gain 2x the performance, even if it's not a practical example.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums