bit-tech.net

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700

Comments 26 to 50 of 71

Reply
Tim S 2nd November 2006, 14:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeX
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.
We're going to be expanding the benchmarking suite with some 3D Modelling and more media encoding too. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time to do everything to get them included here. I want to sit down and test the scaling and suitability of the other benchmarks before I start drawing conclusions from their results. :)

The first time I ran our benchmarks on the chip, I did use task manager to check how much the CPU was being utilised and it honestly didn't break into a sweat. Most of the applications use around 50-55% of a quad-core chip in isolation and that goes up to between 80-90% when you're running more than one threaded app in a multi-tasking scenario.

I modified the VirtualDub configurations to make use of the additional two cores, because it was stuck at 50% CPU load during the 2nd pass of the Xvid encode. Once I'd done that, it used anywhere between 55% and 65% CPU load.
Cthippo 2nd November 2006, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levell0rd
Nice review. And nice sig Cthippo. Is that a volunteer brigade? Where do I sign up? lol

See that little red button underneath people's names? That's the fire alarm. In case of flames, press that button :p
CyberSol 2nd November 2006, 20:18 Quote
So if i sell my car, and my girl friend, and live in a cardboard box with a t1....
Kipman725 2nd November 2006, 20:53 Quote
whats the heat output like with all four cores loaded to 100% with something like F@H?
Tyinsar 2nd November 2006, 21:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSol
So if i sell my car, and my girl friend, and live in a cardboard box with a t1....
Well, the good news is that if she reads this she'll leave on her own thus freeing up extra cash :p
samkiller42 2nd November 2006, 22:04 Quote
So this will run on a normal Intel 975x chipset, woo, thinking of getting a core 2 duo e6700 :D , so if i waited and had the money i could get this instead :D

One question though, What rig were you running, like, RAM, Hdds and GFX cards? and how quick did Windows XP load?

Sam

Oh, thats two questions :(
DXR_13KE 2nd November 2006, 22:21 Quote
not for me.... i want to wait for native quad core..... or to see what AMD wips out.
Tim S 2nd November 2006, 22:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by samkiller42
So this will run on a normal Intel 975x chipset, woo, thinking of getting a core 2 duo e6700 :D , so if i waited and had the money i could get this instead :D

One question though, What rig were you running, like, RAM, Hdds and GFX cards? and how quick did Windows XP load?

Sam

Oh, thats two questions :(
You can see full system specs here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/02/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6700/3.html

Windows XP loaded in a 'normal' amount of time - I forget off the top of my head, I usually turn something on and then come back to it a couple of minutes later. Hehe.

I will time if you want to know, but I don't think it's any quicker than a Core 2. :)
Tim S 2nd November 2006, 22:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kipman725
whats the heat output like with all four cores loaded to 100% with something like F@H?
I don't fold, but I'll try and have a play this weekend if there's time. I've got a certain graphics card to play lots of games on test and write about. ;)
Bindibadgi 2nd November 2006, 23:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
I don't fold, but I'll try and have a play this weekend if there's time. I've got a certain graphics card to play lots of games on test and write about. ;)

Hahaha, so, like last week we'll be wasting a few hours stairing at a 30" Dell looking at obscene AA levels and going "WOOOOoooooo". Im sure F@H or four lots of Pi wont hinder it too much.
Ringold 3rd November 2006, 04:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Hahaha, so, like last week we'll be wasting a few hours stairing at a 30" Dell looking at obscene AA levels and going "WOOOOoooooo". Im sure F@H or four lots of Pi wont hinder it too much.

Implications: 8800 DX10 part can push a 30" Dell @ obscene levels of AA @ "WOOOOoooo" FPS!

Sw33t. :D

Been waiting for this forever. Already got most of my next computer planned out for 1Q next year, with one key exception, the vid card. Can't wait!
Bindibadgi 3rd November 2006, 09:47 Quote
You assume too much. ;)
ch424 3rd November 2006, 10:42 Quote
I'd like to know how it compares to woodcrest... I guess this has lower latency RAM, but it also has a 267MHz slower FSB, and the Xeons get a FSB each.
Saivert 3rd November 2006, 11:53 Quote
It looks like Intel has chosen this "quick hack" with two Conroe cores on a single die.
And what about the core interconnect? FSB you say?

I think AMD's answer to this will be a massive punch in the face for Intel. Well, maybe not as Intel will have sold a lot of quad core CPUs by then.
AMD is for enthusiasts, Intel is for mainstream. It has always been like that and will always be like that.
samkiller42 3rd November 2006, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
You can see full system specs here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/02/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6700/3.html

Windows XP loaded in a 'normal' amount of time - I forget off the top of my head, I usually turn something on and then come back to it a couple of minutes later. Hehe.

