Intel Quadcore QX6800...

[TechLarry]

What about the OS ?

Isn't XP limited to two Cores, or Processors?

Where does Vista fit into this.

 

[Ockie]

What about the OS ?

Isn't XP limited to two Cores, or Processors?

Where does Vista fit into this.

Microsoft recognizes it per processor socket, so if you have four cores on a processor windows only sees it as one in terms of their agreements.

 

[TechLarry]

Ok, that solves that issue. For now...

I would never trust the MS Beast to never change that more to their advantage, however.

 

[theseeker]

Microsoft recognizes it per processor socket, so if you have four cores on a processor windows only sees it as one in terms of their agreements.

Vista recognizes it as two CPU's and XP 64 does as well.

 

[coldpower27]

Vista recognizes it as two CPU's and XP 64 does as well.

Windows XP Home is allowed 1 Socket Systems, while XP Pro is 2 Socket to my knowledge, but I am not 100% sure on that.

 

[divve]

T
There is a reason to buy this over the qx6700, and that is the fact that it's not much more and you have a later processor that runs faster without being overclocked.

That depends on your point of view. In my opinion the QX6800 is simply a QX6700 with the factory default multiplier set to 11x instead of 10x. They also boosted the default voltage a little in the QX6800. So, you're basically getting a QX6700 that's factory OC'ed or guaranteed if you will to run at a little higher stock speed. Being that any QX6700 can do that as well there's really no point in spending a premium over the older version.

 

[Ockie]

That depends on your point of view. In my opinion the QX6800 is simply a QX6700 with the factory default multiplier set to 11x instead of 10x. They also boosted the default voltage a little in the QX6800. So, you're basically getting a QX6700 that's factory OC'ed or guaranteed if you will to run at a little higher stock speed. Being that any QX6700 can do that as well there's really no point in spending a premium over the older version.

Same reasoning can be applied to the Q6600 and perhaps even the Q6400, so the point that you make is moot really. I'd rather endulge myself and enjoy the processor vs purchasing a older model now and facing a $500 drop in price in 2.5 months... at least with the QX6800 option you have something that will still be top notch 3-4 months + from now.

 

[coldpower27]

That depends on your point of view. In my opinion the QX6800 is simply a QX6700 with the factory default multiplier set to 11x instead of 10x. They also boosted the default voltage a little in the QX6800. So, you're basically getting a QX6700 that's factory OC'ed or guaranteed if you will to run at a little higher stock speed. Being that any QX6700 can do that as well there's really no point in spending a premium over the older version.

QX6800's are just better binned silicon guaranteed to run at 2.93GHZ, it's nice though now at least you got choice between 2 XE instead of just 1.

Oh yeah and XE from Intel never drops in price for the most part they just get discontinued.

 

[divve]

Same reasoning can be applied to the Q6600 and perhaps even the Q6400, so the point that you make is moot really. I'd rather endulge myself and enjoy the processor vs purchasing a older model now and facing a $500 drop in price in 2.5 months... at least with the QX6800 option you have something that will still be top notch 3-4 months + from now.

You'd be hard pressed to find any QX6700 that won't OC identically to a QX6800. The same reasoning can't be applied to a CPU with a locked multiplier due to dependencies of the FSB. When the 6700 drops in price it'll loose the "X" designation and have a locked multiplier as well.

 

[theseeker]

You'd be hard pressed to find any QX6700 that won't OC identically to a QX6800. The same reasoning can't be applied to a CPU with a locked multiplier due to dependencies of the FSB. When the 6700 drops in price it'll loose the "X" designation and have a locked multiplier as well.

Good point and my thought as well. I cannot wait until April 22nd!

 

[Ockie]

You'd be hard pressed to find any QX6700 that won't OC identically to a QX6800. The same reasoning can't be applied to a CPU with a locked multiplier due to dependencies of the FSB. When the 6700 drops in price it'll loose the "X" designation and have a locked multiplier as well.

Yes, but how many people do you know with a q6600 who didn't achieve a qx6800 speed without hardly any trouble?


Fact is that overclocking doesn't count. I prefer going right off the bat with a faster processor.

You make me think of the Civic VTEC type owner who rices his ride so he can match the performance and speed of a Corvette. I'd rather invest the little more and start off fast.

Overclocking is never guranteed. I am looking for the fastest, not something that can be the fastest, not something that can immitate the fastest, and not something that sounds the fastest... I am simply craving the fastest. Period. I came to this thread talking about the QX6800 and about obtaining one, not about which can do the same thing if I pushed it.


Let people buy what they want.

 

[RadXge]

Let people buy what they want.

What people needs is irrelevant. What really matters is what they want!

 

[MrMike]

What people needs is irrelevant. What really matters is what they want!

Well um, yeah. That's the way the world works and always has. If not luxury cars wouldn't even exist. A Honda Civic or Accord is more than enough for everyone.

Is there really a need for a 50" HDTV over a 37"? Is there a need for a TV at all? Perhaps even anything more than food and shelter? It's all perspective and opinion.

Come on dude comments like this are just asking for it. Modern society thrives on what people want. The entire hobby of technology as a whole would nearly be eliminated if everyone purchased nothing more than they "needed."

