Q6400?

[coder_t2]

Hey guys, so I just updated my BIOS for my mobo and looked at the new CPUs supported and I saw a Q6400 listed.

Core 2 Quad Q6400 (4 cores,2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3)

I haven't heard anything about this, and was wondering if anyone else has, what a price point would be for it. Given that the Q6600 is dropping to $266 pretty soon if it hasn't already, I am guessing this would be around $213 or something.

 

[InorganicMatter]

Hopefully...cheaper than I can sell this pathetically clocking E6600 for.

 

[Manny Calavera]

I thought this was not to be launched,and that Intel had planned to position the Q6600 @ 266 USD as its 'replacement'

 

[stoney_titan]

I think it would awesome to have a mass consumer quad core like the Q6400. I bet it would overclock like a monster too. I would be all over it.

 

[YoNeX]

Intel Xeon X3210 (Quad Core 2.1Ghz 8MB L2 Cache) is probably what you want priced around $224 [Source]

 

[HAF72]

Intel Xeon X3210 (Quad Core 2.1Ghz 8MB L2 Cache) is probably what you want priced around $224 [Source]

serious? thanks for saving me the $42 the prices for computer parts are just dropping so fast.. probably next year the quad core will probably be $100

 

[Manny Calavera]

Anyone have oc data on the x3210 ?

 

[DrFreeze]

Intel Xeon X3210 (Quad Core 2.1Ghz 8MB L2 Cache) is probably what you want priced around $224 [Source]

looks yummy, if i can find one end of the year for that price, ill deffinitly go Xeon for my next CPU (or else itll be a Q6600)

 

[jws2346]

Hey guys, so I just updated my BIOS for my mobo and looked at the new CPUs supported and I saw a Q6400 listed.

Core 2 Quad Q6400 (4 cores,2.13GHz,1066FSB,L2:2X4MB,rev.B3)

I haven't heard anything about this, and was wondering if anyone else has, what a price point would be for it. Given that the Q6600 is dropping to $266 pretty soon if it hasn't already, I am guessing this would be around $213 or something.

After reading you're post I "googled Q6400" and came up with a model with a 80w TDP. If that's true then being a 24/7 folder the idea of only 80w TDP is super appealing. (I know the G0 stepping Q6600 is 95w) I'm into "the cooler, the better" frame of mind. I got WC'ing for 1x E6600's, but wasn't that impressed. I got a Apoogee WB, a MCP350 pump and a MCR220 rad, all but the WC'ing block independant of the machine. Maybe my technical expertice wasn't up to snuff or my WB needs reseating? I was gonna' jump on the Q6600 after the price cuts, but now maybe I'll wait and see what the Q6400 is.

Edit: Oh yeah, I know about the x3210 which is just a Xeon Q6400. Does anyone know it's TDP?

 

[Xilikon]

Xeon 3210 = 105W TDP or 95W for D0/G0 revision.

Looks interesting and this might be my next cpu upgrade

I checked the infos on the net and it seems the X3210 G0 will be available (like all Kentsfield parts) from july 27th and for those who are interested, the new steppings is :

Processor Product code S-Spec MM# New product code New S-Spec New MM#
QX6800 BX80562QX6800 SL9UK 890750 BX80562QX6800 SLAPC 891352
Q6600 BX80562Q6600 SL9UM 887620 BX80562Q6600 SLACR 891337
X3220 BX80562X3220 SL9UP 886869 BX80562X3220 SLACT 891336
X3210 BX80562X3210 SL9UQ 886867 BX80562X3210 SLACU 891335

Some overclocking results : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=140095&highlight=X3210

 

[DrFreeze]

but now maybe I'll wait and see what the Q6400 is.

Edit: Oh yeah, I know about the x3210 which is just a Xeon Q6400. Does anyone know it's TDP?

the Q6400 was talked about a fair bit ago, i think that intels rappid price-cut strategy might have killed off the need for the Q6400, seeing how it has dissapeared from any recent lists and such

as for the 80w TDP, id guess the Q6400 would have 2x2mb L2 cache (or else the Q6420 or Q6500 name would be more apt), instead of the 2x4 mb L2 like the xeon, which should acount for a small amount of power drop

 

[jws2346]

Xeon 3210 = 105W TDP or 95W for D0/G0 revision.

