Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 16, 2007 3:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Do Four Cores Need a 1333MHz FSB?
AMD likes to call Intel's quad-core "fake" due to the fact that the chips themselves are composed of two independent dual-core die on a single package. Intel has used this multi-die package approach ever since the dual-core days in order to get CPUs to market quicker and do so at a lower cost. While Intel will eventually move to a single die quad-core design, its current designs are made up of two individual dual-core die.
The problem with Intel's approach is that all traffic from one pair of cores to the next has to go over the FSB, whereas AMD's quad-core Barcelona design places all four cores behind a shared L3 cache. With a single socket quad-core chip, FSB bandwidth is already at a premium given that four cores have to share the same amount of FSB bandwidth that two cores do in a dual-core system. In theory, Intel's quad-core CPUs could stand to benefit more from a 1333MHz FSB than their dual-core counterparts. You may remember from our review of the Core 2 Duo E6750 that the 1333MHz FSB only accounted for an average performance improvement of 1.9% over the 1066MHz FSB, but would things change with four cores running on the other end of that FSB?
To find out we compared the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 to the Core 2 Extreme QX6800, the former running at 3.0GHz on a 1333MHz FSB and the latter 2.93GHz/1066MHz. There is a 2.3% increase in clock speed that the QX6850 enjoys over the QX6800, but we can easily take that into account when looking at the margin of victory in our tests.
The chart below shows the performance increase the QX6850 sees over the QX6800 across our entire suite of benchmarks:
The faster FSB appears to do a little more with the quad-core QX6850 than we saw on the dual core E6750. The performance advantage is not tremendous, amounting to little more than low single-digit percentage point advantages across the board. Taking into account the ~2.2% increase in clock speed that accompanies the QX6850, an average of around a 2% increase in performance is what we'd attribute to the faster FSB.
By no means is it earth shattering or necessary for that point, at least not at these clock speeds. However, given the direction Intel is going in, if you're building a new system today you'll obviously want to opt for a 1333MHz FSB processor. Current quad-core owners shouldn't feel pressure to upgrade, the faster FSB does very little for performance.
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.