• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Intel QX6700 Quad Core

D_o_S

Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
954 (0.21/day)
Likes
35
Processor AMD Opteron 144
Motherboard DFI Lanparty nF4 SLI-DR Expert
Cooling Watercooled - Alphacool Nexxxos XP, BIX2, Eheim HPPS
Memory 2x 512MB OCZ PC 3200EL Platinum Rev.2 (TCCD)
Video Card(s) 2x Gainward GeForce 6800 Ultra (430/1200)
Storage 4x WD Raptor 740GD in RAID 0
Display(s) Eizo FlexScan L768
Case CM Stacker
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Power Supply Silverstone Zeus ST65ZF
#1
When Intel Core Duo hit the stores, people went crazy. Many wanted to experience the amazing performance for themselves. Now, Intel brings us the QX6700 - a quad-core CPU. Is another revolution about to take place? Or are we going to find just a small increase compared to dual core? What about single threaded applications? Multi-core scaling?

Show full review
 
Last edited:

DanTheBanjoman

Señor Moderator
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
10,488 (2.12/day)
Likes
1,331
#2
Quite a price, I take it that someone who buys it doesn't use a 6800 with 1GB of PC6400 though.

Also Clovertown is commercially available already, when spending 1400 on a CPU paying 200 extra on a motherboard isn't exactly a problem, in that respect I wouldn't say they're a different market. The only plus I see for Kentsfield over the cheaper Clovertown (2,66/1333GHz = $1172) is official support for SLI/Crossfire and perhaps memory performance.
 
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
2,289 (0.53/day)
Likes
410
System Name MONEY PIT
Processor i7-3770K @ 4800 1.20v batch #3231B415 Delided
Motherboard ASrock Z77 OC Formula w onboard waterblocks
Cooling Apogee HD, MCP655,rad MCR320-XP,Micro Rev2 res
Memory G,skill Trident X F3-2400C10D-16GTX
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 980 Ti Classified with EK nickel/acetal waterblock installed
Storage 2x120gig Wildfire raid0 2x120gig VERTEX3 raid0
Display(s) 3/ Samsung2343bwx + 65in LG 4K
Case NZXT Phantom White w/red
Audio Device(s) ReCon3d fatal1ty pro, Logitech z906 THX
Power Supply corsair AX860i
Mouse Rat7
Software 64bit ++++ win 10
#3
:toast: Very nice read liked the test bed not being Top of the line give the 'local joe' the heads up.... again:toast: :respect:
 

WarEagleAU

Bird of Prey
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
10,809 (2.59/day)
Likes
529
Location
Gurley, AL
System Name Boddha Getta Boddha Getta Bah!
Processor AMD FX 6100 @ 4.432Ghz @1.382
Motherboard ASUS M5A99X EVO AMD 990X AMD SB950
Cooling Custom Water. EK 240MM Kit, Supreme HSF - Runs 35C
Memory 2 x 4GB Corsair Vengeance White LP @ 1.35V
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon HD 6870 980/1100
Storage WD Caviar Black 1.0TB, WD Caviar Green 1.0TB, WD 160GB
Display(s) Asus VH222/S 22: (21.5" Viewable) 1920x1080p HDMI LCD Monitor
Case NZXT White Switch 810
Audio Device(s) Onboard Realtek 5.1
Power Supply NZXT Hale 90 Gold Cert 750W Modular PSU
Software Windows 8.1 Profession 64 Bit
#4
Awesome review D_o_S. Id love to have reviewed one of these puppies. Not too bad from Intel, taking the second highest cpu and putting two on one die. Nice. Im sure AMD has something a lil better up their sleeves. (AT L|EAST I HOPE SO)_
 

xman2007

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
633 (0.15/day)
Likes
4
Processor E4300@ 3.0ghz
Motherboard Asus P5B
Cooling Arctic freezer
Memory 2gb supertalent ddrII 1000 5.5.5.15
Video Card(s) Inno 3d 8800gts 320mb
Storage Seagate 320gb
Display(s) 19" widescreen tft 5ms
Case Antec 900
Audio Device(s) X-fi Xtreme Audio
Power Supply Hiper 430w 30a dual rails
Software Vista Ultimate
#5
Quite a price, I take it that someone who buys it doesn't use a 6800 with 1GB of PC6400 though.
exactly my thoughts though this makes me happy as i possibly wont be doing my next build until next year so hopefully prices of processors will have gone down quite a bit and ill have a nice 4x4 or intel e6700 / maybe even a qx6*** variant

good review btw, makes me think looking at the difference with 3dmark 2001 compared to later builds it seems to be more cpu reliant than any other as there was a 5000 point increase with the overclocked quad. i hope amd do have somthing up there sleaves to keep up/ whoop intel once again as they have served me well over the last few years
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#6
Nice review D_o_S...but why did you test games at such a low resolution... I can understand that you want to remove the possibility of GPU bottleneck... but in practice, I think it is better to use a resolution that people would actually be using in practice, ie. their 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 TFT.

