Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 16, 2007 3:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
A Plan of Attack
In our E6750 preview we demonstrated that the 1333MHz FSB basically offered no tangible performance improvement over previous 1066MHz chips. That fact, combined with Intel's aggressive pricing of 1333MHz FSB parts helped us do a little cleaning up in today's charts - let's look at the contenders.
Quad Core
The quad core lineup in today's review is straightforward, we've got Intel's four quad-core offerings (including the latest QX6850) and AMD's dual dual-core FX-74 setup:
| CPU | Clock Speed | FSB | L2 Cache | Pricing |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 | 3.00GHz | 1333 | 4MBx2 | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 | 2.93GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | $999 |
| AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 | 3.0GHz | HT | 1MBx2 | $599/pair |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 | 2.66GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | $530 |
| Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 | 2.40GHz | 1066 | 4MBx2 | $266 |
Price-wise, the only AMD/Intel competition we have here is between the FX-74 and the Q6700. Do keep in mind that as the FX-74 is a dual-socket configuration, the motherboard is a bit more expensive than what you can use with any of the single-socket quad-core Intel solutions.
And you read right, $266 can get you four amazingly fast cores on a single chip with the Q6600 after July 22nd.
Dual Core
| CPU | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | Pricing |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 | 3.00GHz | 4MB | $266 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 | 2.66GHz | 4MB | $183 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ | 3.0GHz | 1MBx2 | $178 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 | 2.33GHz | 4MB | $163 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ | 2.8GHz | 1MBx2 | $157 |
Above $200, AMD has nothing to offer, so the E6850 actually ends up competing with other Intel offerings. Do you go with a dual core E6850 or a quad-core Q6600 for the same $266 price tag? Below $200 we have a couple of interesting matchups: the E6750 vs. the 6000+ and the E6550 vs. the 5600+.
We're working on a lower cost CPU comparison where we'll address the sub-$150 offerings from both camps.
The Laundry List
We're trying to answer the following questions today:
1) Does the 1333MHz FSB have any impact on quad-core performance?
2) Is AMD's Athlon 64 FX-74 competitive with Intel's cheaper Core 2 Quad Q6700?
3) At approximately $180, which is faster: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 6000+ or Intel's Core 2 Duo E6750?
4) At approximately $160, which is faster: AMD's Athlon 64 X2 5600+ or Intel's Core 2 Duo E6550?
5) For $266, should you buy a quad-core Core 2 Quad Q6600 or a dual-core Core 2 Duo E6850?
Let's get to it.
Test Configuration
| CPU: | AMD Athlon 64 FX-74 (3.0GHz/1MBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ (3.0GHz/1MBx2) AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ (2.8GHz/1MBx2) Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz) Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (2.93GHz/1066MHz) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 (2.66GHz/1066MHz) Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.40GHz/1066MHz) Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 (3.00GHz/1333MHz) Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 (2.66GHz/1333MHz) Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 (2.33GHz/1333MHz) |
| Motherboard: | Gigabyte GA-P35C-DS3R (Intel P35) ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe (nForce 590 SLI) |
| Chipset: | Intel P35 NVIDIA nForce 590 SLI |
| Chipset Drivers: | Intel 8.1.1.1010 (Intel) Integrated Vista Drivers (NVIDIA) |
| Hard Disk: | Seagate 7200.9 300GB SATA |
| Memory: | Corsair XMS2 DDR2-800 4-4-4-12 (1GB x 2) |
| Video Card: | NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX |
| Video Drivers: | NVIDIA ForceWare 158.18 |
| Desktop Resolution: | 1600 x 1200 |
| OS: | Windows Vista Ultimate 32-bit |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
MrKaz - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link
I don’t know but I have very doubts that someone who buys some premium and highest end CPUs will even bother in OC.If I was going to buy one AMD CPU for OC I would choose one of the single core or one dual up to the X4400+, higher than that I was shooting myself in the foot.
With Intel I would go for one of the lowest FSB versions (800/1066) or the slowest of the 1333Mhz (but I doubt I would go for one of this). Going for the 3.0Ghz Intel versions I was again shooting myself in the foot. Why OC something that is already so fast and already in its limits.
