Hardware Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650

Cheers XD

 

why is the amd x2 6400 missing from page 9?

 

Because Steam in all its infinite glory updated the engine, which broke our all our timedemos between the 6000 and 6400 numbers

Hows about these too:









110mm2 die size on a 300mm wafer means you get about 800-odd dies (considering it's circular), at $1000 a pop makes that worth...

 

Ooo, nice pics../

I want to wait now (small, screaming, smelly thing may get in the way of PC build project in a couple of weeks) until January/February before making my final decision on a new build. I am currently looking at the Q6600, but could be swayed if the 45nm processors (particularly the quad core parts) are just as cheap and work just as well.

Of course, the wild card is AMD. If they bring out a killer chip at a good price point, I may just remain an AMD fanboy

Any thoughts on what's coming from AMD?

Andy

 

No idea mate, samples are tighter than a squirrels backside I've been told. We're naturally pressing AMD for a chip though I have a 790FX AM2+ board in already.

EDIT: Added Windows Media Encoder x64 Ed9 Results

 

You guys seem pretty swamped with lovely tasty new hardware at the mo...

 

clock for clock k10 quad cores are about 5% behind intels 45nm quads in crysis according to the number floating around the web... well, we dont know prices yet... so who has the better price / performance ratio remains to be seen

 

So, do you gents have a more specific launch date than "Q1/08", or perhaps one of the $316 beasts in house? (model # to follow)

 

Nope. Tim just spoke to Intel on the phone and launch dates get decided literally a couple of weeks or days before actual launch. It's the same with everyone, that's why you get ambiguous "Q" numbers.

 

Quote: "I guess you could think of the QX9650 as the Bugatti Veyron of the CPU world - it annihilates everything in its path."

What about the IBM POWER6? Or the Sun UltraSPARC T2? I don't think that I'd go so far to say that it annilhilates EVERYTHING in its path.

Amazing that even with the AMD chips using a process that's twice as big, it only represents about a 25% reduction in power consumption (on the new Intel chips). I would have expected it to be more. It'd be interesting (just as a point of reference) to see how the power consumption numbers stack up against an Opteron 2350.

P.S. Your charts are mislabeled (starting pg. 15) where the QX9650 is listed as 2X 3.0 GHz. FYI.

Definitely a very fast processor, I'll grant you that.

 

those are some impressive speeds on air.

 

Charts - fixed.

Lets not be pedantic about what processors - it's a desktop CPU and currently the fastest on the market. It's not Xeon, although it can be "workstation". There are technicalities to every argument If we really wanted to nit pick we could look at GPGPU throughput and core FLOPS processing, software optimisations or not even x86 stuff.

 

Surely it is impressive regarding the power consumption, seeing as the intel chip is a quad, and the 6400 et al are dual cores? Unless I'm missing something here...?

 

Not to mention the cache increase.

Remember a 90 SOI vCore is still only 1.45ish volts, whereas a 45nm chip is 1.1/2ish. You don't get a halving of power reduction.

 

Rich, is this in your offices or a libary piccey?

 

Man this article makes me glad I have a system upgrade occuring in the spring, but seriously if you need to make room for AMD hardware let me know

 

I was pleased with the review Bindibadgi . . . it was the performance increase of the latest 45nm processor that left me a little dissapointed. I appreciate the video and image editing tests you did, and appreciate that with so many different possible tests no one review can cover all variables . . . but what I meant to say in general was that a photoshop shop benchmark relevent to my use was the test I am most looking forward to seeing (from whatever source that may be).

Thanks for the article.

 

no probs

It is only a refresh though hopefully when the mid-range retail versions arrive they'll overclock by a load so there will be extra difference

 

Was it Vista Ultimate 32 or 64 you used in these tests?

 

64-bit Vista

(I see why you asked now, the table had an error in it - should be fixed now!)