DailyTech - Intel Hard-Launches Three New Quad-core Processors

Submit News

Hardware Intel Hard-Launches Three New Quad-core Processors
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - January 7, 2007 1:27 AM

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

Username
Password
remember me

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

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?

Parent

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.

Parent

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...

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent

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.

Parent