High-End Buyers' Guide: May 2007
by Dave Robinet and Jarred Walton on May 29, 2007 1:30 AM EST- Posted in
- Guides
Ultra High-End Intel System
One of the most difficult decisions in this guide was choosing between the QX6700 processor and the Core 2 Extreme X6800. The X6800 is the absolute top-end gaming performer due to its slightly higher stock speed, but the additional two cores of the QX6700 will have a more substantial impact in encoding and other content creation applications. The prices between the two processors are virtually identical. Of course, if you're willing to spend even more money the QX6800 is now available (if you can find it in stock) with prices starting at around $1300 and a stock clock speed that matches the X6800 (2.93 GHz). In the end, the QX6700 gets the nod on the grounds that game and application developers are promising that multi-threading will get more attention in the future. We don't expect performance to double in anything but the most extreme cases; however, it will likely have a greater impact than the extra couple hundred megahertz in the X6800.
It's also important to remember that all of Intel's Core 2 Extreme processors have unlocked multipliers, so it's extremely easy to turn your QX6700 into a QX6800. QX6800 parts might have little bit more headroom when it comes to overclocking, but if all you're interested in is a good quad core overclocking chip we would probably take a step back to the Q6600 instead and save some money to invest in a better cooling solution and power supply. Needless to say, combining SLI with a heavily overclocked quad core processor can result in some serious power requirements. (Ed: And in the winter such computers can serve as great space heaters!)
Note that while both the QX6700 and X6800 processors cost roughly double what AMD's flagship FX-74 processor goes for, you need to purchase two FX-74 processors. Intel holds the overall performance crown, and users who want that performance will pay the price, plain and simple. Say it with us: competition is healthy for consumers.
On the subject of expensive components, the ASUS Striker Extreme is one of the highest-priced motherboards on the market today. At $307, users demand - and, fortunately, receive - the best quality and feature set of any comparable motherboard. As is the case with all of ASUS' current "Republic of Gamers" line, there is the diagnostic LCD panel, heat-piping, and SupremeFX audio. The 680i chipset ensures full x16 bandwidth to both graphics cards in an SLI configuration, and a third x16 slot is included which runs at x8 speed. An alternate motherboard selection (if you aren't going to run an SLI configuration) is the ASUS P5WDG2 WS Professional.
Two Crucial BL2KIT12864AA1065 kits bring the Intel system to 4GB of memory. Though clocked at unimpressive 5-5-5-15 timings, this RAM can typically be made to run substantially more aggressively with little effort. Even more impressive is the price - the kits can be had for $130 each (after the massive $85 mail-in rebate, that is).
The remaining components are the same as were chosen in the AMD Ultra High-End platform. The Intel system is almost always going to be faster than the current AMD Quad FX platform, as we showed in our Quad FX article, but the dual sockets and HyperTransport interconnects do allow the AMD platform to scale better in many situations when moving from dual core to quad core. Of course, the power requirements of Quad FX are also quite a bit higher than Intel's Core 2 Quad solutions.
The sweet spot in terms of price/performance for Intel lies in the "mainstream high-end" segment, while we start to see diminishing returns as we move upwards. With Intel's new P35 chipsets and Penryn processors making their introduction in the not-too-distant future, it may make sense to avoid the extreme high-end echelon of processors altogether at the moment.
| Ultra High-End Intel System | |||
| Hardware | Component | Price | Rebates |
| Processor | Core 2 Extreme QX6700 | $967 | - |
| Motherboard | ASUS Striker Extreme | $305 | - |
| Memory | 2 x Crucial Tracer Ballistix BL2KIT12864AA1065 (4x1GB) | $430 | $170 |
| Video Card | 2x MSI NX8800GTX-T2D768E-HD OC GeForce 8800GTX | $1140 | $40 |
| Hard Drive | WD Raptor WD1500ADFD plus WD 5000YS | $361 | - |
| Optical Drive | Pioneer DVR-212BK | $42 | - |
| Operating System | Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit (OEM) | $125 | - |
| System Total | $3370 | $3160 | |
| Complete Package | $3906-$5565 | $3696-$5355 | |
 |
It's also important to remember that all of Intel's Core 2 Extreme processors have unlocked multipliers, so it's extremely easy to turn your QX6700 into a QX6800. QX6800 parts might have little bit more headroom when it comes to overclocking, but if all you're interested in is a good quad core overclocking chip we would probably take a step back to the Q6600 instead and save some money to invest in a better cooling solution and power supply. Needless to say, combining SLI with a heavily overclocked quad core processor can result in some serious power requirements. (Ed: And in the winter such computers can serve as great space heaters!)
Note that while both the QX6700 and X6800 processors cost roughly double what AMD's flagship FX-74 processor goes for, you need to purchase two FX-74 processors. Intel holds the overall performance crown, and users who want that performance will pay the price, plain and simple. Say it with us: competition is healthy for consumers.
 |
Two Crucial BL2KIT12864AA1065 kits bring the Intel system to 4GB of memory. Though clocked at unimpressive 5-5-5-15 timings, this RAM can typically be made to run substantially more aggressively with little effort. Even more impressive is the price - the kits can be had for $130 each (after the massive $85 mail-in rebate, that is).
The remaining components are the same as were chosen in the AMD Ultra High-End platform. The Intel system is almost always going to be faster than the current AMD Quad FX platform, as we showed in our Quad FX article, but the dual sockets and HyperTransport interconnects do allow the AMD platform to scale better in many situations when moving from dual core to quad core. Of course, the power requirements of Quad FX are also quite a bit higher than Intel's Core 2 Quad solutions.
