backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by laok.. on Jan 8 at 12:15 PM

Intel introduces Core 2 Quad Q6600, Xeon X3220 and X3210

Intel started shipping three new quad-core processors on Friday night. The three quad-core processors include the mainstream Core 2 Quad Q6600 and single processor workstation and server Xeon X3220 and X3210.

Intel Kentsfield Core 2 Quad
Processor
Number
Core
Frequency
Bus
Frequency
Launch Price
Q2'07
Q6600
2.40GHz 1066MHz $851 $530

The Core 2 Quad Q6600 slots right below the current king-of-the-hill Core 2 Extreme QX6700 which launched two months ago. It’s clocked slightly lower at 2.4 GHz and features 1066 MHz front-side bus. L2 cache size remains at 8MB like the Core 2 Extreme X6800. Pricing will be $851 per unit in 1,000 unit quantities with a price drop to $530 expected in Q2’2007. Online retailer ZipZoomFly currently has the Core 2 Quad Q6600 in stock for $989.99.

Intel Kentsfield Xeon
Processor
Number
Core
Frequency
Bus
Frequency
Launch Price Q2'07
X3220 2.40GHz 1066MHz $851 $530
X3210 2.13GHz 1066MHz $690 $425

Joining the current Xeon 3000 series of processors are the new quad-core Xeon X3200 series. These processors are based on the same Kentsfield core as the Core 2 Quad and quad-core Core 2 Extreme processors. The Xeon X3220 will be identical to the Core 2 Quad Q6600 albeit with Xeon branding. Slotted right below the Xeon X3220 is the X3210 which is clocked at 2.13 GHz. This model retains the same 1066 MHz front-side bus and 8MB of L2 cache as the other Kentsfield based processors.

Pricing for the Xeon X3220 is identical to the Core 2 Quad Q6600 at $851 per unit in 1,000 unit quantities with an expected price drop to $530 in Q2’2007. The lower clocked Xeon X3210 is priced at $690 per unit per 1,000 unit quantities with an expected price drop to $425 in Q2’2007.

In addition, Intel's single-core Allendale E4300 will also make its debut this week.


Comments     Threshold


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

What's the point?
By Hypernova on 1/7/2007 3:17:46 AM , Rating: 0
If they are going to have those 2 chips essentially the same they might as well don't realease the xeon version. Saves marketing cost too.

Unless of course the sockets are different.




RE: What's the point?
By mlittl3 on 1/7/2007 3:20:47 AM , Rating: 1
No duh!!!


RE: What's the point?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/7/2007 3:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
All three are socket 775.


RE: What's the point?
By Etern205 on 1/7/2007 9:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
The Q6600 uses socket 775.
For the Xeons they use socket 771.


RE: What's the point?
By Etern205 on 1/7/2007 10:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry about that, wrong info. ^^'
If Xeons uses the 775 socket, that will
be great! I've always wanted a Xeon
cpu for my desktop.


RE: What's the point?
By hstewarth on 1/7/2007 11:09:09 AM , Rating: 2
These Xeons actually are part of 3xxx series which means they are Socket 775. These chips are tipically uses for single cpu servers - these quad core processors would make good servers.

Socket 771 ( like my Dual Xeon 5160's ) are part of the 5xxx series and run on more expensive dual CPU motherboards. There are so a series of 53xx chips for this series.


RE: What's the point?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/7/2007 3:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If they are going to have those 2 chips essentially the same they might as well don't realease the xeon version. Saves marketing cost too.If they are going to have those 2 chips essentially the same they might as well don't realease the xeon version. Saves marketing cost too.


Same with the old socket 939 1xx Opterons. These 1P Xeons and the 1P Opterons are just a niche market the chip companies can charge more on.


RE: What's the point?
By Hypernova on 1/7/2007 3:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
But they are priced identiaclly and the fall price too.


RE: What's the point?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/7/2007 3:48:17 AM , Rating: 2
Sure at the chip level. But if I can sell Xeon-based workstations (a well established brand) versus Core 2 Duo-based workstations (zomg I thought that was for laptops!?!), what do you think an IT guy is more likely to side with?


