You know, I really don't understand why AMD hasn't put two dies on a substrate, and connect them internally via HTT. One die would act as the memory controller, which would link on the substrate via HTT to the other die, which would then communicate with the system via pinout HTT. While I wouldn't recommend them doing it with 90 nm cores, their 65 nm chips should be able to stay within a 130 watt envelope up and down the frequency range (well, up to at least 2.6 GHz). It would have seemed like a stopgap measure, but it would have at least offered a "quad core" product to compete against Intel.

Also goes to show that if you're a gamer, buy a cheaper CPU (amd or intel) and spend that cash on a better video card instead or more RAM. Man, the 8800gtx is maxed out!!

Good review as always, but your F1 analogy needs work :-P

I think the multi-threaded gaming benchmarks would have made a heckofalot more sense if there were a single-core CPU thrown in there for reference.

On the whole though, this article showed that desktop OS and applications are just not ready for quad-core. Heck, I'm still waiting for more 64BIT apps!

Another nice demonstration of Intel Core wootage.
Sure is gonna be fun watching K10 go head to head with Penryn later this year.(or early 08)
How do these quad cores actually "feel" on the desktop Scott during normal websurfing,gaming etc....any noticable difference from a C2D?
ps. nice try on the priest,peanut butter etc....you didnt have much to work with there lol.

Great review. Absolutely perfect.

"I also ran a couple of benchmarks at 3.2GHz, just to prove that the QX6800 overclocked is even, uh, fasterer."

lol, must be just as bad for the person making benchmarks, as it is for the person reading them when it comes to uneventful races.

If the QX6700 runs default at a 10x multiplier, wouldn't the QX6800 just run at an 11x multi? And if thats the case, why would anyone buy that when they could just get the QX6700 and raise the multiplier up one?

Really nice to see the TDP control. Speedbump for the same power. I still dream of alot lower TDPs from both AMD and Intel tho...as the max.

But X2 6000 seems to have won a old P4 TDP rating. It looks more like a 140W TDP chip than a 125W. Not even to talk about the FX-74...did anyone say Paxville wannabee?

Unless, that is, you have a chimp, a priest, a rabbi, and a jar of peanut butter. That theological background is shining through Wasson. Thanks for the hard work, on Easter weekend no less. Heh, that's sacrifice.

I didn't know Damage watch Formula 1. Care to join our little mini league in the sports forum? Only that Michael Schumacher is gone, and we have Alonso, Hamilton, Raikkonen and Massa as the top contenders, for now.

I. Need. A. Quad-core. processor.

Then i shall be set for another 4~6+ years. I'm still holdin onto a 3.2 P4C until i can nab a quad core for 300 bucks. By that time i would imagine intel will probably be on their 45nm process. Who knows... maybe they will be on their next processor after the C2D.... the code name of which slips of at the moment because it's 2:30 am right now.

Edit: Oh yea... great review... but like they said... also boring at the same time... nothing too unexpected... except the price. I was expecting it to replace the QX6700 at the 1,000 dollar point, not keep it there and then cost even more.

Also, thank god for the funny side comments! Adds humor and something fun to this site that i don't find on too many other tech sites, and i must say, i enjoy that they add personality to this site, it's nice to see!

It's real nice to see the x2-3600 in there. It certainly is the cleanup act, until you overclock it to x2-5600ish / c2d-6400ish levels.

FWIW, it would be great to still see the cheapest Pentium-D in there. Those things are still on the market and people are still buying them. If scores are close between the cheapest P-D and the x2-3600 then someone may opt for the P-D with the intention of upgrading to c2d later. Plus the P-D overclocks pretty well. Plus some people here may want to get one for grandma if it's cheaper than the x2-3600. Or it might not even be able to compete with the x2-3600 and people would be well advised to steer clear of it.

that all depends on what the priest is doing to the chimp while the rabbi makes it into a movie. i wont mention peanut butter, since it will go past the pg-13 rating.

So when Intel put Hyper Threading back in and a Mac Pro has 8 cores...

will we have 16 (8 actual, 8 virtual) cores in Mac OS X? Will it ever stop?

4x the cost of a 6000+.

Its really too bad AMD didn't sell a couple of 6000+ on the same chip package for 600$.

Fastest. Processor. On. Earth.

Like anyone (other than hellokitty) expected anything else.

And it draws less power than the X2/6000....nice.

The price grabber links for the top 4 intel processors all go to the e6700 page.

Excellent review, but man, absolutely loving those side comments! LOL!

Sweet. Drag that hot rod down to the 500-600$ range and I can start trying to justify it to the wife. Till then it only theoretically exists.

Those OCing results are a trifle saddening, though. Looks like a latter stepping Q6600 might be the big chip of 2K7, since the higher grades seem to be having a bit of trouble passing ~3.2-3.4GHz.

Is this a real Conroe? ;)

(Yawns) this review was just a testbed for the new CPU benchmark suite.

It is no surprise that QX6800 would be a little bit faster than QX6700 and consume a little less juice because it is from a better grade.