TR Forums

How many of you are going to upgrade to Kentfield? I'm putting money aside for the QX6600 when it comes out in janurary. But how many of you might upgrade to the QX6700?

Where is the cheese option?

Anyway, I am more then happy with my C2D. I rather wait for Nehalem and K8L to come out of the fabs before jumping onto the quad-core bandwagon.

I like cheese, and I'm sticking with my Barton until I upgrade to Conroe sometime next year.

I've got an e6300 I barely noticed the difference from my 3.8 p4. I don't do a whole lot of multitasking, so go figure. I can tell the difference in some games (In games like spellforce and x3 I can tell some differences lots of units and calculations).

I am pretty sure I would not notice an upgrade (or downgrade) to quadcore.

Muhaaha... This thread is for HELLO KITTY ...

The QX6600 should be QE6600 I think.

I'm sure by the time my [email protected] is no longer cutting the mustard, there will be a much cheaper way to upgrade to quad core.

I don't really see a reason to buy these yet, especially at this price. My X2 4400 should be fine for a while. I'll wait until the native quad cores from AMD and Intel come out and see whats on the market then at a reasonable price.

Um... no! Quad-cores aren't for the average Joe or even the average enthusiast for the next few years at least. I still can't justify a dual-core.

No major upgrades planned for the near (or even medium) term for me. So I guess I'm going to wait and see what's available a couple of years down the road.

I certainly would if I could afford it. I do a lot of multitasking, I don't really care what people think, I know I at least run more than one program at a time on my computer, quadcore will help a lot, all this fluff about dual/quad core not being enthusiest or average user territory, take a look at your taskbar/system tray...and tell me what you see. At the very least, if you running windows you'll want a few extra cores around to handle the spyware so your system doesn't slow down too much .

As for me...if intel releases a ~$300 quadcore before I upgrade my system, I will probably go with that. When that will be, I don't know...I'm trying to decide if I should upgrade my ram and video card in order to keep this old Northwood running a few more years (with vista), but I hate putting money into a dead technology (DDR/AGP), but on a students budget, a full upgrade is a difficult prospect.

d2brothe wrote:

take a look at your taskbar/system tray...and tell me what you see

Pfft... I often see between 4 and 10 programs running "creamy smooth" on a single core procesor Only once every 60 days or so when I find the time to do some video editing would a dual core be beneficial. Maybe two or three times a year I'll need to do some rendering. So... I still can't justify a dual core.

flip-mode wrote:

d2brothe wrote:

take a look at your taskbar/system tray...and tell me what you see

Pfft... I often see between 4 and 10 programs running "creamy smooth" on a single core procesor Only once every 60 days or so when I find the time to do some video editing would a dual core be beneficial. Maybe two or three times a year I'll need to do some rendering. So... I still can't justify a dual core.

Well your lucky then, I'm only running a P4 2.6 Northwood, but it gets sluggish pretty fast. When it gets loaded up with Eclipse, outlook, plus music, msn, and bittorent in the background, it begins to slow down pretty quick, and thats on a pretty light day. Perhaps I tend to multitask more than average, but I still say quadcore is not useless, and certainly dualcore is not. I guess it depends on usage.

I've only just gone dual-core, so I will be skipping the quad-core generation I think!

Hmm, it sounds like you're doing a bunch of network stuff. I wonder if that's got anything to do with it.

I'll often run autocad, illustrator, firefox, thunderbird, windows explorer, irfanview, and maybe photoshop or formz or revit, but I can only use one at a time. Photoshop is actually the worst cause it eats up so much memory. And if I have to start up Roxio to burn a disc then I might have to ease up, depending on what else I'm doing. But the above is an absolute worst case scenario. Usually I'm just reading TechReport!

Count me for a QX6700 in about a month - hopefully the $1500 price on Newegg will be down.

