Print 45 comment(s) - last by Setsunayaki.. on Jul 18 at 1:26 AM

Intel's newest 1333 MHz front-side bus processors take the center stage

Intel today announced a new lineup of 1333 MHz front-side bus dual and quad-core processors. The new Intel 1333 MHz front-side bus lineup consists of three dual-core and one quad-core processors. The dual-core lineup features the new Core 2 Duo E6550, E6750 and E6850.

Intel clocks the lowest Core 2 Duo E6550 at 2.33 GHz, which slots between the previous 2.13 GHz E6400 and 2.4 GHz E6600. Intel does not have a 1333 MHz front-side bus Core 2 Duo E64xx or E66xx planned. Intel intros the Core 2 Duo E6550 at $163, below the current retail prices of the Core 2 Duo E6400.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6x50
L2 Cache
FSB Pricing
E68503.0 GHz 4MB1333 MHz
E67502.66 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz
E65502.33 GHz 4MB 1333 MHz

The middle of the 1333 MHz front-side bus consists of the Core 2 Duo E6750. Intel prices the Core 2 Duo E6750 at $183, $20 more than the E6550. The extra $20 yields a 330 MHz higher clock speed. Intel’s Core 2 Duo E6850 fills the top of the dual-core lineup. The Core 2 Duo E6850 raises the clock speed another 330 MHz to 3.0 GHz. The increased clock speed comes at an extra $83.

Intel Quad-core
L2 Cache
QX68503.0 GHz 8MB1333 MHz
Q67002.66 GHz 8MB  1066 MHz

Intel’s Core 2 Extreme receives a 1333 MHz front-side bus makeover as well. The new Core 2 Extreme QX6850 is the only quad-core processor to transition to a 1333 MHz front-side bus. Intel clocks the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 at 3 GHz, a slight increase over the QX6800’s 2.93 GHz clock speed. The Core 2 Extreme QX6850 has a $999 price tag.

Also launching today is a new Core 2 Quad processor, albeit with a 1066 MHz front-side bus. The new Core 2 Quad Q6700 clocks in at 2.66 GHz, similar to the previous Core 2 Extreme QX6700. Intel debuts the Core 2 Quad Q6700 at $530.

Intel Quad-core
L2 Cache
FSBJuly 22
QX6800 2.93 GHz 8MB1066 MHz
Q6600 2.40 GHz 8MB 1066 MHz

Despite the new product introductions, there are no price cuts on existing products today. Nevertheless, Intel plans to cut prices on most dual and quad-core products next week. When the new price cuts go into effect, the entry-level Core 2 Quad Q6600 drops down to $266, matching the Core 2 Duo E6850 in price.

Expect the new Core 2 1333 MHz front-side bus processors to pop up in retailers immediately.

Comments     Threshold

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

By Anh Huynh on 7/16/2007 11:13:54 AM , Rating: 2
Quad-core will benefit you more, if CS3 takes advantage of multi-core. Four lower speed cores work more efficiently than two higher-speed cores.

By MrBungle on 7/16/2007 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
Anh, thank you so much! I had a hunch, but that confirms it. I'm just counting the days until the 22nd... ;-)

By awer26 on 7/16/2007 11:37:45 AM , Rating: 3
Spend a little more on quality components, and OC the Q6600 to 3GHz :)

By MrBungle on 7/16/2007 11:21:50 PM , Rating: 2
I've considered overclocking, but since this is a workstation that I use to make a living, I'm concerned about stability.

The increased processor speed would certainly help me get more done, but I've always understood that overclocking is a no-no on a workstation - do you think differently?

By Justin Case on 7/16/2007 11:52:59 AM , Rating: 5
Not everything in those programs is multi-threaded, so the answer isn't an easy one. For Photoshop, I'd say around 30% of operations use multithreading. But Photoshop isn't very CPU-intensive anyway (unless you're smart-blurring insanely big images). What PS really needs is a ton of RAM.

In Premiere, around 50% of operations are multithreaded. The problem with Premiere (and also Photoshop) is that many of those "multithreaded" tasks will not run more than 2 threads (and therefore won't use more than 2 cores). Typical scaling: 40% with the second core, 10% with subsequent ones.

After Effects is a very different beast. About 90% of its filters and operations use multiple cores, and nearly all of those will use more than two. Typical scaling: 80% or better per new core.

So, if you use After Effects a lot, definitely go for more cores. If you use mainly Photoshop, it's probably not worth it. Get a cheaper dual-core now and upgrade when you move to CS4 or CS5 (which will hopefully have better multithreading).

By Sunrise089 on 7/16/2007 2:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wow - great set of info. I don't use any graphic type programs, but if I did this would be an incredibly helpful post.

Note to Anandtech editors browsing comments at the "completely independent" DailyTech: Compile this sort of info into an article, and add in other types of programs to the list, and you'd be doing a tremendous amount of service to the community.

By TomZ on 7/16/2007 2:37:09 PM , Rating: 1
I agree - it would be very helpful to have some kind of review and/or table that shows the degree of multitasking supported by commonly-used software applications.

By epsilonparadox on 7/16/2007 4:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Anandtech has a review up that compares the dual core $266 process vs the q6600

By MrBungle on 7/16/2007 11:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
That is great to know - thank you for sharing that info!

I do happen to use After Effects quite extensively, so it sounds like the Q6600 is the way to go. When I'm rendering in Premiere, I'm often running something else in the background (e.g. Photoshop), so it sounds like even that would allow me to utilize the extra 2 cores that Premiere isn't typically using.

Thanks again!

By Justin Case on 7/17/2007 6:45:23 PM , Rating: 3
Well, it's unlikely that Photoshop will be making much use of your CPUs in the background while Premiere is running (it's rare for a filter to take more than a few seconds to apply); you're more likely to benefit from it the other way around (ex., use PS while Premiere is rendering or encoding a project).

In any case, if you run AFX a lot (and are on a deadline), the extra cores will definitely be worth it, and probably pay for themselves quickly. The same goes for any 3D renderer (typical scaling for 3dsmax is 90% per extra core on long renders, though some single-threaded plug-ins can bring that down in a nasty way).

After Effects is by far Adobe's most civilized package. Although it's usually seen as an "entry level" compositing program, in some areas it does things better than Shake, Fusion or Combustion (the "big guns").

If only Premiere and Photoshop would borrow AFX's code, instead of coming up with half-assed solutions to problems that were solved years ago...

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki