Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Preview: The Desktop Gets a 1333MHz FSB
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 25, 2007 2:57 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Overclocking and Final Words
Our Core 2 Duo E6750 sample was a particularly great overclocker, at stock voltage with a retail Intel heatsink/fan we were able to run the system at 3.68GHz (460 x 8.0):
With further voltage tweaking slightly faster speeds should be possible, but at default voltage we were quite impressed. Whether or not this is a testament to the maturity of Intel's 65nm process has yet to be seen, but this next batch of Core 2 processors that will be appearing in the summer could be great overclockers. It's not a tremendous surprise given that Intel's 65nm process should be quite mature at this point, as Intel is on the cusp of introducing its first 45nm processors. Intel has always been strong in the manufacturing department, but now it's more like the good ol' Pentium/Pentium II/Pentium III days of overclocking because it is shipping CPUs we actually want to overclock.
While we await the official release of Intel's 1333MHz FSB CPUs, we now know not to expect much from them, which is why we're expecting to see a price-parity with current 1066MHz chips from Intel. It looks like the big performance increase for Intel this year will come from Penryn, and if reports from Taiwan are to be believed, the performance crown may not change hands this year after all.
Our brief comparison between AMD and Intel at the $180 price point continues to illustrate how it's not architecture, but pricing that can actually determine a recommendation at this point. While AMD is still competing using its original K8 architecture, its pricing is such that its CPUs can easily stand up to Intel at price points less than $300. Once Penryn hits, the same may no longer hold true but for now you can't go wrong with either manufacturer; it's not a bad time to be buying a CPU.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
yacoub - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Cool, so basically my E4400 oc'd to 3.0GHz @ 1333MHz fsb is essentially an E6850 with half the L2 cache (2MB vs 4MB). For only $135 it's giving me quite the bang-for-the-buck. :DJmsAndrsn - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Cool, so basically my E4400 oc'd to 3.0GHz @ 1333MHz fsb is essentially an E6850 with half the L2 cache (2MB vs 4MB). For only $135 it's giving me quite the bang-for-the-buck. :DActually, an E4400 overclocked to 1333 FSB would be at 3.33GHz. An E4300 @ 1333 FSB would be 3.0GHz
yacoub - Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - link
sorry, forgot to mention i dropped the multiplier to 9x. =)Not enough heatsink to cool 3.3Ghz to a temp i was satisfied with.
tim75 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Slightly off topic, but since the 1333 FSB has 10.6 GB/s bandwidth (1333 x 64bit) I can use DDR-667 in dual channel mode(also 10.6 GB/s[667 x 128 bit]) without any performance hit right?bamacre - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Yup. At stock speeds you'll only need 667mhz DDR2 for the 1333mhz FSB C2D's. And of course 533mhz DDR2 for 1066mhz C2D's.gigahertz20 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Gary Key,I've been waiting for your promised P35 roundup article you mentioned in your May 30th "Gigabyte GA-P35T-DQ6: DDR3 comes a knocking, again" article. Any word on what day this week it will be posted? I'm eagerly waiting the release of the article so I finally buy my long awaited Core 2 Duo setup, I just need a solid motherboard to go with it.
yacoub - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
If you give up waiting, go for the MSi P6N-SLI Platinum. Awesome 650i-SLI board. She's rock solid for me @ 1333MHz fsb, only voltage increase is on the vcore, and I'm running 4GB dual-channel paired in the four DIMM slots. Fast and stable, just as I'd wanted.gigahertz20 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Is the article on time to be published this week?Deusfaux - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
I assume your comparisons of the 2 FSBs are keeping end clock speed the same?sc3252 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Why don't your new articles have tests where you run multiple applications at the same time, I really enjoyed reading older articles how the cpu's stood up to multitasking. Its nice that we have benchmarks showing how much faster the new cpu's are, but I don't think it shows how we will really be using the computer.For example I will be using my computer much different then say playing one game strictly. When I play world of warcraft I will usually have itunes open playing a song, and Firefox open looking up where to turn in my next quest. It would be nice if in future articles you could create a benchmark doing some of those things.