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.
AMD’s RX 460 landed today, and there have been announcements from a number of partner companies, including Asus, Gigabyte, Sapphire, PowerColor and XFX. Curiously, MSI doesn’t seem interested in telling the world that it released one too.
Italian overclocker Pixy, one of the ten best participants HWBot Overclockers League, managed to win the “gold” in a benchmark Cinebench R11.5 and Intel XTU in the category of six-core processors. Results shown ( 18,69 and 1,851 points, respectively) at the same time are the best for all desktop CPU, including the eight-core.
While far from the popularity of its heyday, the point and click genre is still very much alive for those who know where to look. Or perhaps, more accurately, for those with PCs. The welcome return of Sam & Max with their bite-size episodic adventures might have something to do with granting the ailing genre a new lease on life, although at the same time, there are those out there looking to do something a little different than the usual blend of witty one-liners and obscure inventory puzzles.
Enter Overclocked, a game you probably haven't heard of from a developer about whom you likely know equally as little. The best way to describe it is probably as a point and click version of the excellent Fahrenheit, which in itself owed more than a little to the classic adventure genre. From the sombre mood to the focus on characters and interaction, this is a far cry from the Monkey Islands and Broken Swords of this world and the puzzles reflect this...
A CPU more powerful than the XBOX 360`s CPU!
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
...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.
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).