I see zero point for the Q6600; it's list price is supposed to be $851. Might as well spend the extra $149, get the extra 266MHz and take the unlocked multiplier with a smile...

Edit: Opps...it's Q6600, not QX. My bad...

flip-mode wrote:

Usually I'm just reading TechReport!

Heh...aren't we all ...although I am surprised you manage to run all that without slowdowns, It could be a networking slowdown on my end, because I am often using terminal services as well, but I'm pretty sure its not, a while back when I moved, before my DSL came active I was still on dialup, and had the same problem...its probably a lot to do with eclipse, being java its a hog

BitTorrent, Outlook, Media Player, MSN will soak up CPU cycles from time to time (BT is the worst depending on which client and whether you are downloading/uploading). The stuff that flip-mode listed don't soak up cycles unless he's actively doing some long operations on it (like running some filters on the pictures while burning CDs). The stuff that will slow him down is not enough RAM.

Flying Fox wrote:

BitTorrent, Outlook, Media Player, MSN will soak up CPU cycles from time to time (BT is the worst depending on which client and whether you are downloading/uploading). The stuff that flip-mode listed don't soak up cycles unless he's actively doing some long operations on it (like running some filters on the pictures while burning CDs). The stuff that will slow him down is not enough RAM.

Thats definitely true, in his case ram would be the limiting factor, which is why I'm surprised he can run it all with no slowdowns, having only 1 gb of ram.

i put AMD fan because although i have 2x C2D 6600 rigs, my main rig is a quad core opteron system with 16 gig of ram, and there just isn't a compelling reason to spend money upgrading that.


. . .yet

d2brothe wrote:

Thats definitely true, in his case ram would be the limiting factor, which is why I'm surprised he can run it all with no slowdowns, having only 1 gb of ram.

That's my limiting factor now, for sure.

But I still want the quad

I'll be going conroe at some point. kentsfield would be nice but the cost is impractical to say the least.

This shows a much more option filled future for Intel. And I see the extentsion of the CPU line-up of the Core 2 Duo's we work with now in the 2nd quarter. More low-end, and high end cpus, but the big kicker is that there will be several Core 2 Duo's just a bump faster MHZ wise, and also on 1333mhz bus.

If I look at the Kentsfield options.......the Q6600 and if they have a Q6700 will be very costly quad-core cpu's only running 1066fsb. You know that these will tip the scale to about $500 at the very least, considering your paying close to that still now for E6700 cpu's.
2nd quarter......Kentsfield is definitely fastest we have to work with, but third quarter the Yorkfield and Wolfdale-H......mmmmm I think most smart buyers will wait for the Yorkfield or Wolfdale-H....45nm manufacturing process compared to 65nm (good overclocking results still hopefully). 1333fsb with 12mb of cache or 6mb of cache on Wolfdale-H........compared to the Kentsfield which is being "retired" second quarter of 2007.
Those Yorkfield's will bring a new level of performance to workstations, and [email protected] are really unleashing the fury now if you ask me. "The fury" = things are starting to get fast enough to cure diseases.

In all honesty....the Wolfdale-H will be probably the speed king for "todays applications", because it will be 3.4-4ghz in speed, which matters a lot more then extra L2 cache for most benchmarks atleast. If we have a lot of multi-core support in games, applications, and such. The Yorkfield could be faster, but at this moment I would say the Wolfdale-H will probably be speed king. Only thing snazzy about the Yorkfield is 4 retardedly fast core's that could encode 2 videos at a time while you play video games.

At the moment we lack what would take advantage of the Yorkfield, even though a certain crowd of people would know how to take advantage of it.

factory81 wrote:

This shows a much more option filled future for Intel. And I see the extentsion of the CPU line-up of the Core 2 Duo's we work with now in the 2nd quarter. More low-end, and high end cpus, but the big kicker is that there will be several Core 2 Duo's just a bump faster MHZ wise, and also on 1333mhz bus.