Looks interesting and this might be my next cpu upgrade

I checked the infos on the net and it seems the X3210 G0 will be available (like all Kentsfield parts) from july 27th and for those who are interested, the new steppings is :

Processor Product code S-Spec MM# New product code New S-Spec New MM#
QX6800 BX80562QX6800 SL9UK 890750 BX80562QX6800 SLAPC 891352
Q6600 BX80562Q6600 SL9UM 887620 BX80562Q6600 SLACR 891337
X3220 BX80562X3220 SL9UP 886869 BX80562X3220 SLACT 891336
X3210 BX80562X3210 SL9UQ 886867 BX80562X3210 SLACU 891335

Some overclocking results : http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=140095&highlight=X3210

First off I'd like to say that is some super impressive OC'ing on a x3210 cpu. (I've got a E6420 and E6400 with no complaints) I know these people aren't the local legend for truth in advertising, but this is an interesting article http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34652 Do you think there's any truth to the article? Doesn't the X5300 series chips have a skt other than a LGA775? (some kind of server socket)

Edit: D'oh, DrFreeze I never thought about the Q6400 being like the Allendale with only 2 MB of L2 cache. You're "correct-a-moondo" it would save a small amount of power not powering those extra transitors, but from 105w or 95w to 80w is a pretty big jump

 

[DrFreeze]

Doesn't the X5300 series chips have a skt other than a LGA775?

AFAIK 5300s are S771, Intels multisocket-socket, which is why they are called clovertown instead of kentsfield (3 series xeons, your normal desktop variety)

 

[Xilikon]

First off I'd like to say that is some super impressive OC'ing on a x3210 cpu. (I've got a E6420 and E6400 with no complaints) I know these people aren't the local legend for truth in advertising, but this is an interesting article http://theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34652 Do you think there's any truth to the article? Doesn't the X5300 series chips have a skt other than a LGA775?

X5300 series = LGA771 so it's different. Clovertown and Woodcrest are the LGA771 variants of the Kenstfield and Conroe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Kentsfield.22_.2865_nm.29 will have the infos on the Kentsfield Xeons. We can notice that the X3210 still have a 4 Mb of cache per core so it's not exactly like a Q6400. This may explain why the Q6400 get killed or we may be supposed to see a Q6420 instead.

 

[jws2346]

X5300 series = LGA771 so it's different. Clovertown and Woodcrest are the LGA771 variants of the Kenstfield and Conroe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_microprocessors#.22Kentsfield.22_.2865_nm.29 will have the infos on the Kentsfield Xeons. We can notice that the X3210 still have a 4 Mb of cache per core so it's not exactly like a Q6400. This may explain why the Q6400 get killed or we may be supposed to see a Q6420 instead.

I was pretty aware of the x3210 having the 4 MB's per core, that's probably the reason it's so OC'able (that's if you know what you're doing) I hope they do make a Q6400 chip with 4 MB's per core, maybe a Q6420. (I need that extra 2 MB's for folding) One that only had a TDP of 80w would be teriffic (I'm still kinda' partial to my Zalman 9700 air HSF's). Does anyone know what the Penryn will TDP at? (I read it was cooler than the (Q6000 series)

 

[Erasmus354]

I was pretty aware of the x3210 having the 4 MB's per core, that's probably the reason it's so OC'able (that's if you know what you're doing) I hope they do make a Q6400 chip with 4 MB's per core, maybe a Q6420. (I need that extra 2 MB's for folding) One that only had a TDP of 80w would be teriffic (I'm still kinda' partial to my Zalman 9700 air HSF's). Does anyone know what the Penryn will TDP at? (I read it was cooler than the (Q6000 series)

How in the world would the size of the cache make any difference at all in the OC'ability of a chip?

 

[coder_t2]

the Q6400 was talked about a fair bit ago, i think that intels rappid price-cut strategy might have killed off the need for the Q6400, seeing how it has dissapeared from any recent lists and such

Freeze's idea makes more the most sense. Cause I haven't seen anything about the Q6400 at all for the past few months, and I didn't see a reason why Intel would do a silent launch of this processor without telling anyone. But who knows, it would increase quad core adoption rate hugely. I am just wondering why, or how, add CPU compatibility to a motherboard for a CPU that won't exist.

 

[jws2346]

How in the world would the size of the cache make any difference at all in the OC'ability of a chip?

I guess the L2 cache wouldn't have any effect on the OC' ability. One thing I do know for sure is it helps with a program such as Folding@Home. If I blew it on the L2 cache OC' ability thing I appologize, I've never claimed to be perfect and I have been known to make mistakes.

