Well, Intel's former flagship CPU, the Core 2 Extreme X6800, is no longer the fastest on the market. Intel just announced a quad core CPU, really composed of a pair of Core 2 Duo E6700 CPUs. Each core runs at 2.66 GHz, however, it has been overclocked to an incredible 3.54 GHz. It blew the X6800 in all tests, and of course, all of AMD's CPUs. There are three brand new computers that are powered by this CPU; the Cyberpower Gamer Infinity 1950, the Gateway FX530XT, and the Vigor Force Recon QXN. Unfortunately, most applications won't utilize these four cores, but it's still incredible. Let's see what AMD can do to defeat this.
EDIT: I forgot to mention that another computer that will come with this CPU is Dell's XPS 710.
It's just slightly slower than the equivalent dual-core in games. Thus, it's not for me. I'd take a regular E6700 anyday. But I prefer the E6600 for price/performance reasons. They overclock very very well.
Yeah, when I go C2D, I am getting a E6600 too. Gotta love the higher L2 cache (4Mb).
| PseudoKnight wrote: |
| It's just slightly slower than the equivalent dual-core in games. Thus, it's not for me. I'd take a regular E6700 anyday. But I prefer the E6600 for price/performance reasons. They overclock very very well. |
Yeah, but it does depend on the game you're playing. Until games start to utilize four cores, you won't notice much of a difference. However, it costs $999, the same as Intel's former flagship, the Core 2 Extreme X6800.
It's still not the highest configuration (one quad core) because Apple's Dual Xeon setup is more powerful.the quad cores really show through in video rendering and such, where programs are designed to take advantage of multicores.
Wow, we are finally coming to the future of processors. They will go in this way increasing the number of cores, may be 8 then 16 and so on in the coming years. I am waiting for it, and I want to see the figures, I mean the gaming figures. CPU must not lag behind GPU anymore.
I dont know if you been checking the benchies but increasing the number of cores on a single die is eventually going to hit wall or what engineers like to call Moore's law. Even now if you do happen to have optimized software that actually utilizes the extra cores your not getting anything close to a 1:1 ratio. I'm not bashing multicore design but you look eagerly to the future for more cores and I look to future in the hopes that software will trail at a decent pace!
| mawfia wrote: |
| I dont know if you been checking the benchies but increasing the number of cores on a single die is eventually going to hit wall or what engineers like to call Moore's law. Even now if you do happen to have optimized software that actually utilizes the extra cores your not getting anything close to a 1:1 ratio. I'm not bashing multicore design but you look eagerly to the future for more cores and I look to future in the hopes that software will trail at a decent pace! |
I believe they are approaching the limit for socket T with 65nm dies, so they're either going to have to make a new socket or make smaller transistors.