If I look at the Kentsfield options.......the Q6600 and if they have a Q6700 will be very costly quad-core cpu's only running 1066fsb. You know that these will tip the scale to about $500 at the very least, considering your paying close to that still now for E6700 cpu's.
2nd quarter......Kentsfield is definitely fastest we have to work with, but third quarter the Yorkfield and Wolfdale-H......mmmmm I think most smart buyers will wait for the Yorkfield or Wolfdale-H....45nm manufacturing process compared to 65nm (good overclocking results still hopefully). 1333fsb with 12mb of cache or 6mb of cache on Wolfdale-H........compared to the Kentsfield which is being "retired" second quarter of 2007.
Those Yorkfield's will bring a new level of performance to workstations, and [email protected] are really unleashing the fury now if you ask me. "The fury" = things are starting to get fast enough to cure diseases.

In all honesty....the Wolfdale-H will be probably the speed king for "todays applications", because it will be 3.4-4ghz in speed, which matters a lot more then extra L2 cache for most benchmarks atleast. If we have a lot of multi-core support in games, applications, and such. The Yorkfield could be faster, but at this moment I would say the Wolfdale-H will probably be speed king. Only thing snazzy about the Yorkfield is 4 retardedly fast core's that could encode 2 videos at a time while you play video games.

At the moment we lack what would take advantage of the Yorkfield, even though a certain crowd of people would know how to take advantage of it.

That map is so wrong, that makign any conclusions with it is even more wrong. First teh dates etc is wrong, Yorkfield is not 1066 at all and its not 2x6MB, its 1x12MB. The XE speed of workfield is a old rumour guess without backup aswell and the others are pure guesses. Conroe-L also got wrong FSB and wrong cache etc etc so on so on...

Shintai wrote:

That map is so wrong, that makign any conclusions with it is even more wrong. First teh dates etc is wrong, Yorkfield is not 1066 at all and its not 2x6MB, its 1x12MB. The XE speed of workfield is a old rumour guess without backup aswell and the others are pure guesses. Conroe-L also got wrong FSB and wrong cache etc etc so on so on...

I don't know about that. This looks quite updated for me. 2x6 vs 1x12 what's the difference? Conroe-L is not even mentioned as the Pentium E1xxx anymore which is the latest because reports have surfaced that it is going to be dual core Pentium E2xxx and then the real Conroe-L's are going to become Celerons.

TR's linkage:
http://techreport.com/onearticle.x/11245

Shintai wrote:

That map is so wrong, that makign any conclusions with it is even more wrong. First teh dates etc is wrong, Yorkfield is not 1066 at all and its not 2x6MB, its 1x12MB. The XE speed of workfield is a old rumour guess without backup aswell and the others are pure guesses. Conroe-L also got wrong FSB and wrong cache etc etc so on so on...

So why don't you make it easy for me and post the correct diagram as I am currently PUI and sore from playing basketball.

I voted AMD fan because I have a 3000+ winchester that I won't be getting rid of any time soon.

monts wrote:

Shintai wrote:

That map is so wrong, that makign any conclusions with it is even more wrong. First teh dates etc is wrong, Yorkfield is not 1066 at all and its not 2x6MB, its 1x12MB. The XE speed of workfield is a old rumour guess without backup aswell and the others are pure guesses. Conroe-L also got wrong FSB and wrong cache etc etc so on so on...

So why don't you make it easy for me and post the correct diagram as I am currently PUI and sore from playing basketball.

Because I dont have a site with ads that people click across.

Flying Fox wrote:

2x6 vs 1x12 what's the difference?

That 4 cores share cache instead of 2 with half that needs to snoop in the first? Quite abit of a difference. The difference is basicly what some nag about with Kentfield/Clovertown with external access

And the ability to use all 12MB cache or any single threaded application. Or more than 6MB for one thread.

I just got myself an X2 3800+ to replace my aging 3000+ winchester, so no upgrades for me for a looong time...