Published on 2nd November 2006 by
Originally Posted by DeXNice 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.
Originally Posted by Levell0rdNice review. And nice sig Cthippo. Is that a volunteer brigade? Where do I sign up? lol
Originally Posted by CyberSolSo if i sell my car, and my girl friend, and live in a cardboard box with a t1....
Originally Posted by samkiller42So 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?
Oh, thats two questions :(
Originally Posted by Kipman725whats the heat output like with all four cores loaded to 100% with something like F@H?
Originally Posted by Tim SI 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. ;)
Originally Posted by BindibadgiHahaha, 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.
Originally Posted by Tim SYou 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. :)
Originally Posted by SaivertIt 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.
Originally Posted by Mother-GooserSo 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?
Originally Posted by Tim S(the latter might not be true soon though
Originally Posted by Tim SI 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 ;)).
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.
11th February 2016
10th February 2016
9th February 2016
© Copyright bit-tech