Top
70°

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Quad-Core Performance Preview

After much fanfare, Intel's first quad-core CPU has finally arrived! The Core 2 Extreme QX6700 packs four processing cores running at 2.66GHz and 8MB L2 cache all in one package. But how well does it perform, and how far have we overclocked it so far? In this article we explore the performance of this CPU, as well as Dell's first quad-core XPS system, the Dell XPS 710.

Read Full Story >>
firingsquad.com
The story is too old to be commented.
SPAWN3735d ago

A CPU more powerful than the XBOX 360`s CPU!

lilgringo3735d ago

WOW!!!!!
Who cares? There were CPU's faster than the 360's when it launched, but it all comes down to how much money the majority are willing to spend on a gaming machine

dantesparda3735d ago

Dont you know that these dumb console fanboys dont know better? And that they think that their beloved systems are god?

The_Firestarter3735d ago (Edited 3735d ago )

...have you seen the benchmarks!? On some of the benchmarks, the framerates of some games like COD2 and FEAR along with apps like DVDShrink 3.2/Adobe Encore DVD 2.+ don't get a whole lot of a boost compared to the C2E X6800! I know that the cpu is faster and takes good care of multi-tasking, but it doesn't seem that much of a difference even with 2 more cores. I think it's just sad how the QX6700 sucks more juice for about 200 Mhz less than the X6800. I know that the games aren't fully dependent of the CPU since the majority of the load is taken off from the GPU. As of now, it seems like the QX6700 is a bit too excessive for home use. Maybe for businesses, yeah this would be perfect for multi-tasking on multiple monitors, but it's just not for everybody.

lilgringo3735d ago

It's great for running several CPU draining applications at once, like rendering, encoding and such, you're even able to play games at the same time. But like you said, it's more for businesses and not really suited for regular gamers

DEIx15x83735d ago

Four cores doesn't mean faster. The processor is 4 cores at 2.66 GHz (not accurate 10.64). The tri-ppc is 3 cores running at 3.2 GHz (not accurate 9.6). The 2.66 Ghz is on Intel's scale which is known to be over generous when compared to the AMD/PPC scale which always gives a lower GHz but actually performs much higher than the same on an Intel. It was also proven when the dual cores started to come out that a dual core processor with a lower clock speed per core but a higher total speed is actually less powerful than a solo that has a higher clock speed in most situations. The third factor to enter into the equation is the architecture which the IBM (PPC and Cell as well as the very similar AMD design) processors are known to have a better chip design. When you enter those three factors together the two processor types come out equal to slightly better for the tri-ppc (different chip designs must be tested in benchmarks for a truly accurate comparison but numbers can give an estimate) and cell (cell is basically impossible to compare in any form but benchmarks).