Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Intel Core 2 Duo X6900 Availability

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 11, 2006 11:04:29 PM

:?:

Has this new processor been announced? There was a lot of talk a few months ago but I haven't seen anything on it recently.
October 11, 2006 11:45:12 PM

Google it
October 11, 2006 11:45:38 PM

X6900? :? Never heard of it. I you do let us all know.
Related resources
October 11, 2006 11:59:23 PM

I think Intel cancelled it when they moved the quadore chip release up. The X6900 was supposed to be released at the end of this year as their most extreme CPU. Intel changed its roadmap so it will be releasing the Core2Quads at the end of this year which will be their extreme chips.

I don't see the X6900 being necessary anyways, as the X6800 is unlocked. Which means that it can be overclocked to X6900 performance and beyond, with relative ease.
October 12, 2006 12:04:18 AM

Quote:
:?:

Has this new processor been announced? There was a lot of talk a few months ago but I haven't seen anything on it recently.

Err... how to break this too you...
There is no such thing....
October 12, 2006 12:17:40 AM

The X6900 was supposed to be clocked at 3.2Ghz so imagine how far testers could have go with engineering samples of it...
October 12, 2006 12:32:18 AM

It hasn't been announce and won't be either. It might come out as E6900, but not as X6900. This is because Intel now says (and are totally right if you look at it from a long term point of view) that you get more performances, and overall speed , on system with more core as oppose to system with faster frequency.

I haven't tested it myself, to be honest. But everythings points out to this being true. Even tough most app aren't multithreaded, overall feeling of speed of system with 4 core is greatly better than system with 2 core because anything you do will have it's own core to itself. That include the OS management, disk read/write request, etc... that, altough not taxing the cpu at all, will take precious cycle of your main applications and reducing it's speed. Add to this that more and more applications are now being released with multithreading support, and the trend will be going only "worst".

OK, that's enough, just felt like explaining the reasons behind that decision. :oops: 
October 12, 2006 1:17:42 AM

Yeah that might be true, releaed as E6900, not a X6900. I also forgot to mention that why Intel might release an Extreme processor which would cost $1000 when for the same price you could get a kentsfield with 4 cores...
October 12, 2006 1:21:15 AM

Either way, your just wasting your money.
October 12, 2006 2:35:38 AM

Quote:
Either way, your just wasting your money.

True.

You don't really need 2 cores yet (most of us anyway), so going all out for a quad-core is beyond me. Might as well get a kick-ass dual core over an entry-level quad-core.

My thoughts exactly. Hell, the E6300 that you have is quite an impressive dual core. No need to go out purchasing these x6800/fx-62 processors. Of course, that is always the customers perrogative. IMO its just not worth it.
October 12, 2006 2:39:00 AM

You damn right its my perogative... trying to make me feel bad about my x6800, bunch o' dirty bastards...
October 12, 2006 2:45:07 AM

Quote:
You damn right its my perogative... trying to make me feel bad about my x6800, bunch o' dirty bastards...


LMAO

I love you ninja. :wink: What i actually meant by that is simply; I would never recommend buying that processor unless you were an enthusiast. You know enough about computers to where it was the right decision. Someone lacking the knowledge could be conned into buying that and would NEVER use half of what it was capable of. Simply because he/she was given the wrong information and decided to purchase the more expensive processor instead.
October 12, 2006 2:52:17 AM

Thanks bro, using the hardware to its full potential is my purpose. I hope that I help other try to do the same.
October 12, 2006 2:55:28 AM

Yes sir. Its all that we can do is hope that whatever we say helps. Speaking of which the article/blog you wrote on netiquette/guidelines on Tomshardware was superb to say the least. Props to you my friend.

Back to hardware talk. If there were an X6900 clocked at 3.2 ghz. Would anyone here consider purchasing it, if it were at a reasonable price?
October 12, 2006 3:14:21 AM

don't feel bad. I bought my x6800 CPU cause i don't like to overclock and wanted the fastest chip i could get without having too.
October 12, 2006 3:17:32 AM

Thats the best reason to buy one i supppose, setting aside bragging rights. How does it perform for you, and you ninja as well? How does this CPU handle real world applications?
October 12, 2006 3:18:36 AM

Quote:
Either way, your just wasting your money.

True.

You don't really need 2 cores yet (most of us anyway), so going all out for a quad-core is beyond me. Might as well get a kick-ass dual core over an entry-level quad-core.

