Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 and Massive Price Cuts
by Anand Lal Shimpi on July 16, 2007 3:04 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Final Words
Despite theoretical showings on paper, the 1333MHz FSB appears to do very little for performance even when feeding four of Intel's fastest cores. The Core 2 Extreme QX6850's performance is nothing to scoff at, but given its price tag we'd strongly recommend one of the cheaper quad-core offerings. With the Q6600 coming in at $266, it's tough to resist.
Our Q6600 recommendation really highlights the major focus of this story, and that is the escalating price war between AMD and Intel. Once Intel's price cuts take effect next week, it's going to be difficult to recommend any AMD CPUs above $150. We're still working on our low end CPU comparison, and we suspect that AMD is more competitive at the lower end of the price spectrum, but what we've seen here today doesn't look good at all for the mainstream segment. In order to remain competitive, AMD would either have to knock about $50 off its X2 6000+ price or count on Phenom making up the performance gap at the same price point.
It's tough to resist upgrading or building a new system today because of the tremendous value this last round of price cuts has given us, especially when you take into account that both Penryn and Phenom's respective launches remain largely unknown. Clock speeds, pricing and dates are still up in the air, and for once our recommendation isn't simply to wait and see what happens.
If you need a new system or CPU upgrade today, the chips are ripe for the picking.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
68 Comments
View All Comments
Darkmatterx76 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Nice article. I would like to point out 1 small inconsistancy. On page 12, 4th graph down you have the order for that particular "Lower is better" reversed compared to the others in the article.Also, I do have 1 question. Any idea when Intel will offer non-extreme quad cores at 1333 FSB?
zsdersw - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I don't get it. Both are listed as 2.33GHz with 1333FSB and both with 4MB. What's the use of having two models?zsdersw - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Nevermind. I found the answer. The 6540 doesn't have Intel Trust Execution technology.. or so I read elsewhere.jay401 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
So how does the E6850 ($266 3.0GHz 1333fsb) compare to my existing E4400 ($133 running 1333MHz fsb with a 9x multiplier = 3.0GHz)?That's the test I'd like to see. Half the price but half the cache: Which is better.
bobbyto34 - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Your o/c CPU might just be a little hotter :)Otherwise, it should have the same performance approximatively (less cache in E4xxx). But other tests showed that the E4300@3Ghz and could approach the performance of the X6800 !
lplatypus - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Here's a little error I spotted on page 2, in case you want to fix it: the QX6850 is not 7MHz faster than the QX6800; it is 70Mhz faster.Gary Key - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
Fixed.96redformula - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I also think the scale would be better from -100 to 100. It makes it easier to distinguish and more visually pleasing.ManuelX - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I don't post here much but I had to this time. I simply loved the article. The logic behind the comparison was explained nicely, and the comparisons themselves were super easy to grasp. Good stuff.just4U - Monday, July 16, 2007 - link
I am going to have to agree here. Nicely laid out article with easy comprehensive graph comparison(s). Well done Guys!