Simple question guys considering the still SKY HIGH prices on the quad extremes (if you can find one) are they any better than the newer chips i7/5. If the new chips are better why have they kept their price. If the new chips are worst why has Intel taken a backward step. Thoughts please. Merserk.
Agreed. Plus the i7 will win at the memory department with the higher speed memory (DDR3) and triple channel.
New chips are better from a normal point of view. Chips with unlocked multipliers, made from the best of the best silicon, and a massive range of established motherboards/nitrogen pots, etc, are better for extreme overclockers.
But thats not the point is it, the elite end of the product range isn't really worth looking at, intel price them way out of reach so people with common sense understand its pointless buying one. And it isn't always the best silcone, back when the QX6850 was released it wasn't uncommon to see Q6600 clock just as far, out of the box all Q6600 would do 3GHz without a voltage increase and on the stock intel cooler.
http://www.custompc.co.uk/reviews/601105/intel-core-2-extreme-qx6850.html Gets up to 3.76 GHz on air alone, as opposed to the Q6600, which managed 3.6GHz in its G0 stepping, and 3.33GHz in its B3 stepping. So, (YMMV warning aside), it goes further, using the same kit. Isn't that what extreme overclockers are looking for? FYI, CPC mention both in the same breath here, in the last paragraph: http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601290/36ghz-core-2-quad-for-176/page2.html So, I maintain that it IS the point. Normal use, go for what works best. For those few who have nitrogen on tap, only the best will do. And Intel handily select that best for you. They write "Extreme" on the box.
