backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 17 comment(s) - last by lplatypus.. on Jun 25 at 10:07 PM
Performance NDA of the upcoming 1333 MHz front-side bus Core 2 Duo E6750 lifted

Intel today lifted the performance non-disclosure agreement, or NDA, for the first product of its Core 2 Duo E6x50-sequence lineup—the Core 2 Duo E6750. Despite being the first refreshed Conroe-based processor since the original Conroe debut, excluding Kentsfield, the Core 2 Duo E6750 clocks in below the dual-core flagship Core 2 Extreme X6800. Intel clocks the Core 2 Duo E6750 at 2.66 GHz, identical to the E6700.

New to the Core 2 Duo E6750 however, is a faster 1333 MHz front-side bus to match the new Bearlake chipset-family, including the new P35 Express. Besides the faster front-side bus, the new Core 2 Duo E6750 has an identical feature set to the E6700 including 4MB of shared L2 cache. Other Core 2 Duo E6x50-sequence processors have the same shared 4MB L2 cache configuration and Intel has no plans of releasing a 1333 MHz front-side bus processor with 2MB of L2 cache.

Intel Core 2 Duo
Model
 Core
Frequency 		L2 Cache
FSBJuly 22nd
Pricing
E68503.00 GHz 4MB1333 MHz
$266
E6750 2.66 GHz 4MB1333 MHz
$183
E6550 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
$163
E6540 2.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
$163

Intel Virtualization, Enhanced Intel SpeedStep, Intel 64 and Execute Disable Bit technologies make a return on the Core 2 Duo E6750 and E6x50-sequence processors. Intel Trusted Execution Technology, formerly known as La Grande, sneaks its way into the new Core 2 Duo E6750 and E6x50-sequence processors.

Expect a hard launch of the Core 2 Duo E6750 and E6x50-sequence processors in the coming weeks. Intel plans to launch four Core 2 Duo E6x50-sequence processors with speeds varying from 2.33 GHz to 3.0 GHz including a TXT-less E6540.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Looks like a winner for the price
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/25/2007 9:12:59 AM , Rating: 2
Having read some reviews, this one is somewhere from 0% - 4% (most often around 2%) faster than the equivalently clocked e6700 it replaces, and draws about 2% less power and yet looks very promising from an overclocking standpoint.
The only drawback I see is that for a 33% higher bus bandwidth you get almost no performance gain and, with locked multipliers, I bet these chips will make it harder for motherboards to overclock for a while.
I'd really buy it for that price, but for now I wanna wait for AMD to do something (yet I don't know if I'll just get too tired of waiting and I'll get up one of these day and run for a C2D or C2Q setup right away) and see if that something puts AMD back in the lead or at least, makes Intel slash its prices even a bit more.

For anyone on a single core athlon64 today like me, wanting to go for a change now, I think this is as good as it gets, if you get a system based on ddr2.

DDR3 is still too expensive and offers no advantage today other than future proofing, but I guess that by now we, the home DIY users, know pretty well that in the PC world nothing is future proof enough, specially if you upgrade in a 2 - 3 year cycle like I do :D




RE: Looks like a winner for the price
By wrekd on 6/25/2007 9:33:32 AM , Rating: 4
I can't seem to stop waiting for the next best thing. I've been using my current rig for 5 years now. Somewhere between future releases and future price drops, I can't seem to make a purchase.


By paydirt on 6/25/2007 9:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
You might be able to get away with buying a new AGP graphics card (if you're still running AGP). The x1950Pro AGP does pretty well.

Most games right now aren't CPU bound (unless your CPU is 5 years old), you could probably get away with upgrading your CPU to a Pentium D or whatnot (or the AMD equivalent). Games will not be requiring DirectX 10 until 2011/2012.

Right now, DX10 only promises performance gains [faster frame rates] (which haven't materialized yet) and the potential for improved graphics quality down the road.


By DeepBlue1975 on 6/25/2007 9:52:28 AM , Rating: 2
Five years man!
No one could accuse you of stepping into the "crazy consumism" bandwagon :D
Great for you, you'll spend your money when you really feel you have no choice and your rig doesn't do anything that you want, the way you want.
If you could wait that much, you can hold keep holding your horses until AMD (finally...) brings barcelona and Intel counters with Penryn. You'll get so much better value for your money by then.


RE: Looks like a winner for the price
By Neoprimal on 6/25/2007 10:38:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm in the same boat. Except, I can't find any reason to justify upgrading. I use my pc for productivity, internet and World of Warcraft - which is pretty much the only game I play in any kind of consistency, and in both cases my PC flies (Athlon64 3400 w/ 2gb Ram). I think what will steer me is the fact that I really want to migrate to Vista....and I want a DX10 card JUST so that God forbid I want to play a DX10 game, I'm not limited to DX9 tech. With my Vista I'll be forced to get just about a new everything, so..that's how I'll see my upgrade. With these set of chips and these prices, it just may be now too.


