Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 16, 2007 3:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Once More, With Feeling
We've already been through one major set of Intel price cuts this year, that was just three months ago after the Core 2 QX6800 launch. The smoke hadn't even cleared from the first round but both AMD and Intel are back in price slashing mode.
AMD already cut its prices before today's article, while Intel's cuts aren't scheduled to take effect until July 22nd (next week). We'll start off with AMD's pricing:
| CPU | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | Price |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 | 3.0GHz | 1MBx2 | $599/pair |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ | 3.0GHz | 1MBx2 | $178 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ | 2.8GHz | 1MBx2 | $157 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ | 2.6GHz | 1MBx2 | $136 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 2.6GHz | 512KBx2 | $125 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | 2.5GHz | 512KBx2 | $115 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ | 2.3GHz | 512KBx2 | $94 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | 2.1GHz | 512KBx2 | $73 |
| AMD X2 BE-2350 | 2.1GHz | 512KBx2 | $91 |
| AMD X2 BE-2300 | 1.9GHz | 512KBx2 | $73 |
Hello savings! The fastest Socket-AM2 processor AMD offers now costs less than $200, and only two of AMD's processors sell for over $150. Competition may not be good for AMD's bottom line but it's definitely enabling cheap system builds this year.
As exciting as a $1,000 CPU running a whole 70MHz faster than its predecessor may be, the real story today is how AMD and Intel stack up when you take the latest round of price cuts into account.
Intel's lineup looks very confusing at first, but after the price cuts take effect it'll be a lot easier to recommend processors. The table below has all currently available Intel CPUs (as well as a few that are due out soon), but you'll notice that some lines are in red. The lines in red are products that are available in the market, but no longer make sense to buy after the price cuts next week.
In an attempt to quickly move the market to 1333MHz FSB platforms, Intel has made those chips far more attractive than the previous 1066MHz FSB processors:
| CPU | Clock Speed | FSB | L2 Cache | Availability | Pricing |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 | 3.00GHz | 1333 | 4MBx2 | Now | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 | 2.93GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | Now | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 | 2.66GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | Now | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 | 2.93GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 | 2.66GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | Now | $530 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 2.40GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | Now | $266 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 | 3.00GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $266 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 | 2.66GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $183 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 | 2.66GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $316 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 | 2.40GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $224 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 | 2.33GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 | 2.33GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 | 2.13GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $183 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 | 2.13GHz | 1066 | 2MB | Now | $183 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6320 | 1.86GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 | 1.86GHz | 1066 | 2MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 | 2.40GHz | 800 | 2MB | Q4 | $133 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 | 2.20GHz | 800 | 2MB | Q3 | $133 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 | 2.00GHz | 800 | 2MB | Now | $113 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 | 1.80GHz | 800 | 2MB | Now | $113 |
| Intel Pentium E2180 | 2.00GHz | 800 | 1MB | Q4 | $84 |
| Intel Pentium E2160 | 1.80GHz | 800 | 1MB | Now | $84 |
| Intel Pentium E2140 | 1.60GHz | 800 | 1MB | Now | $74 |
See a trend? Financially it makes no sense to buy any of the 1066MHz FSB CPUs anymore, Intel sure knows how to push new chipsets on a market.
If you remove all the CPUs that no longer make sense to buy from the chart, you actually get a pretty nice and simple processor lineup:
| CPU | Clock Speed | FSB | L2 Cache | Availability | Pricing |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 | 3.00GHz | 1333 | 4MBx2 | Now | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 | 2.93GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | Now | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 | 2.66GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | Now | $530 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 2.40GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | Now | $266 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 | 3.00GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $266 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 | 2.66GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $183 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 | 2.33GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 | 2.33GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 | 2.40GHz | 800 | 2MB | Q4 | $133 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 | 2.20GHz | 800 | 2MB | Q3 | $133 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 | 2.00GHz | 800 | 2MB | Now | $113 |
| Intel Pentium E2180 | 2.00GHz | 800 | 1MB | Q4 | $84 |
| Intel Pentium E2160 | 1.80GHz | 800 | 1MB | Now | $84 |
| Intel Pentium E2140 | 1.60GHz | 800 | 1MB | Now | $74 |
It's almost like the early days of the Core 2, when model numbers weren't overly confusing for end users, almost.
Motherboard Requirements for 1333MHz FSB?
While there's no official support for 1333MHz FSB CPUs on Intel's P965 and 975X chipsets, many high end P965 motherboards provide unofficial support with little more than a BIOS update. Obviously if you're building a new system today, Intel's 3-series chipsets all enable the 1333MHz FSB and are available with both DDR2 and DDR3 support. We tested with Gigabyte's GA-P35C-DS3R, which offers four DDR2 and two DDR3 slots, giving you the option of either memory technology.
