With all this jabber about quad-core being "
on the horizon," it's mighty refreshing to finally see one of these highly-touted chips in the wild and on the chopping block. The lucky folks over at TechSpot were able to get their paws on Intel's first officially released
quad-core processor, the 2.66GHz (not to mention the dual 4MB L2 cache and 1,066MHz FSB) Core 2 Extreme QX6700. Reviewers noted that there were "no new additions" technology-wise in this
Kentsfield architecture, and that it was "merely a quad-core version of the
Conroe," but stopped to exaggerate that this was far from being a "bad thing." Benchmarking the new kid on the block was a mixed bag, as it scorched dual-core alternatives in SiSoft testing, lagged behind in 3DMark, and provided just marginal gains in "real world gaming" scenarios. However, video editors and graphics designers should appreciate the "25 percent" increase in Photoshop CS2 processing, "78 percent" boost in Pinnacle rendering speed, and the "60 percent" jump in 3D Studio Max. It should also be noted that the thermal output of the chip was "very manageable" at factory speeds, but even water-cooling would only allow 3.33GHz due to its finicky nature. Overall, it was stated that Intel's quad-core
offerings will not likely live up to the performance gains seen in the Core 2 Duo rollout, and while gamers should probably save their $1,000 for other necessary upgrades, those tired of seeing an immeasurably long rendering bar might want to give this bad boy a once over.
[Thanks, Ryan]
posted Nov 2nd 2006 8:41AM
"78 percent" boost in Pinnacle rendering speed"
Look, I love this future stuff and all as much as any Engadget reader, but I think we can all agree that this is really overkill for just a card game.
i dont think they mean the card games they mean the video production software
http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSite/us/Products/Consumer+Products/Home+Video/Studio+Family/Studio+version+10_5
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=317
Another review there.
I'm a spammer, check me out! justin.rumpf@gmail.com
And another review here from HotHardware: http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=897&cid=1
I suppose I'm excited about this. However, I don't think I can afford this for probably...a year? Hopefully the Core 2 prices will come down with the release of the quad-core. I'm still excited about those as well.
I wonder how much ram you'll need to fully utilize this proc. I'm also curious to how long will take before PC games actually support 4 cores?
Software, software, software. There still isn't nearly enough software of any kind on the market yet that support even dual core pocs fully yet, now there are quad core procs and of course you get an extremely marginal increase in overall performance bang for your buck.
I you'd probably get the same real world performance right now out of a core 2 duo @ 3.0Ghz as you would out of this new core 2 extreme @ 2.66Gz for alot less money.
Gamers will be able to take advantage of these as soon as they start writing multi-threaded games... So it will be a loooong time.
I want to build a machine around this chip. Anyone know what MB is a good choice?
@KC
Not entirely true. My high end rig is mainly for DVD creation from digital home video. As noted above a 76% increase in Pinnacle Studio is good enough for me. Righ now with my 3.2GHz P4, a 1 hour DVD take ~1-2 hours to render and burn. I would sure like to cut that in half!
I can't wait for the Mac version... Shake is going to eat HD renders alive!
Is that processor flipping us the bird?
ha, I see it. Very good.
Not to us, to AMD (unfortunately).
Well to be honest, nothing is optimised for 4 cores at the moment. Once the multi core code is released it will all be utilised, then maybe we will see the real improvements.
More reviews here: http://computershopper.com/roundups/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6700_quadcore_four_cores_to_the_floor
Real world use soon...
Where quad-core's are going to come in handy:
1) When software becomes optimized to use it
2) When multitasking
I foresee the future of the computer in the home as being based around one central computer. One core could be more-or-less dedicated to watching a High-def DVD, two cores could be for watching a game (remotely) and the fourth core can pick up the slack where needed and also supply an additional computer or three for basic tasks such as the internet and word processing.
Simple audio and video compression programs will be coded to use four cores. In theory, one way to do this would be to split the code to be compressed into multiple parts and join those parts back together.
The biggest "need" for raw CPU power will come about when people wish to make compressed copies of their High Definition movies (i.e. H.x264 on a single-layer DVD-5) but we're not quite there yet.
The big question I have is how is AMD going to answer back? Can they even compete with the technology they have now?
I laugh because the core 2 duo mac books came out little more then a week ago. is there any word when these chips are going mobile.
Damn! And i just put together my core 2 duo Conroe last night. Still hella fast though.
Seriously though, who needs 4 CPU Cores on a desktop? Dual cores I get and understand wholeheartedly. More then 2 cores is for the animation/3D artist/CAD person. Even way more then 2 cores is for servers, server farms, databases, and calculating Armageddon.
What these 4 core and more processors ARE for however is a great proof of concept. If 4 CPU cores can run on one package, so can 2 CPU cores, a GPU, and a PPU. Or 2 CPUs and 2 GPUs. All these multi-core desktop processors are doing is getting Intel and AMD some practice in placing more then one die on a package.
Dual and quad core processors are great for multitasking, no matter if any of your apps are multithreaded. I just built a dual Woodcrest 5060 Xeon (4 cores) and its multitasking performance is fantastic.