TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Technology & Gadget Zone
-- Core 2 Duo - X6800

Core 2 Duo - X6800

All the reviews I have read seem to overhype this chip.

The way I see it, Intel still have NOT resolved their issue of memory access and throughput, and the memory access issue is not even going to be looked at until 2008.

So, if I'm contemplating buying a new PC, do I get an x6800 or 2 dual-core Opteron chips?

Or, do I wait until the K8L comes out and pwns Intel beyond all recognition?

I'd wait 'til 65nm AMD Chips hit the market. The onboard memory controller in my mind is vastly superior to that of a Northbridge contolling it (just adds latency).

Also, with Conroe being all the rage, Intel has been able to price gouge these chips a little bit (although the E6600 is not horribly expensive), Right now Intel has a AMD's nuts in a vice grip, but they'll hopefully bounce back with an even better performer and we as the consumer will benefit from the competitive pricing.

For the record, I have yet to jump ship from the Opteron 170, and I'm thankin' god everyday that I was able to grab my 2x1GB Sticks before DDR1 Prices started sky-rocketing the way they have in the last couple months.


If you were to go with a Core2Duo right now, make it the E6600 and pair it with either an Asus or DFI board (Infinity available now, but Lanparty build on the ATi chipset is supposed to come out shortly), and overclock it well past the speed of the X6800.

One thing that also discourages me from the Conroe chips, is the friggin' temps on 'em are outragious. I've seen E6600's in the 3.5GHz range with Good Watercooling and they were hitting above 70C load. Those temperatures in my mind are unnacceptable, and I would've hoped Intel would have learned there lesson after the Prescott debacle.

Just my 2 cents.

quote:

Originally posted by cmay119 I'd wait 'til 65nm AMD Chips hit the market. The onboard memory controller in my mind is vastly superior to that of a Northbridge contolling it (just adds latency). Also, with Conroe being all the rage, Intel has been able to price gouge these chips a little bit (although the E6600 is not horribly expensive), Right now Intel has a AMD's nuts in a vice grip, but they'll hopefully bounce back with an even better performer and we as the consumer will benefit from the competitive pricing. For the record, I have yet to jump ship from the Opteron 170, and I'm thankin' god everyday that I was able to grab my 2x1GB Sticks before DDR1 Prices started sky-rocketing the way they have in the last couple months. If you were to go with a Core2Duo right now, make it the E6600 and pair it with either an Asus or DFI board (Infinity available now, but Lanparty build on the ATi chipset is supposed to come out shortly), and overclock it well past the speed of the X6800. One thing that also discourages me from the Conroe chips, is the friggin' temps on 'em are outragious. I've seen E6600's in the 3.5GHz range with Good Watercooling and they were hitting above 70C load. Those temperatures in my mind are unnacceptable, and I would've hoped Intel would have learned there lesson after the Prescott debacle. Just my 2 cents.

What about the E6700? I plan on building a new PC with the Core 2 Duo E6700.

Does the duo core mean that you get double the speed it says? For example there's a 2.66 GHz model I believe, so does that mean the actual output of processing speed you receive is 2 x 2.66 = 5.32 GHz?

quote:

Originally posted by Psionic Does the duo core mean that you get double the speed it says? For example there's a 2.66 GHz model I believe, so does that mean the actual output of processing speed you receive is 2 x 2.66 = 5.32 GHz?

Yes, Its a lot faster when dealing with dual core, It makes multitasking much easier and some of the newer software will support dual cores.

quote:

Originally posted by Psionic Does the duo core mean that you get double the speed it says? For example there's a 2.66 GHz model I believe, so does that mean the actual output of processing speed you receive is 2 x 2.66 = 5.32 GHz?

no.

all you need to know is the dual cores are 15%-20% faster than the corresponding athlons, and their overlocking is excellent.

Re: Core 2 Duo - X6800

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ All the reviews I have read seem to overhype this chip. The way I see it, Intel still have NOT resolved their issue of memory access and throughput, and the memory access issue is not even going to be looked at until 2008. So, if I'm contemplating buying a new PC, do I get an x6800 or 2 dual-core Opteron chips? Or, do I wait until the K8L comes out and pwns Intel beyond all recognition?

Well i suppose you can wait, but then you might aswell wait for k9l and why stop there wait till k10l..


Im running a e6600 with a decent overclock and its complete stable. My only limiting factor is my graphics card as im only running 1 x1900xtx.

Wait for you k9l ill be happy with my e6600 and by the time amd has something out that im interested in i just might buy. My money as no bias, which ever company has the better product gets my money and intels product is slaying amd's offering.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerClaw What about the E6700? I plan on building a new PC with the Core 2 Duo E6700.

E6700 is a great processor, it's just the E6600 is the best bang for the buck out of all the Core2Duo Chips.

E6600 offers 4MB Shared L2 Cache (all chips below only offer 2MB L2 Cache).

With the overclockability of these chips it's not really worth it to spend the extra dough on the next step up (unless you're completely against overclocking).

Although the E6700 does offer a higher multiplier to work with, so that is the one only true benefit of going with the E6700 over the E6600.

Good luck on your future purchase.

quote:

Originally posted by Psionic Does the duo core mean that you get double the speed it says? For example there's a 2.66 GHz model I believe, so does that mean the actual output of processing speed you receive is 2 x 2.66 = 5.32 GHz?

To answer this question more specifically:

No, a Dual Core processor has 2 Physical processing cores on one Silicon Chip (Only requiring one CPU Socket). Although very similar to a system that has 2 physical processors, the differences are the lack of a second physical chip and also Dual Core chips allocate memory from the same memory banks. Where as Dual Processors usually have there own dedicated memory to each individual processor.

So let's say you have a Dual Core CPU @ 2.0GHz (Which would be 2.0GHz x 2.0GHz NOT 4GHz).

If you have software that will utilize both cores, your work output would theoretically double (although in real world that is not the case because of latencies from other components in the system). Now 2 Processors (cores) are essentially working on the same task or they are working on 2 different tasks at the same time.

I hope this answers your question.

intel just came out with a quad core, 4 cores instead of 1 or 2 and it seems to smoke the competition but in specialised applications which is mainly video and photo editiing

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/20...e_qx6700/1.html

quote:

Originally posted by erdega intel just came out with a quad core, 4 cores instead of 1 or 2 and it seems to smoke the competition but in specialised applications which is mainly video and photo editiing http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/20...e_qx6700/1.html

The new PC game Alan Wake will take advantage of Quad Core.

quote:

Originally posted by Psionic Does the duo core mean that you get double the speed it says? For example there's a 2.66 GHz model I believe, so does that mean the actual output of processing speed you receive is 2 x 2.66 = 5.32 GHz?

Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!

In some tests, a second CPU gives you a whole extra 6% throughput. People do not understand this Dual-core malarky at all and what the reality of it actually is.

quote:

Originally posted by erdega intel just came out with a quad core, 4 cores instead of 1 or 2 and it seems to smoke the competition but in specialised applications which is mainly video and photo editiing http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/20...e_qx6700/1.html

AMD are already saying this isn't a genuine quad-core, and I'm tempted to believe them.

One of the main benefits of dual core is the fact you will have much better multitasking. Say you have more then one program running in the background like your web browser, your mp3 player, or playing videos, They will all load faster cause both cores will handle there processes instead of one core.

Now there's the QX6700 also! �720!

quote:

Originally posted by _Ocean_Drive_ Now there's the QX6700 also! �720!

And you can get it at newegg.com for $1,499.00 right here. If you can afford it, Heh.

quote:

Originally posted by TigerClaw And you can get it at newegg.com for $1,499.00 right here. If you can afford it, Heh.

That works out at �793, so it's cheaper from Dabs.com!

TigerDirect (Link) do it for $1,100 / �580

What's odd, is that the benchmarks I have seen, alot of the time, it runs slower than the x6700

EDIT: This kinda answers my question... http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2846

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.