RE: What's the point?
By Lakku on 1/7/2007 3:54:57 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I figure that if it was a real IT guy/gal, they would know the situation and know they are essentially the exact same chip. I mean, would you want an IT person who bought something soley on name and not on any kind of research? I thought that was what the IT section fat AT and DT were for, keeping IT people on top of the game. :-p


RE: What's the point?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 1/7/2007 3:57:52 AM , Rating: 5
This chip is aimed at the six IT people who don't read DT :)


RE: What's the point?
By GaryJohnson on 1/7/2007 1:31:03 PM , Rating: 5
I'm frequently surprised by how poorly the many sys admins and IT pros I meet keep up with the tech news that is relevant to their careers.

Some people thirst for knowledge; others thirst for lemonade.


RE: What's the point?
By bob661 on 1/7/2007 2:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some people thirst for knowledge; others thirst for lemonade.
LOL! Good one.


RE: What's the point?
By ipwnurmom on 1/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: What's the point?
By bokep on 1/7/2007 5:09:12 PM , Rating: 1
Coming from "ipwnurmom"


RE: What's the point?
By mindless1 on 1/8/2007 9:29:00 AM , Rating: 4
Most sysadmins or IT people are actively servicing their clients, not rubbernecking the latest hardware releases- which with the wealth of hardware released, could be a full time job in itself.

Truth is, most businesses aren't interested in perpetual upgrade to the latest and greatest hardware. Their tech people are spending the time on the tech info relevant to their service of their clients. Same shoe doesn't fit everyone.


RE: What's the point?
By Jeff7181 on 1/7/2007 8:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
Don't server chips go through extra validation to ensure they work perfectly in an environment that requires absolute stability in less than optimal operating conditions? (ie. stuffed away in the corner of a hot server room)

One would assume they'd charge a premium for that, as they have in the past... maybe the pricing is an error?


RE: What's the point?
By ThisSpaceForRent on 1/7/2007 12:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
I thought they did too. Wasn't that why the, correct me if I'm wrong, S939 Opteron 165 had so much head room? They chip was way under rated too ensure that in a server application you didn't have to worry about the thing.


RE: What's the point?
By dagamer34 on 1/7/2007 12:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
But there's no extra cost, so what's the difference? If there were "extra" validation, Intel would usually end up using chips rated at higher speeds and clock them down a bit to achieve a closer to 100% sustainability rate under stress testing.

And that costs money...


RE: What's the point?
By Jeff7181 on 1/7/2007 1:24:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's assuming that stability is directly related to speed, which it is not.

If a CPU running at 3.0 GHz produces an error once every 500 trillion clock cycles, scaling it back to 2.8 GHz, 2.6 GHz, or even 2.4 GHz doesn't necessarily equate to increased stability. Often it does, but that's a coincidence, not a rule.


RE: What's the point?
By Assimilator87 on 1/7/2007 2:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
Encoding takes absolutely forever on my Athlon XP. Upgrading to a quad core on the Core 2 architecture would save me an unbelievable amount of time overall. That's what quad core is for. On the gaming front, most of the major releases are coming this year so we'll be seeing multicore optimised titles fairly soon. I think Alan Wake uses something like five main threads, which doesn't make sense since we'll either have four cores or eight cores, not something in between.


RE: What's the point?
By lemonadesoda on 1/7/2007 7:02:32 PM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with your logic. Remember that threads doesn't = number of core minimum, only the way is was programmed that means it will SCALE WELL with increasing cores. But a single core can still schedule 5 threads without a problem.

Second, 4 core CPU plus a physics thread running on the GPU or AGEIA? = 5, = nice.

Or dual core Pentium with HT = 4 threads, plus GPU or AGEIA = 5, = nice.

Or "sound thread" has very low utilisation due to offloading to hardware, = 4.1, ie. 4 cores is enough, = nice.

etc. etc.



RE: What's the point?
By willow01 on 1/7/2007 9:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you have a look at the totals section under the performance tab in task manager you will see quite a few 'Threads' I have > 600 at the moment, they are not all doing much at all given the processor utilisation but they are there. You can future proof an application so long as you have the budget and time to invest in splitting an app up. The truth is a lot of programs don't need to be threaded and don't make sense to. You will see more benefit in day to day use with multitasking and more responsiveness.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles
New Core 2 Processors Around the Corner
December 19, 2006, 12:28 PM
Quad-core Xeon Details Unveiled
September 21, 2006, 9:02 AM













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