A Plan of Attack

In our E6750 preview we demonstrated that the 1333MHz FSB basically offered no tangible performance improvement over previous 1066MHz chips. That fact, combined with Intel's aggressive pricing of 1333MHz FSB parts helped us do a little cleaning up in today's charts - let's look at the contenders.

Quad Core

The quad core lineup in today's review is straightforward, we've got Intel's four quad-core offerings (including the latest QX6850) and AMD's dual dual-core FX-74 setup:

 CPU Clock Speed FSB L2 Cache Pricing
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3.00GHz 1333 4MBx2 $999
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93GHz 1066 4MBx2 $999
AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 3.0GHz HT 1MBx2 $599/pair
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz 1066 4MBx2 $530
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz 1066 4MBx2 $266

Price-wise, the only AMD/Intel competition we have here is between the FX-74 and the Q6700. Do keep in mind that as the FX-74 is a dual-socket configuration, the motherboard is a bit more expensive than what you can use with any of the single-socket quad-core Intel solutions.

And you read right, $266 can get you four amazingly fast cores on a single chip with the Q6600 after July 22nd.

Dual Core

 CPU Clock Speed L2 Cache Pricing
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.00GHz 4MB $266
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 4MB $183
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ 3.0GHz 1MBx2 $178
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 4MB $163
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ 2.8GHz 1MBx2 $157

Above $200, AMD has nothing to offer, so the E6850 actually ends up competing with other Intel offerings. Do you go with a dual core E6850 or a quad-core Q6600 for the same $266 price tag? Below $200 we have a couple of interesting matchups: the E6750 vs. the 6000+ and the E6550 vs. the 5600+.

We're working on a lower cost CPU comparison where we'll address the sub-$150 offerings from both camps.

The Laundry List

We're trying to answer the following questions today:

1) Does the 1333MHz FSB have any impact on quad-core performance?

2) Is AMD's Athlon 64 FX-74 competitive with Intel's cheaper Core 2 Quad Q6700?

3) At approximately $180, which is faster: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6000+ or Intel's Core 2 Duo E6750?

4) At approximately $160, which is faster: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5600+ or Intel's Core 2 Duo E6550?

5) For $266, should you buy a quad-core Core 2 Quad Q6600 or a dual-core Core 2 Duo E6850?

Let's get to it.

Test Configuration

CPU: AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 (3.0GHz/1MBx2)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.0GHz/1MBx2)
AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2.8GHz/1MBx2)
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (2.93GHz/1066MHz)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 (2.66GHz/1066MHz)
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz/1066MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz/1333MHz)
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33GHz/1333MHz)
Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R (Intel P35)
ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (nForce 590 SLI)
Chipset: Intel P35
NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI
Chipset Drivers: Intel 8.1.1.1010 (Intel)
Integrated Vista Drivers (NVIDIA)
Hard Disk: Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA
Memory: Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2)
Video Card: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Video Drivers: NVIDIA ForceWare 158.18
Desktop Resolution: 1600 x 1200
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit
Once More, With Feeling Do Four Cores Need a 1333MHz FSB?
Comments Locked

68 Comments

View All Comments

  • gigahertz20 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Ahhh man I loved the article but I was hoping for some overclocking benchmarks, very disappointing. I wanted to see an overclocked Q6600 vs. overclocked e6850, there were reports the E6850 can OC up to around 4GHz. I was hoping this article would show us some OC results. Is this planned for later or something?
  • cpeter38 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Another Ditto!!!!
  • Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    and another!

    All the early Conroe reviews had OC numbers. And yes, by now we realize that as far as dual-cores go, any of the new parts should overclock about the same. It's really important to a lot of users however to know how the overclocking of these new parts matches up to the quad-core part.
  • Frumious1 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    You've got numbers http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3020&am...">like this that have quad core hitting 3.60 GHz with appropriate cooling. Q6600 should easily hit 3.0-3.3 GHz with a reasonable HSF, and if you want something high-end like the Ultra-120 Extreme, maybe even 3.60 GHz (9x400). One more reason to go quad - just mind the energy bills!
  • Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    yes, but what about if the dual-core part is overclocked to 4.0ghz?
  • Frumious1 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Given that overall performance goes to 2.4 GHz quad core over 3.0 GHz dual core (a 600 MHz difference), I can guarantee that a 3.6 GHz quad core would be better than 4.0 GHz dual core (a 400 MHz difference). That said, for gaming it really wouldn't matter much right now - no games even try to utilize more than two cores that I'm aware of. And don't even think about a 3.6 GHz overclocked quad core chip unless you have a beefy PSU!
  • BikeDude - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link

    Flight Simulator X SP1 adds multicore support and should benefit from additional (beyond dual) cores.

    "As I stated previously, our multi-core support will take advantage of both 2 and 4 cores today, and more cores in the future when they become available."
    (http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/05/14/f...">http://blogs.msdn.com/ptaylor/archive/2007/05/14/f...

    I am a bit disappointed that Anandtech doesn't bench FSX. I also miss the compiler benchmarks they used to do. AMD used to do quite well in those... (I say this as someone who uses compilers, not as a former AMD fanboy which I probably am)
  • RamarC - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    anyone know what oc results i can expect with a p35-based mobo and a q6600? is 3.0ghz as easy to reach as it is with an e6600?
  • ZDNetReader1 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Ditto!! What he said!!
  • MrKaz - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link

    Price-wise, the only AMD/Intel competition we have here is between the FX-74 and the Q6700. Do keep in mind that as the FX-74 is a dual-socket configuration, the motherboard is a bit more expensive than what you can use with any of the single-socket quad-core Intel solutions.

    This is obviously true, but it’s also true that Intel motherboards for single socket VS AMD motherboards for single socket are also more expensive.
    In my country equivalent ASUS AMD motherboard VS ASUS INTEL motherboard is around 30% to 50% cheaper.
    Do keep that in mind too.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now