backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Clauzii.. on Oct 1 at 6:52 AM

Power consumption and performance explored

DailyTech has managed to snag an Intel Kentsfield Core 2 Quadro Q6600 for some in-house testing. The Kentsfield Core 2 Quadro Q6600 is clocked at 2.4 GHz with a 1066 MHz front-side bus. It’s equipped with 8MB of total L2 cache. Unlike Intel’s Conroe Core 2 Duo processors, the cache configuration of the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 is 2x4MB with each set of dual-cores sharing a single 4MB pool of L2 cache. This is because Kentsfield processors are essentially two Conroe dies fused together to form a single processor—similar to how the original Smithfield Pentium D 800 series was.

Strangely the Kentsfield Core 2 Quadro Q6600 did not support Intel’s Enhanced Speedstep Technology. Whether or not this is a result of an early engineering sample is unknown at the moment. The Core 2 Quadro Q6600 does support a C1E Halt state for decreased power consumption. Speaking of power consumption, Intel has done an excellent job optimizing power consumption for its quad-core Kentsfield.

Our power consumption measurements were conducted using a Kill-A-Watt power meter that measures the power draw of the complete system from the wall outlet. The test system consisted of:
ASUS P5W DH Deluxe
Kingston HyperX DDR2-800 2x1GB
ATI Radeon X1900XT 512MB
Creative Labs Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme Music
Silverstone ST60F 600 watt power supply
Seagate 7200.8 300GB
Windows XP Professional
Intel Kentsfield Power Consumption

Watts
Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
Idle 154 198
Load 202 223

Power consumption compared to Intel’s current flagship Core 2 Extreme X6800 isn’t too bad at idle with the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 consuming 44 more watts. The higher power consumption is due to the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 lacking Intel’s Enhanced Speedstep Technology that lowers the clock speed of the processor during idle.

Power consumption under a load of 3D Studio Max 8 rendering a complex model with all four cores utilized is quite good. A total of 223 watts was drawn from the wall with the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 under load. This is quite low when compared to the Core 2 Extreme X6800 that draws around 202 watts under the same condition. We were quite surprised Intel has managed to keep power consumption relatively low with four cores.

We were able to run a few quick benchmarks with the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 as well. For comparison purposes we have a benchmarks from a Core 2 Extreme X6800 and Core 2 Duo E6600 as a reference. A real Core 2 Duo E6600 wasn’t readily available for testing so we dropped the multiplier of the Core 2 Extreme X6800 down to 9x. Performance of a real Core 2 Duo E6600 and our Core 2 Extreme X6800 clocked down to E6600 speeds should be identical.

 SiSoft Sandra 2007 CPU-Arithmetic
MIPS

Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
ALU
27025
22261 44522
FPU
18641
15257 30513


 SiSoft Sandra 2007 CPU Multimedia
MIPS

Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
ALU
161548
132140 263973
FPU
87561
71619 143084


Performance is as expected with SiSoft Sandra. Clock for clock the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 has nearly twice the raw performance of the Core 2 Duo E6600. This isn’t too surprising as the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 has twice as many cores.

3D Studio Max 8 Performance
Time

Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
Min:Sec
16:45 20:20 11:00


 Cinebench 9.5 Performance
Time

Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
Seconds
24
30 17

3D Studio Max 8 scales very well with four cores, as expected. Cinebench 9.5 shows similar gains as well. The Core 2 Quadro Q6600 shows a near 2x performance increase compared to the Core 2 Duo E6600. This is quite expected, as 3D rendering applications will use all available processing power.

 Windows Media Encoder 9
Time

Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
Seconds
59
72 45


 TMPG Encoder
Time

Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
Seconds
407
486 289

Multimedia encoding performance shows modest gains considering the number of threads have doubled. This is most likely due to Windows Media Encoder 9 and TMPG Enc’s lack of multi-core optimizations. TMPG Enc still detects multi-core processors as a single Hyper Threading equipped processor and not using all four processor cores. Hopefully Microsoft and Pegasys Inc. will release updated multi-core aware versions of its applications in the future.

