Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 16, 2007 3:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
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 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
Darkmatterx76 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Nice article. I would like to point out 1 small inconsistancy. On page 12, 4th graph down you have the order for that particular "Lower is better" reversed compared to the others in the article.Also, I do have 1 question. Any idea when Intel will offer non-extreme quad cores at 1333 FSB?
zsdersw - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I don't get it. Both are listed as 2.33GHz with 1333FSB and both with 4MB. What's the use of having two models?zsdersw - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Nevermind. I found the answer. The 6540 doesn't have Intel Trust Execution technology.. or so I read elsewhere.jay401 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
So how does the E6850 ($266 3.0GHz 1333fsb) compare to my existing E4400 ($133 running 1333MHz fsb with a 9x multiplier = 3.0GHz)?That's the test I'd like to see. Half the price but half the cache: Which is better.
bobbyto34 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Your o/c CPU might just be a little hotter :)Otherwise, it should have the same performance approximatively (less cache in E4xxx). But other tests showed that the E4300@3Ghz and could approach the performance of the X6800 !
lplatypus - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Here's a little error I spotted on page 2, in case you want to fix it: the QX6850 is not 7MHz faster than the QX6800; it is 70Mhz faster.Gary Key - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Fixed.96redformula - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I also think the scale would be better from -100 to 100. It makes it easier to distinguish and more visually pleasing.ManuelX - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I don't post here much but I had to this time. I simply loved the article. The logic behind the comparison was explained nicely, and the comparisons themselves were super easy to grasp. Good stuff.just4U - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I am going to have to agree here. Nicely laid out article with easy comprehensive graph comparison(s). Well done Guys!