Intel Hard-Launches Three New Quad-Core CPUs - Page 4 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-08-2007, 10:34 AM   #31 (permalink)
disgruntled ex-moderator
 
Nagasama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: probably on the lake
Posts: 6,956
Default

but the thermal efficiency (lol) will keep temps dow, which in turn means you can add more voltage, which in turn means you can overclock higher, right?
part of the reason i do not run my 4200 at 2.85 is because i have to juice it so much it gets too hot for my liking.
another thing, nitestick...do you think amd will lengthen their pipeline, then? and, per say, "borrow" some architecture attributes from intel? so that we amd fans can get some intel-worthy overclocks?
__________________

__________________
"nagasama no longer drinks tecate, or streaks out of the night for anything, and he has a fine wife so he has no use for your girlfriend...she is safe..."
Nagasama is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 11:12 AM   #32 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

no i don't think AMD are going to cheapen their efforts any time soon. they're fans of IPC (Instructions Per Clock) powered performance, so the pipeline won't be lengthened unless required (like at the transition from Athlon XP (K7) to Athlon 64 (K8), which went from 10 to 12 stages). AMD seem to have better plans for improving performance.

as for lower temperatures allowing for higher overclocks, it's like i said. overclock remain roughly the same because the voltage range pretty much shifts equal to the temperature range change with reducing the die process size. in other words you can't use as much voltage with the smaller process size, which negates the reduction in temperatures.
__________________

Nitestick is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 01:01 PM   #33 (permalink)
disgruntled ex-moderator
 
Nagasama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: probably on the lake
Posts: 6,956
Default

gotcha.
so instead of still being able to raise voltage to 1.65,
max voltage would be like 1.5 or something along those lines.
roger that.
__________________
"nagasama no longer drinks tecate, or streaks out of the night for anything, and he has a fine wife so he has no use for your girlfriend...she is safe..."
Nagasama is offline  
Old 01-08-2007, 05:52 PM   #34 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by nagasama
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?
You also cannot use one FX-74 to compare to a X6800. You have to buy 2 FX-74s or you won't have a system, FX-7* processors cannot be used in any configuration except 4x4. That also means that you will have to buy the $430 motherboard, since one FX-74 and a one-socket Socket F motherboard is useless. Here's cheapening their efforts for ya, 4x4 is a complete sham, an embarrassment to AMD in every way. Although it should become a lot more worthwhile once AMD rolls out it's single-chip Quad Core CPUs. Intel likely won't have any Octa-Core processors out by that time, so AMD would have the 8-core enthusiast market to itself. I wouldn't expect it to be cheap though.

And its not that hard to compare the processors you mentioned. You only have to take a FX-62 and overclock it to 3Ghz to see what an FX-74 would perform like. And you can use clockspeeds to compare the processors. The X6800, at 2.93Ghz, is far beyond the reach of a 3Ghz A64 processor. At minimum, it should take a 3.5Ghz A64 with the current architecture to rival the X6800, and note that this is the most conservative estimate I can come up with, its likely higher. An E6600 (2.4Ghz) is more like a 3Ghz A64.

And I would have to agree with Nitestick that Intel's OC'ing potential comes from their architecture (though I'm not sure that their slightly longer pipeline is the culprit).
__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 04:10 AM   #35 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Q6600 splashes down at Newegg, but for a horrendous price. For now, atleast.

Also, Intel announced its V8 setup at CES. Its basically using 2 Quad Core CPUs in 2 different sockets, lol. Just a tit-for-tat move, responding to AMD. The main thing here is though, even if AMD brings out Quad Cores to use in 4x4 for an 8-core system, Intel won't be left behind with a max of 4 cores. Infact, Intel's there with 8 cores first.
__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 05:11 AM   #36 (permalink)
Lord Techie
 
Nitestick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: смерти для спаме
Posts: 8,473
Default

the longer pipeline definitely has some impact. i can't remember the specifics but you're right, it's definitely not the biggest factor. it's something to do with the pipelining though if not the length of it.
Nitestick is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 05:34 AM   #37 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

FX-74 is merely a stopgap I think. AMD's true quad cores haven't come out yet. From what I've heard, they will be good.
Quote:
Originally posted by ferarri
Unfortunately I can't change my name
Supermods (like myself) and Admins can. PM one of us and we'll change it for you - just as long as the name isn't inappropriate, and not already taken.
__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 12:39 PM   #38 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Graham's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 348
Send a message via AIM to Graham
Default

Who the **** would pay $70 less for the Q6600 over the QX6700!? IF that price doesn't drop like a couple hundred within the first couple weeks then whoever buys is extremely stupid.
__________________
- Intel i7-930 CPU @ 3.4 GHz w/ Zalman CNPS 9900 MAX
- Asus P6X58D Mainboard
- Corsair 1000W PSU
- Cooler Master HAF 932 Adv. Chassis
- SSD Intel 40 gig
- HDD: 2x SATA III 300 GBs
- LG Blu-Ray 8X
- Gigabyte GTX 670 WF @ 1098 Mhz
- Corsair Dominator 6 GB (2 x 2 GB Trip mode)
Graham is offline  
Old 01-09-2007, 05:18 PM   #39 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
BennyV04988's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,835
Default



"No one can defeat the quad laser!!!"

Hahaha.... sorry...it had to be done
__________________
3DMARK VANTAGE: 11,500
GPU: MSI GTX 260 @ 650MHz/1175MHz
CPU: Intel E6750 @ 3.4GHz/1.33v/60c
HSF: Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro
MOBO: MSI P6N SLI-FI 650i
RAM: G.SKILL 3x1GB DDR2 800
SND: Creative Audigy 4
SPK:Logtech X-540s
MOS: Logitech MX600 Wireless Laser
LCD: HANNS-G 28" Widescreen
BennyV04988 is offline  
Old 01-10-2007, 10:34 PM   #40 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Oy. I hoped never to see that again.
__________________

__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.