 Quake 4


Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
FPS
86.37
73.5 75.9


 Serious Sam II


Core 2 Extreme
X6800
Core 2 Duo
E6600
Core 2 Quadro
Q6600
FPS
203.83
176.2 174

Gaming performance is as expected of quad-core. It offers nearly the same performance clock for clock as its dual core counterparts. Quake 4 with the latest patch is supposedly optimized for multi-threading shows minimal performance gains. The higher clocked Core 2 Extreme X6800 still manages to beat out the Core 2 Quadro Q6600 though. Games that aren’t multi-threaded such as Serious Sam II shows little to no difference in performance.

Overall Intel’s Kentsfield performs as expected. It will scale very well in multi-threaded applications such as 3D Studio Max, Cinebench and other 3D modeling applications or encoding applications. Unfortunately, unless the application is multi-core aware or optimized for multi-threading the performance gains are minimal if not absent. While the move to quad-core hardware may be exciting, software support is still trailing behind. Although Intel positions its quad-core Kentsfield Core 2 processors as a high-end part, the soon to be released Kentsfield Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Core 2 Quadro Q6600 appear to be a better mid-range workstation part rather than enthusiast gamer part—especially since there’s very little overlap with the Intel Xeon 3200 series.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nothing unexpected
By dcalfine on 9/25/2006 7:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
These results are very good in multithreaded applications (though lacking in games), which was to be expected. I look forward to clovertown benchmarks, with the 1333MHz bus.

Overall, this is good news and I think Intel has really done a good job and has redeemed itself for the crappy processors it's had over the years.




RE: Nothing unexpected
By chuck232 on 9/25/2006 9:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sort of surprised that the results are pretty decent. There was a heck of a lot of talk about the FSB severely limiting the Intel quad core procs.

Then again, this is a pretty limited set of applications so we may yet see some issues when these are more 'widely available' for testers at least.


RE: Nothing unexpected
By JeffDM on 9/25/2006 11:46:38 PM , Rating: 3
FSB seems to be a poorly understood factor. These chips have a very large cache, so even if the FSB is "full", it doesn't really hurt computation as much as you might think it would.


RE: Nothing unexpected
By JumpingJack on 9/26/2006 2:37:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
FSB seems to be a poorly understood factor. These chips have a very large cache, so even if the FSB is "full", it doesn't really hurt computation as much as you might think it would.


Correct. Large cache and good prefetchers lessen the demand on the bus. It is not a 'misunderstanding' it is simply a false assumption. Many assume the FSB to be the achille's heel simply because it is old technology with a periodic increase in clock speed. This is an invalid assumption as architecturally the CPU design determines the demands needed and, if FSB is good enough then it is good enough. Performance will flow.

If you really want to know how far the FSB has to go, grab a C2D and a copy of Intel's Vtune and measure the demand on the FSB --- I did -- FEAR requires about 15% BW, Quake 4 SMP on requires about 21 % BW, 3DS Max about 8% BW based on a 1067 MHz bus. Run the experiment yourself, it is easy. Setup Vtune to monitor the amount of time the Bus-Busy line goes high.


RE: Nothing unexpected
By JumpingJack on 9/26/2006 2:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
Oh BTW --- becareful with Vtune, I found it quirky -- I was able to get about 5 or 6 runs with it on different apps before it hosed up my system files and I had to rebuild.


RE: Nothing unexpected
By thomasxstewart on 9/26/2006 12:06:33 PM , Rating: 2
Faster FSB is better, your home calculations are true, however, much time is spent in rest states, that is, running yet not for any particular purpose. so when you see 20% less lag time moving from 1066 to 1333 mhz/sec FSB, each string is really getting to operations state much faster, not that 80% of time fsb is idling without tasks to sort. Basicly ,its how fast each kernel can be deciphered, dispatched & dispensed with, not waiting time, which always is most in any system. Faster linking in itself brings on more lag time as each job is completed sooner.
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.