The sweet spot in terms of price/performance for Intel lies in the "mainstream high-end" segment, while we start to see diminishing returns as we move upwards. With Intel's new P35 chipsets and Penryn processors making their introduction in the not-too-distant future, it may make sense to avoid the extreme high-end echelon of processors altogether at the moment.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
69 Comments
View All Comments
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
A lot of sites seem to prove you wrong in addition to the ones I linked to. You need to get your meter checked or that Dell PS is REALLY inefficient. All of these sites measure power drawn by the SYSTEM at the AC outlet. None of the 8800GTX SLI configurations use more than 500 watts under full load and the R600 Crossfire setup uses 522 watts under full load.http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=332&type=...">One.
http://techreport.com/reviews/2007q1/geforce-8800-...">Two.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/05/16/r600_a...">Three.
http://www.hwupgrade.com/articles/video/13/the-nvi...">Four.
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2873...">Now check this out from YOUR OWN SITE. Do you really think that an upgrade to a quad core and another 8800GTX will pull another 500 watts?
JarredWalton - Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - link
The big question is whether or not you plan on overclocking. I just did some quick tests, and taking a quad core QX6700 chip from 2.67 GHz to 3.33 GHz increases the power draw by about 60W. I know that if I went out and got a QX6700, I would overclock it at least that far. For that matter, if I got a Q6600, I would probably shoot for a similar clock speed.At stock voltage, stock speeds, the highest power draw I got with CrossFire X1950 XTX and a QX6700 (with three hard drives in the system) was "only" 488W. Could such a system run with a 520W power supply? Perhaps, provided it's a really high-quality power supply. Personally, I like to have a bit of leeway, so I would say 620W minimum for such a configuration.
Looking at your Bit-tech link, it appears that a Radeon HD 2900 XT consumes ~70W more power than a Radeon X1950 XTX, and in CrossFire mode the difference was 145W (worst-case). 488W + 145W = 633W... Eureka! Now, are you still going to want to run such a configuration with a 620W power supply? You could try, and it might even work depending on how often you reach maximum load, but again I prefer a little leeway. Without overclocking, I can easily see quad core and 2900 XT CrossFire breaking 600W on a regular basis (or at least approaching it). Throw in overclocking (~80W) and water-cooling (10W-30W - or more - depending on pump), and we are now at over 700W. Sure enough, that's exactly what I measured with the Dell XPS 720H2C (add a few more watts for the additional memory).
I personally follow an 80% rule: just to be safe, I don't exceed 80% of the rated power supply wattage. (this is especially important if you have power supplies with multiple 12V rails, as you almost certainly won't be drawing maximum power from each rail.) That means if I'm going to be drying up to 600W of power, I would want at least at a 750W power supply. If I'm going to overclock, I would want something in the 850W+ range.
CK804 - Wednesday, June 27, 2007 - link
http://www.silentpcreview.com/forums/viewtopic.php...">It seems that the TEC inside your Dell is drawing a lot of power. That's why your power consumption is so high. A power supply wattage rating is the amount of power that the PS can deliver to the components and not how much power it can draw from the wall. Since we have to account for efficiency, 800W * 0.8 = 640 is the power consumption of the components inside. Take away the power consumption of the TEC (640 - 120) and the power consumption of the components is about 520 watts.CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36...">Are you sure about that breaking 850 watts?http://www.abxzone.com/forums/cases-psus-mods/1064...">That's a little too extreme, don't you think?
JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Depends on what you throw in there. I've got a system with an overclocked QX6700 and 8800 Ultra SLI with water-cooling, multiple hard drives, and basically about every high-end option you can find. I've measured peak power draw of nearly 800W, and a stock HD 2900 XT uses more power than an 8800 GTX by about 20W at load. Overclock two of those cards, and yes I think you can break 850W power draw.FWIW, idle power draw is 475W on the system, putting 100% load on the CPU takes that up to 625W, and 100% CPU while running 3DMark06 put it at something close to 750-775W (with the average being more like 700W). If I were to manually overclock the GPUs, then I'm sure I could break 800W.
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
I still call BS on 800. 475 watts idling? That's a little too extreme don't you think? Did you even read the sites I linked to? And what are you measuring with? Your @SS?JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Some people always need proof I suppose.Sitting next to me is a Dell XPS 720 H2C measured at the outlet with a Kill-A-Watt device. The CPU is running at 3.43 GHz with 1.550V. Why should I need to read your links when I've got a system right in front of me generating those numbers? But of course you're right: your linked article must be more accurate than anything we could measure in-house. The Dell has a 1000W power supply, and I'm sure Dell is just being cautious, like they are with their 375W PSUs in the XPS 410.
PS: My ass measured a power output of 1.21GW last I checked. I have to be careful as I don't want to accidentally warp myself through time if I go eat Mexican food. You see, I also have a flux capacitor hardwired into my spine, just in case....
Thanks for reading, though.
CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/100...">AMD 4x4 system with 8800GTX SLI uses 612 watts under full load.JarredWalton - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Overclocking + overvolting will jack up the power draw of the CPU quite a bit. Stock voltage is supposed to be 1.300V (I think) and overclocked it's 1.550V, plus it's running at 3.43 GHz instead of 2.67 GHz. Throw in a water-cooling setup, three hard drives, 4GB RAM, and you get quite a bit more power draw than a stock 4x4 SLI setup.CK804 - Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - link
Hard drives draw about 10 watts each. That's 30 watts. Each extra memory module will draw about 5 more watts. That's 20 watts. The water pump should draw no more than 10 watts and the fans about 5 watts each. Assuming you're using 2 120mm fans, the extra power draw under a worse case secenario would be 90 watts. So now we move onto the CPU. Are you seriously going to tell me that an overclocked Core 2 Quad consumes 300 watts under load? A Smithfield barely consumed half of 300 watts. I think any CPU would explode if it consumed 300 watts.