Intel just spat out their first Core 2 Quad branded processors
right on schedule and just hours before
Macworld... hmm. As the name implies, Intel packs in 4 cores per processor. Three new quad-core processors were released today, one for desktops and two for entry-level servers. The 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 for desktops replaces the E6700 Core 2 Duo at the top-end of their consumer-bound procs and will demand $851 when purchased in bulk. Servers get their bump with the 2.13GHz and 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad Xeon 3200 series based on the "Kentsfield" core. The X3220 (2.4GHz) is priced at $851while the X3210 (2.13GHz) hits in quantity for $690.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
tau zero @ Jan 9th 2007 12:45AM
Q6600 REPLACES E6600?
only for the low price of $851?
what if i want to get a $350 processor? am i stuck with a E6400?
Blackster @ Jan 9th 2007 12:54AM
'snip': it replaces the Core 2 Duo E6700 (2.66 GHz) on the top of the performance an price charts 'snap'
;)
StevO @ Jan 9th 2007 12:48AM
No, it doesn't actually "replace" anything - it is added to the lineup
They mean that this now steals the spotlight from the E6700 as the top consumer level processor (excludes Exreme, Xeons)
TheCash @ Jan 9th 2007 1:28AM
Sounds like an awesome time to pick up a new core 2 duo on the cheap. I love when chip companies introduce a new top end chip that bumps the prices down for everything that came before it. Now I just need to decide on an Nvidia or Intel chipset mobo. Decisions decisions...
nothing now @ Jan 9th 2007 1:55AM
octo-mac pro and quad imac (maybe core 2 duo mac mini?) here we come wonder if i'll see the difference there any osx/linux/unix progams to split tasks in the background?
William @ Jan 9th 2007 2:02AM
We're talking about the "native" quad right? Four cores on one dye?
Don Wilson @ Jan 9th 2007 2:19AM
Indeed, right in time. =)
Arun Krishnan @ Jan 9th 2007 2:41AM
No. Intel still doesn't have native quad core. This is just two C2Ds pasted together on a single chip (to put it bluntly).
PC IS ALWAYS UP TO DATE(NEXTGENGPUDIRECTX10) @ Jan 9th 2007 4:53AM
No it isn't
Russell @ Jan 9th 2007 3:14AM
With a sucky bus interface at that. Opteron is still the win for multi-multi-core servers.
I've got a 32 core Opteron at work that will destroy any intel system (I think intel stops at 8 or 16 cores now and the performance increase really drops off after 8 cores...)
dropadrop @ Jan 9th 2007 3:46AM
Opterons still rule for 4 & 8 socket servers. I have some really nice 4-socket opteron servers that I can't match with any Intel setups. For the price I could get 2 dual 8 core (HP DL380 with two quadcores) for alot cheaper then I'd pay for one 8 core (HP DL580 with four dualcores). It just boils down to how much memory I need.
Ben Roethig @ Jan 9th 2007 8:33AM
Unless a new product line is announced, I don't see Apple using them. Apple does not have a traditional desktop in its lineup that can accept these CPUs.
icepop4who @ Jan 9th 2007 9:01AM
this processor's got great potential, and it's already shown great results in multitasking benchmarks. the only problem is that many games still do not support multi-cpu optimization, but that will change slowly but surely.
I'm gonna wait till the quads get in the $300 to $400 range.
Eugene Chan @ Jan 10th 2007 3:01PM
These are built for LGA775 sockets...not currently used in any Apple product.
jack @ Jan 10th 2007 6:50PM
is there any goodies for laptops ?
izl @ Apr 4th 2007 9:59PM
Whats the point of putting this chip out when 1 in 10.000 people only can afford it, im certainly not gonna upgrade to a slightly better pc with an old pentium 4, and whats the point of getting a new low end system with a new low end chip, intel chose
to make their high performance processors unaffordable their's really no point in getting a new low end pc or gpu when u already have one. the new quad core should be no more than 350$ tops tax included. no pc clock chip is physicaly worth more than that regardless of its speed boost. Z.