RE: Nothing unexpected
By JumpingJack on 9/27/2006 1:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
In order to avoid a forum type post, I will not go into any more after this. However, what you describe above is not true. Each clock tick is a transaction, the width of such transaction is measured in 'seconds', the speed at which data transverses from point to point is actually irrelevant. If the bus signal lines are too long, excess latency is introduced -- you will often read of actual 'physical separation is far', this is just simple physics. Your view of how the FSB works so long as you include both transactions/sec as well as latency in your argument.

Bandwidth, simply stated, is the total amount of data that can be pushed from point A to point B in X amount of time. If a 1067 bus has a theoritical BW of 8.5 GB/sec, but any given application demands only 2 GB/sec of data, at the core speed of the processor then there is room to spare.

Of course more bus speed is desirable in workloads that demand large chunks of data to be moved across the bus often. In servers this is a big deal, in desktop there are very few apps that actually stress the bus to these levels.

In short, some apps would run fine using only a 400 MHz bus, others may bog down but run fine with a 800 MHz bus.

You're argument is that at 400 MHz electrons move slower through the signal lines than at 800 MHz or 1067 MHz, and this is not true as 'speed' at which electrons travel is not determined by frequency, but by voltage.

To illustrate my point, go read Tom's Hardware article on the recent Kentsfield quad core benchmarks, They did a 2.67 GHz Quad at 1067 FSB and again 2.67 GHz Quad at 1333 MHz FSB --- guess what, performance was identical.


RE: Nothing unexpected
By djkrypplephite on 9/27/2006 12:31:47 PM , Rating: 2
Cache also doesn't affect Core 2 as much as people think it does. A test with 4 MB L2 and 2MB L2 processors at the same clock speed yielded a difference of ~10%. Not that much for twice the on-die cache. It's just a really good CPU design, period.


See with Blender.
By greylica on 9/25/2006 6:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm, seems I will like to use it with an new Ubuntu or Mandriva, Nvídia in SLI and Blender to put into fire those cores...
I´m happy again, finnaly Intel did it.




RE: See with Blender.
By Nightmare225 on 9/25/06, Rating: -1
RE: See with Blender.
By Garreye on 9/25/2006 7:17:31 PM , Rating: 3
So they should stop coming out with faster cpus so that people who own the current fastest cpus can have braggin rights?

If you had done some research you would have known that Intel was planning on releasing quad core before the end of the year and you could have waited if it matters that much to you


RE: See with Blender.
By Nightmare225 on 9/25/06, Rating: -1
RE: See with Blender.
By TuxDave on 9/25/2006 7:40:20 PM , Rating: 3
So given a choice of having a faster processor out on the market earlier than later... you'd choose later?


RE: See with Blender.
By JeffDM on 9/25/2006 11:40:58 PM , Rating: 2
You have to keep in mind that they have to compete with AMD, AMD will have a quad core out soon enough and they want to beat that if at all possible.

Designing Core 2 Duo is the hard part of the whole thing, it's a very complex chip, possibly the most complex consumer chip available. Intel probably has the MDM part down pat with their Pentium Pro and Pentium D experience. Kentsfield / Clovertown is only putting two C2D dies onto the same substrate, and they seem to be charging a good premium for it anyway.


RE: See with Blender.
By doctor sam adams on 9/26/2006 12:24:16 AM , Rating: 2
All you lose is bragging rights, your processor didn't lose any speed with the release of the Quadro. And that's only if you're doing 3D rendering or other multi-threaded work, which you could have done almost as quickly with a dual processor Core 2 Duo system.


RE: See with Blender.
By AzureKevin on 9/25/2006 7:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Processors are usually planned for release in advanced. They do this in order to make a profit (they made a profit off of you when you bought the Core 2, didn't they?). You should've seen this coming. Anyway, it doesn't matter, your Core 2 is going to be plenty for now. By the time you'll need to upgrade, amazing new processors will be available.