Edit: All I know is the more L2 cache I have the better for folding, which I do 24/7. I've noticed a BIG difference in the frame time completion between my 4x MB chips (E6600, E6420) versus my <4MB chips (E6400, E6300, AMD X2 4200+) Those are all dual cores, the really big disappointment comes with my single core chips (p4 2.60, amd 3000+, Celerton 346, etc) Even my hot running PD 805 is kind of slow. I've tried several different mobos to speed up my dual core folding AW9D-MAX, P5B Deluxe, P5B vanilla, Biostar TForce P965 and even the "no vcore" adjustment 775DUAL-VSTA (newest BIOS). I haven't included a few ECS boards I've tried. (I've never had any luck with ECS boards) I haven't seen any improvement , so I guess it's a L2 cache dependant program. (F@H)

 

[DrFreeze]

How in the world would the size of the cache make any difference at all in the OC'ability of a chip?

two ways:
1. more heat getting pumped out, 2mb of cache is about 32 milion extra transistors (two transistors per byte)
2. more transistors to be the weakest link when it comes to high clocks, in essence, you end up with more transistors that need to be able to reliably switch at the higher then rated speeds

now i will grant you that in most cases these two factors wont matter all that much, but there certainly are ways in which cache size can impact the max stable OC

 

[Xilikon]

jws2346, F@H SMP client is definitely l2 cache dependent with many WU loving 4 Mb of cache. Usually, bigger cache will mean harder overclocking but with the Core 2 architecture, it has played a very small role in overclocking so we assume it doesn't really matter.

OTOH, having 2 extra cores will definitely impact on the top overclocking since you are trying to cool 4 cores instead of 2, which will put a strain on even the best of aircooling solutions.

 

[YoNeX]

jws2346, F@H SMP client is definitely l2 cache dependent with many WU loving 4 Mb of cache. Usually, bigger cache will mean harder overclocking but with the Core 2 architecture, it has played a very small role in overclocking so we assume it doesn't really matter.

OTOH, having 2 extra cores will definitely impact on the top overclocking since you are trying to cool 4 cores instead of 2, which will put a strain on even the best of aircooling solutions.

I'm sure cache plays a big role, but how much? It would be nice to compare something like E6300 vs E6320 or so on.

 

[jws2346]

jws2346, F@H SMP client is definitely l2 cache dependent with many WU loving 4 Mb of cache. Usually, bigger cache will mean harder overclocking but with the Core 2 architecture, it has played a very small role in overclocking so we assume it doesn't really matter.

OTOH, having 2 extra cores will definitely impact on the top overclocking since you are trying to cool 4 cores instead of 2, which will put a strain on even the best of aircooling solutions.

Xilikon: Do you think with an ambient temp of about 22c a Apoogee GT WB (without the "bowing deal", I'm not that brave), a MCP350 WP, a MCR220 (4x fans push/pull?) rad all tied up with only 3/8th" tubing (I tried to route the tubing as short as possible) would be sufficient to cool a Q6600? I know this is a pretty difficult question, I just need a "close enough for government work opinion". Figuring the WC'ing system is independant of the rig (in an old computer case) and I'm going to put the rad in front of a open window (winter) or in front of a portable AC (summer). I've read where at stock GHz the Q6600 releases a TDP of 105w B1 stepping and 95w with G0 stepping. What I'm really curious about is I'll probably run it 24/7, OC'ed to only 3 GHz 333 FSB (hopefully on stock vcore) My air cooled (Zalman 9700 HSF, Antec 900 case) E6600 folds 25/7 and it runs pretty cool (ambient about 22c or 23c, rocks between 36c and 37c). My WC'ed E6600 always runs about 3c or 4c cooler. (all dependent on ambient temp, it's in a God knows what case, active chipset fans, 120mm fans front and back) What do you think? (nothing life threatening, just a rough quess, ATM just the cpu in the loop) Maybe my Zalman 9700 HSF and Antec 900 case would be sufficient? The reason I say that is the Antec 900 has 2x 120mm fans in front, 1x 120mm fan in back, 1x120mm fan side and a 220mm gimungus blow hole fan, it's got more fans than a heliocopter. (anyhoo, enough cooling fans)

Edit: Yeah, everything I've read both in the Folding section of overclockers.com and the posts on F@H's own forum L2 cache plays a major part in the completetion times for SMP WU's. I have noticed myself I have a big spread in completetiion times between my E6400 and E6420 cpu's. (depending on the WU sometimes as much as 20 mins) Of course while they were clocked the same (at the time) the E6420 has 2 GB's of PC6400 and the E6400 has 2 GB's of PC5400 plus they're in different mobos.

