Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processors: Quad-Core CPUs Gone Real!

Started by: Bornfree | Date 11/02/06 04:47:35 AM
Comments: 33 | Last Comment:  03/22/08 03:25:05 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-20 | 21-27]

1. 
Unfortunately the companies that produce the common software applications used by mainstream consumers, haven't even re-written the code for 64-bit let alone multi-core CPUs. If the software companies don't get off their asses and deliver a properly updated application, then consumers should stop buying their software until they do update it to 64-bit and multi-core.
[Posted by: Bornfree  | Date: 11/02/06 04:47:35 AM]
You must log in to reply
+ expand thread (3 answers)
2. 
How can the slower of the two be 43% better and the faster be only 30% better?
Try again!
[Posted by: Check yer math  | Date: 11/02/06 05:47:55 AM]
You must log in to reply
+ expand thread (1 answer)
3. 
The analysis is excellent. However, in many cases it is necessary to run certain single threaded jobs over and over. Monte Carlo simulations as an example. This capability is measured in the Specmark Throughput benchmarks. The quad-core should be very capable in such circumstances.
[Posted by: AlanD  | Date: 11/02/06 05:54:40 AM]
You must log in to reply
4. 
Why the hell do you compare power consumption with:
Cool’n’Quiet, Intel Enhanced SpeedStep and Enhanced Halt State disabled. ???

What meaning do those numbers have then ? Certainly not the real-life one.

Also system power should be measured. To have CPU power numbers alone is nice, however without system power those number become meaningless.

This is not the first time readers do point this methodology bug and no change came.

I do not expect you to behave differently this time. However many guys do not know that and it is important for them to understand meaninglessness of you power numbers for any real-life situation.
[Posted by: mino  | Date: 11/02/06 06:30:18 AM]
You must log in to reply
5. 
As I'm one of the few already using a multithreaded app, I can't welcome this soon enough. 4 cores without having to spend stupid amounts on server motherboards and fb-dimms which don't look like having a long shelf life.

Well done Intel!
[Posted by: mattmos  | Date: 11/02/06 06:46:46 AM]
You must log in to reply
6. 
Golly, at other sites, they complained about not seeing the power consumption of the processors. Sometimes running an enthusiast site is a thankless job.

Check out Anandtech.com for some other angles to quad versus dual.

This is exciting, but NOT the first time Intel has had an extreme edition processor that could do 4 threads at once. That was the Presler-based PDP900 with the dual die with HT enabled, I believe.

It would be interesting to see how that particular Netburst era processor shows its limitations versus a full four cores.

Inquiring minds want to know.
[Posted by: Mark1  | Date: 11/02/06 03:08:05 PM]
You must log in to reply
+ expand thread (1 answer)
7. 
bardzo dobry art. :)
[Posted by: paton2  | Date: 11/03/06 03:05:45 AM]
You must log in to reply
8. 
Please benchmark Company of Heroes next time. It's a multithreaded game.
[Posted by: nvfirewall  | Date: 11/03/06 08:39:33 AM]
You must log in to reply
9. 
I was reading the article in 'The Inquirer' and I agree with the comments, basically, from a functional perspective Intel only has two cores x2 glued to a slab of silicon, so it's bit of a hack. AMD's Barcelona will be true 4 core when it comes out, but who's going to look under the box anyway. Its all about capturing and controlling the 'mindset' and Intel has done that.

As per 'The Inquirer' 'Sun can laugh at them all, it has had eight real cores by either definition for over a year, and IBM has done the MCM thing to more than that. Intel and AMD both lose'.
[Posted by: TickleMeFanny&callMeHappy  | Date: 11/04/06 02:26:51 AM]
You must log in to reply
+ expand thread (1 answer)
10. 
In the future, please include the idle power consumption results also with all power saving features (Cool'n'Quiet/SpeedStep) enabled. That's the way people usually run these systems.

The idle power consumption is very important. For example, during light desktop usage like word processing or web surfing the processor is idle most of the time.

Thank you.
[Posted by: Powersaver  | Date: 11/04/06 06:14:00 AM]
You must log in to reply
11. 
That is the best infomation i have ever got out of anything keep it coming in
[Posted by: Josh  | Date: 11/05/06 12:15:14 AM]
You must log in to reply
12. 
Please, test the Intel, Core 2, E6600, at 2.4 GHz, when you run your tests on the up coming AMD FX-70, FX-72, FX- 74, and AMD Athlon 5400+, 5600+, and 6000+.

I may have to buy an Intel, E6600, if DELL, and HP, do not list the E6700, as a Main Strean computer, and lower the sale price.
[Posted by: J. Hill  | Date: 11/05/06 10:13:09 AM]
You must log in to reply
13. 
Hi,
Kentsfield CPU is fanstastic, has enormous big overclocking potential. However the CPU connections with memory banks and a proper controlers should be improved to obtain higher memory CPU transfer.
[Posted by: andrew  | Date: 11/06/06 03:43:35 AM]
You must log in to reply
14. 
I had a quick look through and I found your comments quiet interesting.The power consumption does not matter so much to me of the kentsfield,but the overclocking does.May be conroe is better in the extreme range of overclocking.I plan to put it all in a airy kandalf P.C. case,but if I get a little lax and not worry about overclocking then xtreme kentsfield will do me.
[Posted by: G.A.Z.  | Date: 11/09/06 10:18:53 AM]
You must log in to reply
15. 
itll make me fly
[Posted by: steve  | Date: 11/10/06 12:07:51 AM]
You must log in to reply
16. 
Verry Good
[Posted by: Ping  | Date: 11/23/06 04:08:22 AM]
You must log in to reply
17. 
Windows XP wasn't designed with quad-core in mind.
SP3 will bring improved multi-core implementation. There's a hotfix floating around, that you can get by talking to Microsoft. But the hotfix isn't complete.
You might want to look into that.
[Posted by: Kvasi  | Date: 11/24/06 08:53:50 AM]
You must log in to reply
18. 
amd suck, also why do intel keep making cpu's that are all built on the same technology, when will the nooby frogs build a proccessor that dosnt use standard transistors. if any one knows the adress to the intel head quarters, they should send a letter bomb whith hello written on it
[Posted by: nooby dude  | Date: 12/12/06 06:14:06 AM]
You must log in to reply
19. 
Thenks! This is realy good presentation.It realy helped me for the presentation that I've made for school :) ! Congratulations for the good job ;)
[Posted by: Harry Potter  | Date: 01/09/07 12:38:56 PM]
You must log in to reply
20. 
Also the fucking AMD FX 70 quad core series are shit. AMD made two dual core CPU on to computer; It is fucking slow! Intel is rather having better performance of making putting two Core 2 Duo E6600 to form a Core 2 Extreme!
[Posted by: Gi Soung  | Date: 01/20/07 02:11:28 PM]
You must log in to reply

[1-20 | 21-27]

You must log in to add comments.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me

Our Sponsors

Western Digital Epiphan Systems