RE: See with Blender.
By tuteja1986 on 9/26/2006 5:18:27 AM , Rating: 2
Greylica , Are you using SLI with Ubuntu/Mandriva ? Why the hell would you want to do that ;(


RE: See with Blender.
By djkrypplephite on 9/27/2006 12:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
SLI on Linux is like pants on a donkey.


By kilkennycat on 9/25/2006 10:19:55 PM , Rating: 3
Let me visualize the choices in September 2007:-

Core 2 Quadro
AM2/3 Quad-core

both well down the pricing curve, since AMD dare not introduce their quad-core processor at "early-adopter" prices, with Intel already in the quad-core market 3-6 months.

Also a huge selection of quad-core compatible motherboards also at main-stream prices, as many of the 2007 dual-core motherboards will also be quad-core compatible. Plus the associated BIOSs will have been given a good work-out on both dual-core and quad-core processors.

And DX10 video cards will be in their second-generation, the first-gen "early-adopters" having helped shake the bugs out and help finance the second-generation.

Plus PCIe-compatible sound-cards, where "never-get-it-right-first-time" Creative might also have learned to put enough input buffering on their PCIe card to avoid the X-Fi sound-corruption calamities.

And by September 2007 Vista and its third-party drivers might be patched up sufficiently for it to be as efficient for gaming and other performance-demanding applications as WinXP. 2007 will also be the year of transition of high-performance game engines into making effective use of multicore processors. Also quad-core patches for any key professional applications that need them will be readily available by September 2007.

So September 2007 seems a great time for a new system build giving maximum "bang-for-the-buck" for both professional and gaming applications with minimum hardware, system-software and applications headaches.




By cochy on 9/25/2006 11:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'd love to be an early adopter for the 1st gen DX10 vid cards...Now if only one will exist before '07 when i plan on upgrading...I'm pretty sure I'll sign up for a Core 2 Quadro as well.


By Dactyl on 9/26/2006 1:24:06 AM , Rating: 5
You would wait a full year, just for quad core, which doesn't even improve performance at most current games?

You would be better off building a Core 2 Duo system today, and upgrading the graphics card in 1-2 years. IF--and only if--games can actually take advantage of quad core in the future, then you could consider buying a Core 2 Quadro to drop in your system.

That gets you into the game today, with the ability to upgrade to DX10 and quad core whenever it actually makes sense to do so.

If history repeats, a Core 2 Duo CPU will be plenty good for the next 3 years of video gaming, so long as you keep your vid card(s) fresh. And we have no reason to believe it won't repeat. Game companies know that in 3 years, only 10-20% of gamers will have quad core CPUs. That's the case for dual core today, which is why most games run fine on a single core CPU. (See the statistics Valve publishes from its Steam survey if you don't believe me; most gamers have pathetically weak hardware)

The future always looks great from the present, but you can only play games in the present.


By Korvon on 9/26/2006 12:19:35 PM , Rating: 2
Every company knows now that the way processors are going is more cores. If game developers are going to make better games they are going to have to make them multi threaded. Next year you will start to see games that will make use of more and more cores. Especially if AMD starts dedicating one or more of those cores to say... physics via Torrenza.


By kilkennycat on 9/26/2006 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I happen to have a dual-core AMD X2 4400+ (o/c to 2.6GHz) system that I built last November(2006). Again built at a performance/pricing sweet-spot. An exceptionally stable system that is still going to serve me well long after my next system-build. It will certainly hold me over quite nicely until all the initial quad-core/Dx10/Vista hardware and software wrinkles have been nicely smoothed out by the "early-adopters" and prices have fallen, again thanks to the development-cost subscriptions made by these generous early-adopters.


By kilkennycat on 9/26/2006 1:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, BTW, I can readily make use of 4 cores in a desktop machine. Part of my business income is from PC-based video production and editing. PC-based tools such as Adobe Premiere already make full use of multicore/multiprocessor hardware. Encoding performance on my dual-core machine is 60% faster than on the predecessor P4-3.2GHz Prescott with HT enabled (and 80% faster than the P4 with HT disabled).


By DarthPierce on 9/25/2006 7:09:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Multimedia encoding performance shows little gains.