 

[divve]

Yes, but how many people do you know with a q6600 who didn't achieve a qx6800 speed without hardly any trouble?


Fact is that overclocking doesn't count. I prefer going right off the bat with a faster processor.

You make me think of the Civic VTEC type owner who rices his ride so he can match the performance and speed of a Corvette. I'd rather invest the little more and start off fast.

Overclocking is never guranteed. I am looking for the fastest, not something that can be the fastest, not something that can immitate the fastest, and not something that sounds the fastest... I am simply craving the fastest. Period. I came to this thread talking about the QX6800 and about obtaining one, not about which can do the same thing if I pushed it.


Let people buy what they want.

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing or something? Your examples have no bearing on the QX6700 versus the QX6800. Both aforementioned CPUs are identical whereas I'm pretty sure a Civic doesn't have a Corvette engine. Perhaps this article will help you understand: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2112082,00.asp

 

[RadXge]

Well um, yeah. That's the way the world works and always has. If not luxury cars wouldn't even exist. A Honda Civic or Accord is more than enough for everyone.

Is there really a need for a 50" HDTV over a 37"? Is there a need for a TV at all? Perhaps even anything more than food and shelter? It's all perspective and opinion.

The differences between an 50" TV versus a 37" and a luxury car versus a normal one are obvious for most peoples. AFIAK, you cannot overclocked a 37" TV to give the performance of a 50". I think also a Civik cannot be overclocked to run like a Ferrari...

Now, the difference between an overclocked Q6600 (let's say 2.55GHZ) and QX6700 it NOT that obvious. I am pretty sure that someone could run either of the processor and would never be able to tell the difference.
I do not have any problems with people who are willing to pay the big bucks to get the fastest CPU around. In fact, good for them!
I just find amusing that some peoples are ready to pay a significant additional amount of money to get a small increase in performance.

 

[theseeker]

There are no QX 6800's to be found and the 22nd does not indicate a price drop for the QX 6700. It appears that the QX 6800 will be like quad sli, available to system builders only.

 

[MrMike]

The differences between an 50" TV versus a 37" and luxury car and a normal are obvious for most peoples. AFIAK, you cannot overclocked a 37" TV to give the performance of a 50". I think also a Civik cannot be overclocked to run like a Ferrari...

Now, the difference between an overclocked Q6600 (let's say 2.55GHZ) and QX6700 it NOT that obvious. I am pretty sure that someone could run either of the processor and would never be able to tell the difference.
I do not have any problems with people who are willing to pay the big bucks to get the fastest CPU around. In fact, good for them!
I just find amusing that some peoples are ready to pay a significant additional amount of money to get a small increase in performance.

I agree with you. My reply was a general statement in that the reason corporations make money on products that are overpriced, illogical and/or unnecessary purchases is because that's simply how portions of society choose to spend their dollar.

 

[theseeker]

It also has to do with supply and demand theory.

 

[PGHammer]

Well rumour has it in December QX6700 is going to be down in the $300 mark..

So whoever goes out and buys "top of the line" is kind of rediculous. Due to the fact you can get something that will overclock just as well and, what are you going to be using the cpu for anyways.

A bit overkill if you ask me. expecially if you going to go out and buy (45nm 12mb cache)
Just my 2 cents

Actually, the scary price drop will be one quarter earlier, and for the Q6600. Try $265 (1,000 unit quantities). That rather low number is *less* than the dual-core E6600 today, which the Q-part can directly replace.

I Sense a Swamping Upcoming.

 

[SNYP40A1]

I don't understand it. What do you guys do with Q6800s that you can't do with C2D 6700's for less than half the price?

 

[PGHammer]

I guess these are delayed, no stores are showing it in stock, some even removed the item and others called it "discontinued"

Today's the 15th of April. Intel is *not* going to do an early launch (and if they did, it's not going to be early by a whole week). Besides, I am thinking the Midrange Steal of the Year is *still* buy an E6600 now, but replace it with a Q6600 at the end of the Q3 (and that's assuming you only mildly overclock). Remember, the Q6600 is basically two Conroes on a single die (and an entry-level Kentsfield, not Clovertown) but is priced like a *single* Conroe (in fact, comparing to current Conroe pricing, it's $35USD less in 1,000-unit lots). For the first time since Netburst was in flower, more cores does *not* equal a higher price. (The last time Intel engaged in such pricing silliness was with the Northwood-C; both the 2.4 and 2.6 GHz Northwood-C (which supported HT) undercut the B, which lacked HT support.)

It's also why, as exciting as the upcoming launch of the QX6800 wil be, that's not even *close* to when the real hammer is going to come crashing down. While QX6800 (desktop Clovertown) is good for a press release, Q6600 (the new entry-level Kentsfield) along with the increased-cache E6320/E6420, are going to spell "Finito" for the current C2D (Conroe) single-die design, in addition to being a real nightmare for the processor competition. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the new Q steal sales from the increased-cache E64x0 (the pricing is simply too close for it *not* to happen, especially since they will go in the same boards).