I'd be grateful for an update to the benchmarks if you still have the system there
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#7
IMO cache should be refered to as 4 x 2MB, since NO single core (or thread) has access to more than 2MB.

While the intel solution is clever at scaling, it is incredibly inefficient. If you have an application, e.g. Photoshop, running 4 threads or a filter, then each of the 2MB cache has, essentially, the same data.

Any other cache design would make the cache and memory controller very complex and may add additional latency... and I understand why Intel chose the existing solution... but we should definitely not refer to 8MB cache, but 4 x 2MB.
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,052 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,939
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#8
IMO cache should be refered to as 4 x 2MB, since NO single core (or thread) has access to more than 2MB.
if i remember correctly at idf an engineer told me that the cache sharing on c2d is more complex than just halving it and giving a portion to each core
 
Last edited:

xman2007

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
633 (0.15/day)
Likes
4
Processor E4300@ 3.0ghz
Motherboard Asus P5B
Cooling Arctic freezer
Memory 2gb supertalent ddrII 1000 5.5.5.15
Video Card(s) Inno 3d 8800gts 320mb
Storage Seagate 320gb
Display(s) 19" widescreen tft 5ms
Case Antec 900
Audio Device(s) X-fi Xtreme Audio
Power Supply Hiper 430w 30a dual rails
Software Vista Ultimate
#9
IMO cache should be refered to as 4 x 2MB, since NO single core (or thread) has access to more than 2MB.

While the intel solution is clever at scaling, it is incredibly inefficient. If you have an application, e.g. Photoshop, running 4 threads or a filter, then each of the 2MB cache has, essentially, the same data.

Any other cache design would make the cache and memory controller very complex and may add additional latency... and I understand why Intel chose the existing solution... but we should definitely not refer to 8MB cache, but 4 x 2MB.
im not saying your wrong about this but where did you get the information that "NO single core (or thread) has access to more than 2MB cache" ? i just havent seen the same data myself

and what would be the point in putting redundant ram on a chip ? im sure enough techies would know that 2mb is the limit of cache on a chip and surely that would be made common knowledge
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,052 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,939
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#10


there is your data. rightmark memory analyzer is singlethreaded, yet it can access the whole 4 mb of the cache
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,052 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,939
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#11


fx-60, 1 MB per core, 2 MB total
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,374 (1.55/day)
Likes
983
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
#12
Thanks W1zzard. I stand corrected. So its 2 x 4MB then?
 

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
17,052 (3.44/day)
Likes
17,939
Processor Core i7-4790K
Memory 16 GB
Video Card(s) GTX 1080
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 7
#13
yep
 

D_o_S

Moderator
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
954 (0.21/day)
Likes
35
Processor AMD Opteron 144
Motherboard DFI Lanparty nF4 SLI-DR Expert
Cooling Watercooled - Alphacool Nexxxos XP, BIX2, Eheim HPPS
Memory 2x 512MB OCZ PC 3200EL Platinum Rev.2 (TCCD)
Video Card(s) 2x Gainward GeForce 6800 Ultra (430/1200)
Storage 4x WD Raptor 740GD in RAID 0
Display(s) Eizo FlexScan L768
Case CM Stacker
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Power Supply Silverstone Zeus ST65ZF
#14
Nice review D_o_S...but why did you test games at such a low resolution... I can understand that you want to remove the possibility of GPU bottleneck... but in practice, I think it is better to use a resolution that people would actually be using in practice, ie. their 1280x1024 or 1600x1200 TFT.

I'd be grateful for an update to the benchmarks if you still have the system there
Hi,

I'm glad that everyone likes the review so far.

I tried benchmarking games at the resolutions you suggested - 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 - the problem is, as you mentioned, the GPU. It really is a bottleneck, which results in very small differences between CPUs (for example, at 1600x1200, the difference between the E6600 and E6700 is less than 1 FPS), therefore I have chosen to not include these results.
 

Shredder

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
11 (0.00/day)
Likes
0
Location
Alberta
Processor Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Kentsfield
Motherboard Asus P5W-DH Deluxe
Cooling Zalman CNPS9500 AT
Memory 4gig of OCZ 2P800R22GK
Video Card(s) Ati 1900 Crossfire and Ati 1900xtx
Storage 300gig Seagates in Raid 0
Display(s) ViewSonic
Case Thermaltake Kandolf
Power Supply Epsilon 700watt
Software XP Pro
#15
Nice review DOS, I am running the Kentsfield and still in the cooling solution level right now. I added crossfire to the mix , with all the fans rocking and rolling I seem to hover around 50 C, at idle..5 percent cpu and less.
ATI tool to keep the vids at 50 percent fan load and CPU Fan on Performance mode (Zalman)
I looked around alot of places for an operating temperature for this chip, not really excited about OCing it without a thermal cap. Any ideas on the operating temperature or the cap for this one ?