Pirks - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers, and AMD gear is VERY solid choice here, I pick old single core AMDs for nothing on ebay, like $45 for a fast gaming San Diego 4000+, pick older 7900GTX cards on ebay as well for cheap (only the ones I know are silent 'cause reviewers say so) and then I stuff it all in Antec P182, do some other voodoo with Cooler Master or ThermalRight gear... voila, a SILENT gaming rig, chews through S.T.A.L.K.E.R. just like that! and cheap, compared to some intel rigs from overclocking Intel freaks - it is DIRT cheap, cause there are no water, no overheating from fashionable overclocked quad-core intel shit, nothing like that.so you are TOTALLY wrong when you classify all enthusiasts as overclocking intel freaks - there are a lot of us who specialize in silent & inexpensive PCs, including gaming ones. it's easy to pay intel $$$ $$$ $$$ and get watercooled quad extreme blah blah blah, or get a cheap and noisy overclocked aircooled rig. but to get 1) gaming 2) silent 3) cheap PC - this is REAL ART, btw it's not covered at anandtech at all
relic2279 - Monday, December 17, 2007 - link
A User said:"the same folks who are enough of an enthusiast to know that the AMD MB's can save them a bit, and then apply that savings towards either the GPU or grabbing a higher-end AMD processor are very likely to overclock."
Pirks replied to this:
"VERY far from truth - I'm kind of enthusiast myself, but I specialize in silent & inexpensive gaming computers."
-----------------------------------------------------------
Very far from the truth? Possibly for you specifically but he was generalizing and I believe he is correct. People who do care enough and are being specific, building their own PC's tend to be the same people who tinker, and OC their computers. People intrigued enough to read this whole article and pay attention to the benchmarks are more likely to overclock then not.
So to say that it's "VERY far from the truth" is not only incorrect, but ignorant. It's just more fanboys spouting propaganda for their favorite company.
I don't have a preference personally. I buy what the best is for my money, at the time. If it's AMD, then I buy them, if it's intel, then them. I suggest everyone do the same. I've purchased 6 intel chips and 7 amd chips in my life. Most of my intel chips were 286's 386's or pentium 1-2's. Lately I was buying AMD cause they were the better buy, but not now. For the money, I get alot more with intel. I have noticed an increase in reliability as well, after switching to intel.
I may have to take that into consideration on my next chip purchase which (if the wife allows me) will hopefully be soon. :)
Oh and I noticed that some people mentioned that the price cuts would be bad for intel as far as profits go etc... The price cuts benifit us, and thats what matters. I don't care if amd/intel's revenue is down this year by 100% and neither should you. What matters is that we get a good price and a good cpu. If someone brings that up, it just further proves they are fanboys and care more for that particular company then they probably should. Again, getting a decent price is what should matter, not profit margins of a huge company.
Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
please learn to tell the difference between "most likely" and "all"Pirks - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link
doesn't matter if you classify all enthusiasts as OC guys, or just "most of them" as OC guys - this is still your subjective opinion, you have no facts to prove it.I classify "most of enthusiasts" as silent PC guys, not OC guys, so what? here ya go, my subjective opinion versus yours. enjoy your meal :P
yeah, and when you get some solid arguments besides your opinion - don't forget to post them here, I'm interested! maybe I'm wrong about most of us being silent PC people, who knows ;)
Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
Well, silence enthusiasts would be better off with Intel seeing as how most of their Core based dual-core lineup now uses less power under load than the 4000+ San Diego, and with the G0 stepping Intel has only increased its performance/watt.
Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
nice shot, but, alas, a miss - you have no idea how much AMD 65nm and 35watt dualcore chips consume under load. get back to school, read you hardware docs, come back - we'll talk again. good luck ;)Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_core-se-dec...">http://www.matbe.com/images/biblio/art_...e-en-pen...Complete domination of Intel Core processors in full load power consumption.
Pirks - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
you're right about consumption, intel is slightly ahead, but if we take prices and upgrade scenarios (like copious amount of old DDR RAM in the system) into account, the picture is not so rosy for IntelAccord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
In the same way that AMD's K8 was slightly ahead of Prescott.
How so? There aren't any of the low-voltage or 65nm X2s on Socket 939, they're all high-power 90nm models where even the lowly 3800+ uses as much power under load as the fastest dual-core C2D. Meanwhile there are a few DDR1 MB that support C2D if you want, and with the excellent power usage of the C2D, passive cooling is a piece of cake with a half-decent tower heatsink.