The dual core takes ~70% longer to encode than the quad... and that's lilttle gain?
Sign me up....




By OddTSi on 9/25/2006 7:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the exact same thing. I see a pretty damn good gain in multimedia encoding.


By 8steve8 on 9/25/2006 7:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
me too


By Anh Huynh on 9/25/2006 8:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
The gains could be better with better multi-threading optimizations. The CPU is never used 100%.


Who owns the quadro name? Nvidia or Intel?
By jconan on 9/26/2006 1:19:16 AM , Rating: 3
If Intel uses it they'll start sending out a cease and desist letter or otherwise they'll start suing anyone who uses it because of product and trademark confusion like with intel inside... but didn't Nvidia use it first for their product's name?




RE: Who owns the quadro name? Nvidia or Intel?
By JeffDM on 9/26/2006 12:41:17 PM , Rating: 2
Neither company can "own" any name except for very specific categories they filed with trademark offices. I didn't check, but it's very possible that nVidia didn't file for Quadro as a CPU, so Intel can legally use it so long as they use it properly and they have a different logo.

I really can't comment on consumer confusion, but frankly, few consumers are aware of nVidia's Quadro product because it is not a consumer product.


RE: Who owns the quadro name? Nvidia or Intel?
By deeznuts on 9/26/2006 5:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Nvidia did not specifically file quadro for cpu usage, but they did use some very broad categories for their quadro filing.

quote:
IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer hardware, namely, computer workstations, components for computer workstations, integrated circuits, components for graphics and video systems; multimedia accelerators, graphic accelerators; computer software for management of integrated circuits and the display of digital media


http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=6...


Were they planning on building workstations and then naming them "Quadro" workstations. Who knows. However, Intel can reasonably argue that their mark shall be "Core 2 Quadro" and not solely "Quadro" which shall differentiate the two marks and not cause confusion in the marketplace, especially in light of the fact that nvidia is using Quadro for multimedia/graphics while the Core 2 Quadro is a CPU. But either way Intel decided to go with Quad.


By willow01 on 9/27/2006 3:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt that Nvidia are going to complain, especially when a relationship with Intel could be quite handy.


So...Intel Yorkfield Eight-Core by 2008?
By Blackraven on 9/26/2006 11:41:06 AM , Rating: 2
Is it possible then that after one full year, we can expect Intel to release Yorkfield eight-core (which is a 45nm processor)?

My purchase time is April-June 2008 (since my family is a bit poor right now). I was wondering if by that time, it will be available. It won't matter to me if it costs USD$1000 or even USD$2000. Just as long as it can be made available by the next two years.

I'm just afraid that Kentsfield is only 60nm (correct me if I'm wrong). Thus, I would like to wait for newer tech in processors while saving some dough.




RE: So...Intel Yorkfield Eight-Core by 2008?
By Clauzii on 9/26/2006 7:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Ehhh - if they just keeps glueing stuff together they probably be at 16... ;)


RE: So...Intel Yorkfield Eight-Core by 2008?
By coldpower27 on 9/30/2006 1:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
On the 65nm node I expect to have mid end to high end Quad Cores, we might get lowe end stuff, if intel doesn't mind using 2x143mm2 die sizes at the 200-300US price range. It's up to Intel how quick they want to mainstream Quad Core.

45nm product should bring about "mainstream" Quad Cores, as in the lower end ranges, below 200US. At least these are my hopes.

We could get an 8 Core processor on the 45nm process but it will be in the upper ranges of pricing like the Kentsfield will be intially.



By Clauzii on 10/1/2006 6:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
By highend, do You then mean higher clockspeed or the fact that all 4 cores share the same cache without "glueing"?


Power Consumption
By ahkey on 9/26/2006 7:44:32 AM , Rating: 3
Nice enough preview, Sven, but wouldn't it have made sense to measure the X6800 p/c @2.4 to provide a real comparison?