I will time if you want to know, but I don't think it's any quicker than a Core 2. :)

Oh yea thanks, i was more interested in the price and the high resolution gaming benchmarks :D
Cheers

Sam
Tim S 3rd November 2006, 13:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saivert
It looks like Intel has chosen this "quick hack" with two Conroe cores on a single die.
And what about the core interconnect? FSB you say?

I think AMD's answer to this will be a massive punch in the face for Intel. Well, maybe not as Intel will have sold a lot of quad core CPUs by then.
AMD is for enthusiasts, Intel is for mainstream. It has always been like that and will always be like that.
I understand most of your comments here - let me explain what I think.

It was a 'quick hack' but it's also cheaper (as Intel admits itself - they're trying to push developers to make use of the products - here's a great example of forward-looking games development) and allows them to get quad-core out on the market early.

You can read why I think that the FSB interconnect is not SO MUCH of an issue during the realistic lifespan of this product on page 2 of the review - judging from your comments, it sounds like you didn't read it. In short, it comes down to the way that Intel has architected its cache and the way that the cache accesses memory. There's simply less traffic going across the front side bus because the cache is smarter.

I am excited by AMD's K8L chip and I can't wait to see what it can do. If AMD come up with a great product - which I don't doubt for one minute - I think we'll have two great products on the market. There's no doubt that a native quad-core solution is better than a 2x2 quad-core solution (like Core 2 Quad). Intel will move to 45nm at the end of next year (just when AMD is finally moving all of its products to 65nm) and then we'll see a new architecture in 2008. Intel's Nehalem architecture (due in 2008) will be native quad-core and will manufactured on a 45nm process.

FWIW, Intel's Core 2 is a great enthusiast's product - you can ask anyone who's bought one and overclocked it. When was the last time you saw 1GHz+ overclocks on AIR on AMD chips that cost less than £150?

With Pentium 4 versus Athlon 64, there was quite clearly one very good product and one very bad product. The Athlon 64 was an awesome product, but now it's just not fast enough in many scenarios - I feel that AMD failed to capitalise in the time when it had a much better product.

For gaming though, AMD's Athlon 64 X2 still remains a great product and is an equal to Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad for that matter - the advances are in the more CPU intense 2D scenarios. Roll on 4x4 and K8L is what I say - I can't wait to see how both perform.
Mother-Goose 3rd November 2006, 15:47 Quote
So in a nut shell Tim (and forgive me if i am wrong) at the moment, if you want a good gaming rig and one that can multitask reasonably well you might as well go for the e6700 and overclock it, get dx10 graphics and sit back and wait to see what is going to happen with the quad war and then pick one from that?
Tim S 3rd November 2006, 17:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mother-Gooser
So in a nut shell Tim (and forgive me if i am wrong) at the moment, if you want a good gaming rig and one that can multitask reasonably well you might as well go for the e6700 and overclock it, get dx10 graphics and sit back and wait to see what is going to happen with the quad war and then pick one from that?
I wouldn't even go that high - I'd be content with an E6600, E6400 or an E6300 - they all overclock if you've got a good mobo and good memory (the latter might not be true soon though ;)). I honestly don't see the point in spending more than about £200 on a CPU, since you're going to get close-to FX-62 performance from it (just look at the performance graphs).
Tyinsar 3rd November 2006, 17:42 Quote
100% agreement with Tim: I bought an e6300 - it runs fine at stock speeds - later I Might OC it but good enough for now.
Mother-Goose 3rd November 2006, 23:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
(the latter might not be true soon though

Timothy Smalley explain yourself! :P well PM me if you like. This is all rather annoying now becuase I was gonna go quad lol, but don't think I will now!

That said if I want to I can with ease as it is the same socket, argh, when it gets alot closer to the time i reckon i should worry more lol otherwise i'll have sod all hair left by then!
DougEdey 4th November 2006, 00:30 Quote
I understand Tims hints :D
Ringold 4th November 2006, 02:30 Quote
Let me see if I understand correctly; Nehalem is a whole new architecture, in that Core 2 is a totally new design from Netburst, and not just a refresh of Core?

I ask because Netburst held around for five or six solid years, and K8 and even K8L is and will be patches to the original Clawhammer chip that come out.. when? Been a while there, too.

Yet Nehalem, another whole new architecture, after just 2 years?

Not that I'm complaining, a quicker pace of improvement is great, I'm just a little surprised. Things are moving at light speed, compared to the crawl that has been recent history.

Edit: I also need to read the forums much, much more often. Decoding the spoilers are as exciting as the reviews. :p
customh 4th November 2006, 03:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
I wouldn't even go that high - I'd be content with an E6600, E6400 or an E6300 - they all overclock if you've got a good mobo and good memory (the latter might not be true soon though ;)).
I DO need an explanation, or a PM from anyone explaining this... multiplier locking or what?
Mother-Goose 4th November 2006, 10:48 Quote
Lol customh, me too!! Doug? care to enlighten?
DougEdey 4th November 2006, 11:25 Quote
I'm just guessing, but I think Tim is experimenting with a certain new product from one of the big two.
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