NVIDIA is quick to point out that all of its 680i based motherboards not only support the 1333MHz FSB but will also support Intel's forthcoming Penryn core, all that's necessary is a BIOS update. Motherboards based on Intel's 3-series chipsets should support Penryn just fine, but the verdict isn't out yet on what P965 boards will work with Intel's first 45nm core due out at the end of this year.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
MrKaz - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link
I don’t know but I have very doubts that someone who buys some premium and highest end CPUs will even bother in OC.If I was going to buy one AMD CPU for OC I would choose one of the single core or one dual up to the X4400+, higher than that I was shooting myself in the foot.
With Intel I would go for one of the lowest FSB versions (800/1066) or the slowest of the 1333Mhz (but I doubt I would go for one of this). Going for the 3.0Ghz Intel versions I was again shooting myself in the foot. Why OC something that is already so fast and already in its limits.
Pirks - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers, and AMD gear is VERY solid choice here, I pick old single core AMDs for nothing on ebay, like $45 for a fast gaming San Diego 4000+, pick older 7900GTX cards on ebay as well for cheap (only the ones I know are silent 'cause reviewers say so) and then I stuff it all in Antec P182, do some other voodoo with Cooler Master or ThermalRight gear... voila, a SILENT gaming rig, chews through S.T.A.L.K.E.R. just like that! and cheap, compared to some intel rigs from overclocking Intel freaks - it is DIRT cheap, cause there are no water, no overheating from fashionable overclocked quad-core intel shit, nothing like that.so you are TOTALLY wrong when you classify all enthusiasts as overclocking intel freaks - there are a lot of us who specialize in silent & inexpensive PCs, including gaming ones. it's easy to pay intel $$$ $$$ $$$ and get watercooled quad extreme blah blah blah, or get a cheap and noisy overclocked aircooled rig. but to get 1) gaming 2) silent 3) cheap PC - this is REAL ART, btw it's not covered at anandtech at all
relic2279 - Monday, December 17, 2007 - link
A User said:"the same folks who are enough of an enthusiast to know that the AMD MB's can save them a bit, and then apply that savings towards either the GPU or grabbing a higher-end AMD processor are very likely to overclock."
Pirks replied to this:
"VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Very far from the truth? Possibly for you specifically but he was generalizing and I believe he is correct. People who do care enough and are being specific, building their own PC's tend to be the same people who tinker, and OC their computers. People intrigued enough to read this whole article and pay attention to the benchmarks are more likely to overclock then not.
So to say that it's "VERY far from the truth" is not only incorrect, but ignorant. It's just more fanboys spouting propaganda for their favorite company.
I don't have a preference personally. I buy what the best is for my money, at the time. If it's AMD, then I buy them, if it's intel, then them. I suggest everyone do the same. I've purchased 6 intel chips and 7 amd chips in my life. Most of my intel chips were 286's 386's or pentium 1-2's. Lately I was buying AMD cause they were the better buy, but not now. For the money, I get alot more with intel. I have noticed an increase in reliability as well, after switching to intel.
I may have to take that into consideration on my next chip purchase which (if the wife allows me) will hopefully be soon. :)
Oh and I noticed that some people mentioned that the price cuts would be bad for intel as far as profits go etc... The price cuts benifit us, and thats what matters. I don't care if amd/intel's revenue is down this year by 100% and neither should you. What matters is that we get a good price and a good cpu. If someone brings that up, it just further proves they are fanboys and care more for that particular company then they probably should. Again, getting a decent price is what should matter, not profit margins of a huge company.
Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
please learn to tell the difference between "most likely" and "all"Pirks - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link
doesn't matter if you classify all enthusiasts as OC guys, or just "most of them" as OC guys - this is still your subjective opinion, you have no facts to prove it.I classify "most of enthusiasts" as silent PC guys, not OC guys, so what? here ya go, my subjective opinion versus yours. enjoy your meal :P
yeah, and when you get some solid arguments besides your opinion - don't forget to post them here, I'm interested! maybe I'm wrong about most of us being silent PC people, who knows ;)
Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
Well, silence enthusiasts would be better off with Intel seeing as how most of their Core based dual-core lineup now uses less power under load than the 4000+ San Diego, and with the G0 stepping Intel has only increased its performance/watt.
Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
nice shot, but, alas, a miss - you have no idea how much AMD 65nm and 35watt dualcore chips consume under load. get back to school, read you hardware docs, come back - we'll talk again. good luck ;)Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_core-se-dec...">http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_...e-en-pen...Complete domination of Intel Core processors in full load power consumption.
Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
you're right about consumption, intel is slightly ahead, but if we take prices and upgrade scenarios (like copious amount of old DDR RAM in the system) into account, the picture is not so rosy for IntelAccord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
In the same way that AMD's K8 was slightly ahead of Prescott.
How so? There aren't any of the low-voltage or 65nm X2s on Socket 939, they're all high-power 90nm models where even the lowly 3800+ uses as much power under load as the fastest dual-core C2D. Meanwhile there are a few DDR1 MB that support C2D if you want, and with the excellent power usage of the C2D, passive cooling is a piece of cake with a half-decent tower heatsink.