Four cores @2.4 consuming only 40 or so more watts compared to two @2.6 is impressive, but why not compare an E6600 (or eqiv.) to see how much more those extra two take up?




RE: Power Consumption
By DigitalFreak on 9/26/2006 8:20:44 AM , Rating: 4
Worse than that. The Extreme runs at 2.93Ghz, I believe.


the important question is:
By 8steve8 on 9/25/2006 7:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
will quad core only be marketed as server and extreme edition chips??

when will they be mainstream performance chips... ie: $200-$300 level




RE: the important question is:
By RamarC on 9/25/2006 9:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
a $300 core2quad should appear by 2Q '07. it all depends on what amd has up its sleeve since intel has working samples and fab capacity and has a mid-range ($450) core2quad scheduled for feb.


RE: the important question is:
By chuck232 on 9/25/2006 9:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the Q6600 will be sort of a mainstream processor. From this article, the Q6600 should be pricier than the E6700 after its price cut. I'd imagine around the $600 mark.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4217


Speculative
By Regs on 9/26/2006 9:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Game companies know that in 3 years, only 10-20% of gamers will have quad core CPUs.


Just like most gamers still have AGP and all of Nvidia's/ATi's mid to high end solutions are PCI-E?

If programmers can take advantage of Quad Core to build a better product and to out shine the competition they will have no hesitation doing so at all.

I understand where you are coming from but what the customers have now does not dictate the market. They make a product that we need and make us fall in love with it. That's what they do and that's their job.




RE: Speculative
By willow01 on 9/27/2006 3:38:27 AM , Rating: 2
With the consoles running multiple cores (or however Cell is classified), the developers are going to be utilising parallel processing to get the most they can out of those systems. So game engines are going to become more scallable across multiple cores. Never underestimate the eagerness of programmers to push hardware and utilise this type of stuff in their engines.


RE: Speculative
By djkrypplephite on 9/27/2006 12:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't seem too eager until Intel started handing out cash.


Windows XP?
By apesoccer on 9/27/2006 2:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I thought xp only supported 2 cpu's?

Or was it 2 cpu's, with as many core's as you want?




RE: Windows XP?
By johnsonx on 9/27/2006 4:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
2 cpu's, with as many cores as you want


Yep. What I don't know is exactly how XP tells the difference between a 2-socket 8-core system and a 4-socket 8-core system (the latter of which of course is forbidden). For example if you try to install an original XP on a new dual quad-core system, will it use all 8 cores right away, or not until you install an updated CPU driver (and probably SP2 for that matter)?


Price?
By redeyedfly on 9/28/2006 2:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
No where did i see anything mentioning one of the more important things. Price?




RE: Price?
By Anh Huynh on 9/28/2006 4:29:39 PM , Rating: 2
Extreme Editions always launch at $999, including the Core 2 Extreme XQ6700


Tekken 3...full speed?
By NoSoftwarePatents on 9/26/2006 10:54:02 PM , Rating: 2
If these results are to be believed, playing Namco's Tekken 3 on XMAME could play at full speed on this chip if not faster. I already tested MAME with a 2.0 Centrino Duo with XMAME version 106, and it runs at 75% with sound.

Hell, Virtua Tennis might even be playable when a driver is finally submitted for Naomi-1...now that is exciting.

http://x.mame.net





Power Consumption Analysis - RUBBISH
By lemonadesoda on 9/26/06, Rating: -1
By coldpower27 on 9/26/2006 11:00:17 AM , Rating: 2
You also got to keep in mind these are ES, and they don't have EIST and C1E Halt State enabled right now tor reduce power consumption, as is these numbers are preliminary. They are to be taken with a grain of salt as well the sucessor to Core 2 XE X6800 is the QX6700 @ 2.66GHZ.


By johnsonx on 9/26/2006 11:51:20 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on, it's just a quick look at an engineering sample processor, not a full review. Lighten up!


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Related Articles
Quad-core Xeon Details Unveiled
September 21, 2006, 9:02 AM
Intel Core 2 Quad Announced Internally
September 19, 2006, 1:56 AM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki