Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700

[Pete_Zahut]

Originally Posted by CPU

Specs: 2.66GHz clock speed; 1,066MHz FSB; 65nm manufacturing process, 8MB L2 cache(2x 4 MB)

Core 2 Extreme X6800 offered the highest CPU performance and garnered plenty of praise from reviewers. Hot on the heels of this success comes the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (Kentsfield), which skips a faster clock speed in favor of additional cores: The QX6700 boasts four cores.

Both the X6800 and the QX6700 have unlocked multipliers and a 1,066MHz FSB. That said, theprocessors have several differences (aside from the obvious difference in their respective number of cores).

For one thing, at 8MB, the QX6700’s L2 cache is twice the size of the X6800’s. The chip dynamically allocates the two 4MB chunks to cores based on the workloads each core is carrying. Kentsfield also has a multiplier of 10 compared to Conroe’s 11, so the 2.66GHz QX6700 lags behind the 2.93GHz X6800 in sheer clock speed.

Although I didn’t have time to thoroughly overclock the QX6700 before going to print, the processor’s default scores are impressive. I tested the processor on an Intel D975XBX2 motherboard, which sports the Intel 975X Express chipset. The board itself features Gigabit Ethernet, support for up to 8GB DDR2-667 memory, and RAID 0, 1, 5, or 10.

The system produced eye-catching numbers right off the bat, with a 3DMark06 score of 8924 (the CPU score was 3871) and 7681 in PCMark05 (the CPU score in that test was a whopping 8444)

and u can get all that for a low low price of $999.99

[Mystic Videl]

I went ahead and moved this to hardware for you oo. Seems more hardware than anything. So I figured might as well get good use of the forum that everyone wanted so much. But this looks pretty hot. Needs pics.

[Loser777]

Kentsfeild powered PC's have this huge cover over the cooler.
I'm not really impressed with Kentsfield either because it's just two Core 2 Duo's glued together.

[Mookster]

I'm not quite as excited about these. They're nice, but just not necessary. DX10 cards seem to rely less on processors and are more self standing, so I don't think we'll see a processor bottleneck in gaming for quite some time. With that said, who want's to run 4 intensive applications at the same time on a regular basis? I don't plan on converting all my music/videos while running anti-virus and ad-aware on a daily basis. The most I'll ever do is listen to music while playing a game.
Give me a video card/OS to support multiscreen multiplayer/multi-user interface and I'll say yes. But for now, I think Conroe is a better deal.
^That would be godly by the way; probably the direction that this quad core stuff is headed.

[Pete_Zahut]

who want's to run 4 intensive applications at the same time on a regular basis?

people who want to watch porno and play games while using photoshop

[Super]

Originally Posted by Pete_Zahut

people who want to watch porno and play games while using photoshop

You dont have enough hands to do all those at one time.

[MasterX]

you can make hands

also they've made LONG time ago the games that are X screens X joys 1 comp

they go flop cuase not many gamers have more then 1 freind

[Loser777]

I'm waiting for AMD's K8.5 series.

[gamepin126]

Originally Posted by Loser777

I'm waiting for AMD's K8.5 series.

K8 5 != K8.5

[dopesmoker]

man that is JUNK! amd has a 2.2 single core processor

a dual core should be atleast 4ghz

[NickF]

You're an idiot.

[Loser777]

Originally Posted by gamepin126

K8 5 != K8.5

No, its named K8.5 to avoid using K9.