Intel Core 2 Quad reviews hit the net

Discussion in 'Technology News' started by naveen_reloaded, Nov 3, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. naveen_reloaded

    naveen_reloaded !! RecuZant By Birth !!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,979
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    In Everyone`s Heart
    [​IMG]

    Intel successfully launched its eagerly-anticipated Core 2 Duo desktop processor line up in the middle of July, just a week before Chief Executive Paul Otellini started talking about the company’s next move in the desktop microprocessor market. Just six days after the Core 2 Duo launch, Intel held its quarterly conference call where Otellini stated that “We notified [our] customers that we’re pulling in both the desktop and server [launch] of the first quad-core processors into the fourth quarter of this year from the first half of 2007.”

    This came as a big shock to me and for it to come so soon after the launch of Intel’s Core 2 Duo processors made the announcement even harder to believe. Anyway, the announcement happened and Intel has stayed true to its word – today, the chip giant is officially unveiling its first quad-core processor under the Core 2 Extreme ‘gamer’ moniker.

    Rolling out quad-core
    The Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is clocked at the same frequency as the Core 2 Duo E6700 – 2.67GHz with a 1066MHz front side bus – and comes with a whopping 8MB of L2 cache split into two lots of 4MB. We’ll explain why this is the case later.

    Intel tells us that the QX6700 will fit in at the US$999 price point in 1000 unit quantities. That’s the same price point that the Core 2 Extreme X6800 slotted in at back in July. The street price will obviously be a little different, but since Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X6800 sells for a whopping £643 including VAT, you can expect the QX6700 to cost around the same as the Conroe-based X6800 chip.


    [​IMG]

    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.

    Initially, there will only be the one quad-core processor in Intel’s line up, but a second will follow in Q1 ’07. When the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is announced, it’ll not come as much of a surprise to you to find that it’ll be clocked at the same speed as the Core 2 Duo E6600 – 2.40GHz with a 1066MHz front side bus.

    The only other differentiating feature between the Q6600 and the QX6700 is that the former has its multiplier locked between 6.0x and 10.0x. You’ll get the same 8MB of L2 cache split into a pair of 4MB L2 caches and if Kentsfield overclocks anywhere near as well as its dual-core counterparts, we’re in for a bit of a treat.

    While we don’t have pricing forecasts on that particular part, we would expect it to cost about the same price as a Core 2 Duo E6700 if past pricing structures are anything to go by. Intel’s official pricing for the E6700 is US$530 in 1000 unit quantities, and you can pick one up from an online retailer for around £345 including VAT.


    What is Kentsfield?
    Intel has managed to get its quad-core processor to the market incredibly fast for a number of reasons. The main reason being that the Kentsfield ‘core’ uses some of the principles that Intel used on its 65-nanometre Pentium D desktop processors that were based on the Netburst architecture. In the same way that Presler was a pair of Cedar Mill chips on a single CPU package, Kentsfield is a pair of Conroe chips on the same package.

    Taking that into account, the power envelope has just doubled after Intel reduced the power requirements on its Core 2 Duo processors. It’s technically a pair of dual-core chips in one socket, rather than a native quad-core chip. In particular, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is a pair of Core 2 Duo E6700 processors on the same CPU package, meaning that the thermal design power has gone from 65W to 130W as a result of adding another two cores.

    The two Conroe dies communicate with each other via the north bridge and memory controller in just the same way that Presler did. However, this time Intel’s Core architecture isn’t quite so dependant on memory bandwidth in a dual-core configuration. While a single-core chip based on the Netburst architecture wasn’t heavily reliant on memory bandwidth, a dual-core Pentium D chip was because the two cores communicated via the front side bus.

    Both single and dual-core Pentium’s also suffered from an overly long instruction pipeline. Having said that though, Intel’s first dual-core processors based on the Smithfield core weren’t particularly bad in isolation, but then once AMD had launched its dual-core Athlon 64 X2 CPU’s, Intel’s dual-core problems were under the spotlight.

    [​IMG]


    for more info go here :::


    http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/02/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6700/1.html
     
  2. ranjan2001

    ranjan2001 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Delhi
    Intresting to read this as I plan to buy one this month its alreday overtaken by new ones.
     
  3. jamyang312

    jamyang312 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    cool,,,, but tis damn expensive,,,,
     
  4. Tech Geek

    Tech Geek Wise Old Owl

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cyber Hell
  5. hemant_mathur

    hemant_mathur -- No Easter Eggs here --

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Front of my pc
    Nice info .. thanx
     
  6. dilpedilip

    dilpedilip New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    21
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a nice pice of info thanks.
     
  7. –•(–•Raghav™•–)•–

    –•(–•Raghav™•–)•– New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  8. ramu

    ramu Banned

    Joined:
    May 20, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    thankx
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page