 

[coldpower27]

two ways:
1. more heat getting pumped out, 2mb of cache is about 32 milion extra transistors (two transistors per byte)
2. more transistors to be the weakest link when it comes to high clocks, in essence, you end up with more transistors that need to be able to reliably switch at the higher then rated speeds

now i will grant you that in most cases these two factors wont matter all that much, but there certainly are ways in which cache size can impact the max stable OC

Much more then that the difference between the B2 and L2 steppings was 291 Million vs 167 Million transistors.

But Quad Core being a premium product likely won't come in anything less then 2x4MB configurations.

 

[Xilikon]

Xilikon: Do you think with an ambient temp of about 22c a Apoogee GT WB (without the "bowing deal", I'm not that brave), a MCP350 WP, a MCR220 (4x fans push/pull?) rad all tied up with only 3/8th" tubing (I tried to route the tubing as short as possible) would be sufficient to cool a Q6600? I know this is a pretty difficult question, I just need a "close enough for government work opinion". Figuring the WC'ing system is independant of the rig (in an old computer case) and I'm going to put the rad in front of a open window (winter) or in front of a portable AC (summer). I've read where at stock GHz the Q6600 releases a TDP of 105w B1 stepping and 95w with G0 stepping. What I'm really curious about is I'll probably run it 24/7, OC'ed to only 3 GHz (333 FSB, hopefully on stock vcore) My air cooled (Zalman 9700 HSF, Antec 900 case) E6600 folds 25/7 and it runs cool. My WC'ed E6600 always runs about 3c or 4c cooler. (it's in a God knows what case, active chipset fans, 120mm fans front and back) What do you think? (just a rough quess of course)

Edit: Yeah, everything I've read both in the Folding section of overclockers.com and the posts on F@H's own forum L2 cache plays a major part in the completetion times for SMP WU's. I have noticed myself I have a big spread in completetiion times between my E6400 and E6420 cpu's. (depending on the WU sometimes as much as 20 mins) Of course while they were clocked the same (at the time) the E6420 has 2 GB's of PC6400 and the E6400 has 2 GB's of PC5400 plus they're in different mobos.

With watercooling, I'm sure you can reach a higher ballpark than with aircooling for sure. However, this will be depending on luck, how you setup and tweak them and how you run it. Even if i'm ironically working as a Senior IT Technician for the government, I cannot give a definitive answer.

 

[ND40oz]

I'm sure cache plays a big role, but how much? It would be nice to compare something like E6300 vs E6320 or so on.

Check the thread in the DC section with frame times. Identically clocked chips with different L2 cache sizes can very in frame times by as much as 5 minutes. The SMP WUs are much larger and not having to go to memory or the harddrive but keeping it in L2 cache greatly speeds up folding times.

 

[jws2346]

With watercooling, I'm sure you can reach a higher ballpark than with aircooling for sure. However, this will be depending on luck, how you setup and tweak them and how you run it. Even if i'm ironically working as a Senior IT Technician for the government, I cannot give a definitive answer.

Oops, open mouth and insert foot. That wisecrack about "close enough for government work" was meant to be taken on the light side, which I'm sure you did. If it offended you I appologize imensely because without government employee's (especially IT people, who's bias?) we wouldn't have a government. (US)

Edit: Oh yeah, it's been a long time since I folded with my E6420 at the stock 2.13 GHz, so the WU completetion times my have been only 10 min difference as compared to the E6400 at stock 2.13 GHZ. I know it was a big difference though, it's been a long time and I can't remember exactly.

 

[Xilikon]

Oops, open mouth and insert foot. That wisecrack about "close enough for government work" was meant to be taken on the light side, which I'm sure you did. If it offended you I appologize imensely because without government employee's (especially IT people, who's bias?) we wouldn't have a government. (US)

Edit: Oh yeah, it's been a long time since I folded with my E6420 at the stock 2.13 GHz, so the WU completetion times my have been only 10 min difference as compared to the E6400 at stock 2.13 GHZ. I know it was a big difference though, it's been a long time and I can't remember exactly.

I took this as a funny joke

About the cache, it's true that a difference in l2 can cause a big difference on some WU (especially the 2608,2609,2610 group who are cache dependant).