Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 16, 2007 3:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Do Four Cores Need a 1333MHz FSB?
AMD likes to call Intel's quad-core "fake" due to the fact that the chips themselves are composed of two independent dual-core die on a single package. Intel has used this multi-die package approach ever since the dual-core days in order to get CPUs to market quicker and do so at a lower cost. While Intel will eventually move to a single die quad-core design, its current designs are made up of two individual dual-core die.
The problem with Intel's approach is that all traffic from one pair of cores to the next has to go over the FSB, whereas AMD's quad-core Barcelona design places all four cores behind a shared L3 cache. With a single socket quad-core chip, FSB bandwidth is already at a premium given that four cores have to share the same amount of FSB bandwidth that two cores do in a dual-core system. In theory, Intel's quad-core CPUs could stand to benefit more from a 1333MHz FSB than their dual-core counterparts. You may remember from our review of the Core 2 Duo E6750 that the 1333MHz FSB only accounted for an average performance improvement of 1.9% over the 1066MHz FSB, but would things change with four cores running on the other end of that FSB?
To find out we compared the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 to the Core 2 Extreme QX6800, the former running at 3.0GHz on a 1333MHz FSB and the latter 2.93GHz/1066MHz. There is a 2.3% increase in clock speed that the QX6850 enjoys over the QX6800, but we can easily take that into account when looking at the margin of victory in our tests.
The chart below shows the performance increase the QX6850 sees over the QX6800 across our entire suite of benchmarks:
The faster FSB appears to do a little more with the quad-core QX6850 than we saw on the dual core E6750. The performance advantage is not tremendous, amounting to little more than low single-digit percentage point advantages across the board. Taking into account the ~2.2% increase in clock speed that accompanies the QX6850, an average of around a 2% increase in performance is what we'd attribute to the faster FSB.
By no means is it earth shattering or necessary for that point, at least not at these clock speeds. However, given the direction Intel is going in, if you're building a new system today you'll obviously want to opt for a 1333MHz FSB processor. Current quad-core owners shouldn't feel pressure to upgrade, the faster FSB does very little for performance.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
DolphinAMD - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
nooo! I just bought an Core 2 Duo E6420 for $186The replacement seems like the E6750 at $183
Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
sorry buddy, but these prices weren't exactly a secret.lennylim - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
If you go according to max. multiplier, an important number for overclocking, the pricing makes some kind of sense.Looking at dual cores only, here's the pricing by multiplier.
7x multiplier : $163
8x multiplier : $183
9x multiplier : $224 (E6600) / $266 (E6850)
10x multiplier : $316
Still a damn good price for C2D. And the E6600 is actually a good deal for overclockers.
hubajube - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
The price of the X2 6000 is $169.99 on Newegg not $180. Even though the new stuff is quicker than AMD's best it's only a little quicker and the $10 difference between them plus the cheaper motherboards for AMD will still pretty much seal the deal for my next upgrade. If the quad cores were $180 then I would be willing to stretch for the extra cost of the Intel motherboards (Intel or Nvidia chipset).MrKaz - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Finally someone with brains.I already have said the same with different words.
Did you also notice they only mention the extra price cost on the AMD motherboard because of Quad FX, they don’t mention Intel extra price premium on the motherboard.
The Intel motherboards are very expensive, the ASUS P5N-E SLI for example in my country costs 120€, the AMD version the M2N-E SLI 80€. Its 40€ difference.
Also the only interesting Core 2 Duo is the E6550 which costs $163. Lower than this you get one castrated CPU from Intel.
AMD X2 3600 costs 60€ in my country so its 60+80=140€
Intel E6550 168€ so its 120€+168€=288€
Its “just” 148€ difference or one X1950PRO if you prefer.
Accord99 - Wednesday, July 18, 2007 - link
Why compare the E6550, which is faster than all but the AMD 6000+ with a 3600+ that is slower than Intel's "castrated" Pentium E2160?
hubajube - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I was looking at the ASUS M2N32-SLI Deluxe which is $170 compared to the ASUS P5N32-SLI Premium for $210 here. A $40 difference that I can use towards my 8800GTS and then add the $10 from the CPU difference and I STILL get a computer that plays BF2 or whatever at WELL over 100fps.Pirks - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
exactly, this is why I'm going to use AMD for my gaming rig for the foreseeable future. cheap AMD cpu plus expensive nvidia 3D video equals best gaming experience, definitely better than that of intel FOR THE SAME PRICE. AMD is the best friend for the gamer, while Intel is the best friend for media encoder/3D renderer kind of guy, or anyone who loads all their four cores at 100%iceburger - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I've had the same reasoning for the last 10 years- AMD platform always cost less- sometimes the difference will cover nice video card. IMHO this Intel price cut may backfire for them- the reason you spend money on marketing is to be able to get higher profit margins. Instead of dropping the price, the reasonable decision would have been to "milk" the market- maintain the current separation: high- and mid-end for Intel, low-end for AMD. This price cut is strictly a hostile move aimed to bury AMD's entire line and force them to lose even more with consecutive AMD price cut. However Intel has higher fixed development cost and even if they sell more CPUs, their profit will be lower- it's a lose-lose situation. Reminds me of GWB's tax cuts.Sunrise089 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Only problem with all of this otherwise sound reasoning is that 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, and that sort of blows the AMD side of the equation out of the water.I'm and AMD fan myself, but you have to admit, anyone who even considers overclocking their CPU has no business picking the AMD side unless they just want to help the underdog.
Pointing out Anandtech's failure to mention the cheaper AMD platform is fair enough, but it was AT LEAST equally damaging to the Intel side to not show benchmarks from an overclocked 6000+ vs a 6850. Does anyone think it would be close?