 

[coldpower27]

Today's the 15th of April. Intel is *not* going to do an early launch (and if they did, it's not going to be early by a whole week). Besides, I am thinking the Midrange Steal of the Year is *still* buy an E6600 now, but replace it with a Q6600 at the end of the Q3 (and that's assuming you only mildly overclock). Remember, the Q6600 is basically two Conroes on a single die (and an entry-level Kentsfield, not Clovertown) but is priced like a *single* Conroe (in fact, comparing to current Conroe pricing, it's $35USD less in 1,000-unit lots). For the first time since Netburst was in flower, more cores does *not* equal a higher price. (The last time Intel engaged in such pricing silliness was with the Northwood-C; both the 2.4 and 2.6 GHz Northwood-C (which supported HT) undercut the B, which lacked HT support.)

It's also why, as exciting as the upcoming launch of the QX6800 wil be, that's not even *close* to when the real hammer is going to come crashing down. While QX6800 (desktop Clovertown) is good for a press release, Q6600 (the new entry-level Kentsfield) along with the increased-cache E6320/E6420, are going to spell "Finito" for the current C2D (Conroe) single-die design, in addition to being a real nightmare for the processor competition. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the new Q steal sales from the increased-cache E64x0 (the pricing is simply too close for it *not* to happen, especially since they will go in the same boards).

Your comparing the price of a product now to the price of another product in the future, so the comparison isn't valid.

More cores stills remains a price premium with a mild reduction in clockspeed. Once you normalize things, yes the Q6600 will be $266 in Q3, but by then you can get the E6750 for $183, which would be the closest since the the E6600 will be discontinued by then effectively stuck at $224. So Quad Core commands a slight premium, but not alot compared to what you need to pay for it now. So like the Northwood B-C transition the 1.33GHZ FSB parts will undercut the 1.06GHZ FSB parts.

As well, since Intel average selling price is in the mid $100's Intel will continue to sell alot of Core 2 Duo E6xxx sequence processors.

Core 2 Duo's with full Conroe cores by then can be had for as low as $163, with the E6550, so not entirely no. Single Die Conroe cores will have their own niche.

What you speak of has happened before during the end of the Presler era, you had the Pentium 4 631 for $163USD and the Pentium D 925 for $133USD This was around Q4. The Dual was cheaper then the Single Core.

 

[Ockie]

I don't understand it. What do you guys do with Q6800s that you can't do with C2D 6700's for less than half the price?

Same thing you can do with Kelvin Klien boxes that I can do with my Sonoma boxers.


Why is it really your business as to what other people want to spend their money on? Good lord, I'm sure glad you guys don't come to visit me.


Sorry for one enjoying thier hobby and spending money that they earn


And they are not less than half the price, they are $199 cheaper... people spend $500 on water cooling systems but thats okay. Spend $500 on an additional video card but thats okay.... I want to spend $199 more on a processor and now I have sinned.

Please guys, keep the arguing, bickering, envy, and flat out jealousy out of this thread. I'm sure if the OP wanted to create some flame wars or arguments he would have posted this in the AMID section or titled it more for arguments.

 

[Ockie]

Today's the 15th of April. Intel is *not* going to do an early launch (and if they did, it's not going to be early by a whole week). Besides, I am thinking the Midrange Steal of the Year is *still* buy an E6600 now, but replace it with a Q6600 at the end of the Q3 (and that's assuming you only mildly overclock). Remember, the Q6600 is basically two Conroes on a single die (and an entry-level Kentsfield, not Clovertown) but is priced like a *single* Conroe (in fact, comparing to current Conroe pricing, it's $35USD less in 1,000-unit lots). For the first time since Netburst was in flower, more cores does *not* equal a higher price. (The last time Intel engaged in such pricing silliness was with the Northwood-C; both the 2.4 and 2.6 GHz Northwood-C (which supported HT) undercut the B, which lacked HT support.)

It's also why, as exciting as the upcoming launch of the QX6800 wil be, that's not even *close* to when the real hammer is going to come crashing down. While QX6800 (desktop Clovertown) is good for a press release, Q6600 (the new entry-level Kentsfield) along with the increased-cache E6320/E6420, are going to spell "Finito" for the current C2D (Conroe) single-die design, in addition to being a real nightmare for the processor competition. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me to see the new Q steal sales from the increased-cache E64x0 (the pricing is simply too close for it *not* to happen, especially since they will go in the same boards).

Did you even read the article, they anounced its public release last monday.....

 

[SNYP40A1]

Same thing you can do with Kelvin Klien boxes that I can do with my Sonoma boxers.

Why is it really your business as to what other people want to spend their money on? Good lord, I'm sure glad you guys don't come to visit me.


Sorry for one enjoying thier hobby and spending money that they earn


And they are not less than half the price, they are $199 cheaper... people spend $500 on water cooling systems but thats okay. Spend $500 on an additional video card but thats okay.... I want to spend $199 more on a processor and now I have sinned.

Please guys, keep the arguing, bickering, envy, and flat out jealousy out of this thread. I'm sure if the OP wanted to create some flame wars or arguments he would have posted this in the AMID section or titled it more for arguments.

Go right ahead buddy. Push Intel's stock price up to $22-$23 so I can sell .