Intel Hard-Launches Three New Quad-Core CPUs

Status
Not open for further replies.
ferarri said:
ya i know about my name/avatar thing. My favorite car was a ferrari 550 maranello until I decided to change my mind when I saw one of these beautiful cars in LA. Unfortunately I can't change my name :(

Back on topic: Dario thanks for the find. I think that the q6600 will rate a little lower than the fx-74s. But that's just a guess.
you could ask a moderator and they could change it for you.
but quad cores look nice rignt now and theyre pricey. i just want to wait and see how they do.
 
You misunderstood my post, nagasama. For AMD's 4x4, you need two of each FX-7* processor. A 4x4 system using FX-74s would need two FX-74s, for a total of $1100 for the processors. And the only 4x4 motherboard available on Newegg costs $430. $999 for the QX6700 isn't bad when you consider that is it actually faster than the $1100 FX-74, not to mention the lower power consumption and motherboard costs.

But on the high-end, and everywhere else even, the costs of processors rarely correspond to their performance. The most powerful processors will also be sold at a premium by their makers.

As for the prices on the Q6600, read the article that I linked at the beginning.
 
That Alan Wake game looks interesting, and it certainly makes me hunger for four cores....
 
oh i gotcha trieclipse. i did misunderstand, thought we were comparing qx6700 to one fx-74.
i wonder how the fx-74 fares against the x6800?
that would probably be a more fair comparison. although i believe the x6800 uses the same socket 775 mobo as the other c2d's?
also based on the link tri posted it looks like the intel q6600 uses the same socket 775 mobo as well, ie nothing different than dual core c2d.
and the amd you would have to get their socket f mobo. (which really aren't that expensive, for the single socket board). the 4x4 is outrageuosly expensive.
i also wonder when amds 65 nm architecture comes out if it will be able to keep up with the c2d performance wise?
by the way, can someone explain to me why the c2d's overclock so well (or so high i should say), and i have to work like a slave to get my little 4200 past a 5-600 mhz overclock?
 
part of the reason the Core 2's overclock so well could be attributed to their longer pipeline.........

as for 65nm improving performance, the issue has been done to death. 65nm DOES NOT improve performance. it increases voltage and thermal efficiency, that is all. it generally doesn't provoke any spectacular clock increases either due to the fact the maximum voltage threshold is reduced, it just scales down the voltage required.
 
nitestick said:
part of the reason the Core 2's overclock so well could be attributed to their longer pipeline.........

as for 65nm improving performance, the issue has been done to death. 65nm DOES NOT improve performance. it increases voltage and thermal efficiency, that is all. it generally doesn't provoke any spectacular clock increases either due to the fact the maximum voltage threshold is reduced, it just scales down the voltage required.

and might I add that, the 65nm process also produces less heat, which results in lower temperatures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom