The 3.0GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6850: Intel's fastest consumer CPU benchmarked

Get ready for a taste of Xeon power without the premium price kids, Intel just released their 3.0GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6850 quad core processor for standard Intel Socket T (LGA775) boards. Better yet, the performance scores are already in after detailed reviews posted by Hot Hardware and PC Perspective. The latter calls the QX6850's performance "absolutely amazing" for a consumer level processor thanks to the Kentsfield XE class (65-nm) processor's 8MB (2x 4MB) L2 Cache and 1,333MHz front side bus. In fact, you can expect performance gains on the order of 2 to 13-percent (depending upon application tested) when compared to Intel's former consumer speed champ, the 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme QX6800 with 1066MHz FSB. Look for the QX6850 to pop on-line for $999 over the next few weeks where it's expected to hold the performance title until the year is out.

Read -- Hot Hardware
Read -- PC Perspective

[Alistair loveless @ Jul 16th 2007 5:12AM]

This news is so old!

just kidding. Just wanted to dust off an old comment i never see anymore.

I can't quite place why.. but i don't like intel.. its just like a gut feeling i have. Same about motorola... the just seem evil is all.

[Ashil @ Jul 20th 2007 10:26AM]

Whats so bad about Intel? I have a bad gut feeling about AMD. They just made me depressed ever since I was like 6.

And please don't think that I'm stupid (i'm only young), but does this mean that there are four 3.0 gig processors built in one processor? Cos that would be great.

[tehpwnmstr @ Aug 20th 2007 10:53AM]

just wait for barcelona. the native quad core ought to allow for some performance gain over the comparably clocked 4 core chips based on core duo from intel.

[Gideon @ Nov 23rd 2007 8:17AM]

AMD if you like replicas thats ok but if you run a DP35DPM board with a QX6850 CPU and 4gig DDR2 800 you will know AMD is just a replica that is too slow to mention

[Lack @ Jul 16th 2007 5:21AM]

Former speed champ was QX6800 - 2.93 GHz.

[Xander @ Jul 16th 2007 5:37AM]

AMD better get their shit together. the only thing that makes intel spit out good chips is good competition.

[Chris Macdonald @ Jul 16th 2007 6:04AM]

Yeah what the hell is AMD up to nowadays.... i guess we'll find out soon.. i hope

[Taylor @ Jul 16th 2007 6:09AM]

Yeah, AMD and ATI have taken a bit of a down-turn since the merger. I use Intel and nVidia products... but I'd be open to using AMD/ATI stuff if they put out some decent shit!

[David @ Jul 16th 2007 1:00PM]

But if you use 64 bit OS and 64 bit programs (on the AMD) won't that be faster that using 32 bit OS and 32 bit programs?

And can someone fill me up on this? Is a 1.6 GHz Dual core Turion faster than a 1.6 Ghz 32 bit Processor?
And what's the equivalent speed of a 1.6 Ghz 64 bit to a 32 bit?

[Taylor @ Jul 16th 2007 7:12PM]

I believe the Core 2 processors can swing both ways - do 32-bit work as well as 64-bit should the need arise.

[ssuk @ Jul 16th 2007 6:36AM]

Hot damn, that sounds pretty damn nice. My 2.8Ghz Intel Viiv (dual core) is magical, can only imagine what this quad core stuff must be like...

[Mike @ Jul 16th 2007 8:01AM]

man just in time to replace my Pentium D @ 3ghz

[Ray-- @ Jul 16th 2007 9:19AM]

time for devs to start getting their multi-thread on ASAP...

[jamesstairmand @ Jul 16th 2007 10:43AM]

Poor old AMD/ATi, I've always used AMD and ATi boards but my Intel and NVidia setup eats them. Not only that but my Core 2 Duo runs at a 30% OC still with air cooling too!

[Ben @ Jul 16th 2007 11:15AM]

I think AMD are getting ready to release their new "Phenom" range of chips that are supposed to replace the Athlon range. (Or something like that)

[John Serrao @ Jul 16th 2007 11:30AM]

AMD is dropping the ball for sure...but I think they still own the power crown because their chips can rest in lower power states than Intel. It will be interesting to see what Barcelona (a true quad core design) can pull off versus a chip like this. I think Intel will retain the overall speed crown while AMD will continue to own the performance/watt. If AMD could just translate this power savings over to a mobile platform, I think they would really make some inroads on intel.

[dave @ Jul 16th 2007 11:36AM]

oh interesting, not that ill ever pay that much for a CPU anymore, but as someone said, its good news for lowering the price of other chips.

I dont think there has ever been a better time for budget CPU's, dual core 1.8 for not very much.

I wonder how fast this can do HQ Insane using megui and x264, why dont then ever show that :P

and yep, more threaded apps and true 64 bit version would be nice!

[OddManOut @ Jul 16th 2007 12:59PM]

"it's expected to hold the performance title until the year is out."

As in Intel isn't planning to release anything that surpasses THIS chips performance until '08 or they don't expect ANYONE to period. Keep in mind, as previous commentors mentioned AMDs Phenoms should be dropping in Q3. Yeah, the glory days of the Athlon absolutely mopping the floor with pentiums III/IV are gone, but I wouldn't count AMD out. When Intel realized they had been complacent and that AMD was taking advantage of it, they took a gamble. They basically wrote off almost an entire generation and began working on the next...Core. It paid off and they got themselves a star performer that can claim to be top dog.

But how many people actually buy top rung CPUs ? Not many, and AMD has pretty much always given more bang for buck.

It will be interesting to see how the Phenoms perform in and of themselves AND how they stack up against Intels ponys. Both in dollars and ticks...

[izl @ Jul 16th 2007 2:15PM]

great chip but i dont see the point of the
persuit of higher cpu bandwidth when people are
using sata drives that choke at a slow ass 40MB/s . When are people gonna get it that a pc is only as fast as the hard drive's data transfer TO the cpu.

[oldskool @ Jul 21st 2007 4:09PM]

FYI data gets loaded into RAM. If you have enough RAM, your disk is not used. The performance of your machine depends on memory speed, bus speed, and cpu speed.

This chip is very important because it makes the q6600 drop to 300 and it will only get lower every time a new chip is released.

[moe @ Jul 21st 2007 9:40PM]

its when it gets loaded into the ram that it gets slow and thats where the 40MB/s bottleck is, you have to access the hard-drive. Its where the data is! thats why even if you have a geforce 8800 GTX and this cpu, you will still get stutters at load ups and lower frame rates if you max out the detals, first of all because a game always pages the drive for textures on the fly, even if you have 4GBs of ram, your drive will always get pages no matter what. sata drives are not for high perforance gaming rigs, Games and uncompressed video need to be run from scsi-ultra320 set ups or a hyperdrive4. the main goal of videocard parallel processing is to subsample frames and mask the slowness of the sata drive since game workloads are between 50MB/s and 142MB/S (Such as oblivion). Sata is only good for mass storage and backup not for games. And the only drive as fast this cpu in bandwidth in existence is the Ramsan 400. but the ramsan is aimed at corporations so the price is insane, and gamers cant affors this one.

[ELBOA @ Jul 16th 2007 2:22PM]

great chip but i dont see the point of the
persuit of higher cpu bandwidth when people are
using sata drives that choke at slow ass 40MB/s .
When are people gonna get it that a pc is only as
fast as the hard drive's data transfer TO the cpu.

[nVidiot @ Jul 16th 2007 3:05PM]

Cool.. but my Q6600 overclocks to 3.0ghz fairly easilly. Does this chip have any higher overclockability than chips half it's price?

I've seen people with Q6600's go beyond 3.0ghz, and not all of them have zany cooling setups.. just air cooling... up to 3.6ghz. I'm just not that bold.

[purezerg @ Jul 16th 2007 8:39PM]

those can managed to OC to 3.6 on Q6600 are not using 975x chipset. they are using either 965 or nvidia or the new 35 chipset.

I managed to OC to 3.14 on 975x and 3.6 on 965. cooled by samurai ninja.

[Neptune5 @ Jul 16th 2007 3:27PM]

Can i put this in my iMac ?

[Lee Howley @ Jul 16th 2007 4:40PM]

What about penryn, is that supposed to be coming out this fall? This article makes it sound as if that isn't going to happen.

[E71 @ Jul 16th 2007 5:36PM]

When will software developers get off their butts and actually start coding with multi-threading in mind. It's unbelievable how much money goes into this Dual/Quad-so-and-so crap.

[MKerr @ Jul 16th 2007 11:55PM]

OH WOW
a new one just came out...... but dousnt the Mac Pro has 2x dual quad core 3ghz

[Leonard Nimrod @ Jul 18th 2007 12:06AM]

The performance gains aren't even worth mentioning. What is worth mentioning is the price point. It's less expensive than the previous oh-so-slightly slower option.

AnandTech has a great a technical write up on it:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3038

[Peter @ Jul 16th 2007 6:54AM]

The other great thing about that price point is that it should help drive down the price of all their other chips. :)

[Robert @ Aug 17th 2007 5:16AM]

How about the Sony's cell chip technology I attended a talk at Siggraph and by far the cell chip is the future. Intel and AMD better Pray to the chip god.

[tehpwnmstr @ Aug 20th 2007 11:00AM]

yes but it is xeon based and uses a different board socket.