RE: Looks like a winner for the price
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/25/2007 3:13:23 PM , Rating: 2
With an athlon 64 3400+ and 2gbs of ram, you don't anything else to run vista.
If you want a better graphics card supporting DX10, I guess that could be the only thing you need to upgrade.

I'm using an athlon 64 3200+ with just 1gb of RAM for two years now, and keeps up great for the things I do (watch videos, play old games like mame / scummvm), but well... I guess I have the consumerist gene activated as I drool over new technology and many times I just can't wait and have to buy the latest and greatest, even when it won't be so much of an advantage for my everyday use.
Sometimes I think that being a compulsive tech junkie feels just as sweet for as alcoholic drinks seem to be for so many people :D

I don't think I'll be able to start 2008 without getting a quad-core, multi-gigabyted, well cached drink (?)
If you just happen to have some free will at sell, I think I could buy some :D


By paydirt on 6/25/2007 3:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
DX10 is NOT worth it right now...

Most of the games that support DX10 actually run slower in DX10 than DX9, the performance advantage is not showing up yet. Also whether or not games will look better is up to the developers, even Crysis will look very similar in DX10 compared to DX9. DX9 cards can do whatever DX10 cards can, but eventually they will be less efficient.

The Unreal engine developer estimated that DX10 will not be required until 2011/2012. DX10 is definitely not a "must-have"


By hrah20 on 6/25/2007 7:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
This is it for me , i'm buying a bearlake motherboard and a e6850 processor, I play a lot of games on pc ,and 2 tb hdds won't hurt,I have a 320 gb hdd, a 120 gb, a 100 gb, and two 80 gb hdd and space Never seems to be enough with games,movies,music,programs,I need another pc just for gaming and these prices are the best I ever seen in a while so, I'm building a new pc in july.


not bad .., but is it good enough ?
By KiDDGuY on 6/25/2007 8:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q2/core2duo-e675...

seems like a good budget trade off b/w price and not loosing too much performance

the review shows it still beating AMD's dual core line while maintaining that *cheap* price tag honor i guess




Exit AMD
By Black Rainbow on 6/25/2007 1:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Looking also at benchmarking results on the 25/6 hardware reviews, is anyone else but me thinking that at these pricings this might be the end for AMD in the high-end segment? I mean, Phenom/Barcelona sure sounds nice and all, but I wonder if it can compete in performance with these new C2D's, let alone when it comes to pricing...




as for AMD
By DeepBlue1975 on 6/25/2007 8:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
We don't have any conclusive benchmark results for it. At Anandtech, they've said that chipsets for the new platform are still like growing into a diaper (those that wear diapers usually crawl and suck :D )...
But I'm reluctant to believe that a good chipset could make miracles, and if AMD's chips by now are stuck at something like 1.6ghz like I've read around there, I don't know how long could it take for them to ramp speed up.
Maybe it can be a win situation for AMD in the end, like it was when northwoods could wipe the floor with athlon xps and the first athlon 64s were lousy overclockers... But maybe not.

As for me, I'm just gonna buy what gives me the best performance for the money (that includes on-air overclocking capability at stock voltage) weather it's from Intel or AMD.
By now, all the "bettermometers" are pointing towards Intel's chips.




FSB impact on quad core
By lplatypus on 6/25/2007 10:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
It would be more interesting to see the impact of increased FSB performance on a quad core Intel CPU, because the FSB is more likely to be the bottle-neck there: twice as many cores means more demand for memory access across the bus, plus there is extra traffic on the bus with the two dual-core dies communicating with each other.




By paydirt on 6/25/2007 3:44:33 PM , Rating: 3
I don't know what your benchmark is, but you're in a State of da "River in Egypt" if you don't believe Intel is on tops right now. Performance/$ Intel wins.

Can you provide ANY evidence against the litany of sources that AMD has a better general processor (for dollar spent) vs Intel right now?


By myterrybear on 6/25/2007 3:54:41 PM , Rating: 2
I am refering to intels countless campains over the years claiming there products are ALL the best. Seriously you can't tell me you are going to say a Celron is a far superiour cpu compared to any AMD one that is on the market now are you ?? :P


By KCjoker on 6/25/2007 6:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
What do you expect a company to say? Our product sucks compared to the competition? You don't see AMD saying that since the C2D came out even though it's true.


By paydirt on 6/25/2007 8:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to say, but you're living in the past. Intel currently has a big lead over AMD. The Celeron? WHAT? Hey, the year is 2007. Yeah, Intel advertises, big deal!

And yes, waaaay back in the day, Intel processors were more stable. AMD eventually took the lead and Intel has it back for now.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki