• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Quad Core

Associate
Joined
19 May 2005
Posts
76
Intel Core 2 Quadro Extreme Edition QX6700 "LGA775 Kentsfield" 2.66GHz (1066FSB) - OEM a native Quad core (I think that is the right term for it)?
 
66173758_56286c6b84.jpg


Mince pie? :)

[edit] oops sorry I didn't see that was a question :p
 
Last edited:
It's not a native quad core as I believe that only applies if the CPU was a single lump of silicon. The Kentsfield is actually two distinct Conroe cores mounted on the same PCB.

Jokester
 
Jokester said:
It's not a native quad core as I believe that only applies if the CPU was a single lump of silicon. The Kentsfield is actually two distinct Conroe cores mounted on the same PCB.

Jokester



Yeah... and they're linked together by the FSB
 
tastyweat said:
Yeah... and they're linked together by the FSB

still a very good chip though. Even if they had a native design based on the conroe architecture, there would be no big performance boast at all, only be like 2%. They'd need a whole new architecture if they wanted to do a native design that would actually bring out about a worthy performance difference,
 
Conroe's a very efficient architecture which is designed not to overload the FSB too heavily, which is why the Quadcore works as well as it does. However a native Quad would still be more efficient, and intel are already working on the next generation processor interface.

Its called CSI, and intel will release it when they feel its required (in otherwords, they are developing the tools, and ammunition required to answer back to future development and performance attacks from the AMD camp)

Intel are also experimenting with other ideas, one example was a single package which contained 2 chips. The northbridge, and cpu. This is quite a different idea to amd's integrated memory controller, but from an end users point of view, it would mean the same.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
actually ive read on a lot of articles that true quad core chips would be much better performing than 2 dual cores stuck together.

Would largely depend on how it was implemented and utilitised. The main disadvantage of the Kentsfield process is that it's effectively two chips (split into a further two chips each), and if you have to pass data from one to the other, that becomes a problem with a slow connection. That can make for some interesting scheduling issues that you could avoid using a true quad core setup.

A true quad core setup is likely to be faster, but how much would depend entirely on how well the scheduling and optimisation was set up in both.
 
the quad core is infact not a quad core. It is a psuedo quad core which other than benchmarks ie sisoft sandra, actually under performs compared to an x6800 extreme dual core. In gaming etc the x6800 xtreme destroys the quad core. The quad core will be useful when desktop apps that can utilise them actually appear. However the first genuine quad core will be AMD early next year. The chip of choice for the moment is without doubt x6800 xtreme dual core - the fastest you can buy as a consumer.

Yes, get core2duo chips.
 
experience said:
the quad core is infact not a quad core. It is a psuedo quad core which other than benchmarks ie sisoft sandra, actually under performs compared to an x6800 extreme dual core. In gaming etc the x6800 xtreme destroys the quad core. The quad core will be useful when desktop apps that can utilise them actually appear. However the first genuine quad core will be AMD early next year. The chip of choice for the moment is without doubt x6800 xtreme dual core - the fastest you can buy as a consumer.

Yes, get core2duo chips.

There are apps available whereby the Quad core 'destroys' the X6800. Most are limited to cad/rendering/encoding etc.

Also if you run 3Dmark06 you would notice a X6800 being slapped silly by the quad core.
 
experience said:

So are you going to back that up with anything? Given the choice between the X6800 and the QX6700 I think you would be mental not to get the quad and the future-proofing it offers. I don't know why anyone would want a X6800 unless they are using some extreme form of cooling.
 
In gaming and other applications , yes.

and i said

"The quad core will be useful when desktop apps that can utilise them actually appear. However the first genuine quad core will be AMD early next year"
 
experience said:
the quad core is infact not a quad core. It is a psuedo quad core which other than benchmarks ie sisoft sandra, actually under performs compared to an x6800 extreme dual core. In gaming etc the x6800 xtreme destroys the quad core. The quad core will be useful when desktop apps that can utilise them actually appear. However the first genuine quad core will be AMD early next year. The chip of choice for the moment is without doubt x6800 xtreme dual core - the fastest you can buy as a consumer.

Yes, get core2duo chips.

it doesnt matter whether its four cores in one die or two dies with two cores each, its still four cores in one cpu package so it is still a quad core.
 
Back
Top Bottom