>> You don't really need 2 cores yet (most of us anyway),

That is so NOT true. Are you running dual core or have you even got any experience of using a dual-core system? Obviously not otherwise you'd not say that.
October 12, 2006 3:27:00 AM

Perhaps you would notice in his sig the processor he is currently using. Most avid gamers dont need dual cores yet. The average PC user doesnt need dual core yet. Standard office aps/email wont need dual core for a long time. So, for all intentions and purposes he is 100% correct.

EDIT: Most gamers in general, not just avid ones. Those poor bastards.
October 12, 2006 3:40:55 AM

Quote:
That is so NOT true. Are you running dual core or have you even got any experience of using a dual-core system? Obviously not otherwise you'd not say that.


Uh...what the hell are you talking about?

Two cores most certainly are not necessary. I only know 3 people personally (myself included) who use multi-core CPUs, and everyone else with their single-core CPUs gets along just fine. So STFU.
October 12, 2006 3:43:46 AM

My thoughts exaclty, well except for the STFU comment. I dont think he meant to be harsh by it, he apparently uses dual core apps such as video decoding etc... and notices a huge diffrence over dual core. BUT the average pc user simply does not need it.
October 12, 2006 6:11:28 AM

It smokes my last processor in every way possible. I had an Opty 180, and this loads my OS faster, everything opens faster. Decoding DVD is amazingly faster. It's like night and day, and in my opinion worth every penny.
October 12, 2006 6:16:18 AM

Fast as all hell. Nuff said.... 8)
October 12, 2006 12:05:56 PM

Alright, cool. That's what I thought. I figured once the Core Extreme was announced, the X6900 was off the map. Makes sense that they might release a E6900.

Thanks all! :) 
October 12, 2006 1:24:15 PM

In the vast majority of cases I agree quad is overkill and for many dual-core might be more than they "need".

There are however a few, myself included, that intend to use the hell out of a quad when they get their hands on it. With the things I do I usually waste most of my nights after work just catching my work up and video-editing for family etc which I do a ton of almost every day.

I'm quite sure I'll gain a lot of my gaming/family time in the evenings back with quad. Especially when you compare to my current system. I'm the exception and not the rule however and I do intend to at least buy 1 next gen GPU if not go balls out and do SLI/Crossfire or whatever is on top at that time.

Few could do this I realize and its more than I had originally budgeted for myself. I have always compromised in the past with my builds to save a little $ and this time I won't be doing that just getting exactly what I want.
October 12, 2006 5:25:21 PM

Quote:
Either way, your just wasting your money.

True.

You don't really need 2 cores yet (most of us anyway), so going all out for a quad-core is beyond me. Might as well get a kick-ass dual core over an entry-level quad-core.

I disagree on that one. Considering that games are already released with multithreading support and any video conversion support it.

It depends on how often you upgrade I'd say, and kind of usage of your PC you do. I like to be able to do my AV check at the same time I look at small movies without slowdown. This is just a beginning. Imagine doing this AV check while playing upcoming Crysis :twisted: . First one is possible, not the second one in my case.

I personally own a P4 3,0ghz Northwood right now. Imagine how worst it would be if this would be a P4 2,53ghz instead (no HT support :cry:  ). Not that my current cpu shine, but I just want to show my point. In my case it's probably gonna be C2D Q6600 if it's being released at the same time as the QX6700 in november. And i think I won't regret it in 2 years from now.

Look at it this way, some of you (and me to a point) were making fun of people purchasing A64X2 when it first came out. But how would you feel better now, having a lowly A64 4000+ (single-core) or, say, a A64X2 4600+?

We should all look at the ease of use in general as oppose to performance in single threaded applications.

Oh! I forgot, 1000$ is way too much for upcoming QX6700 unless money is absolutly no problem to you... and even then... :tongue: :roll:
October 13, 2006 1:51:20 AM

Quote:
Either way, your just wasting your money.

True.

You don't really need 2 cores yet (most of us anyway), so going all out for a quad-core is beyond me. Might as well get a kick-ass dual core over an entry-level quad-core.

I disagree on that one. Considering that games are already released with multithreading support and any video conversion support it.

It depends on how often you upgrade I'd say, and kind of usage of your PC you do. I like to be able to do my AV check at the same time I look at small movies without slowdown. This is just a beginning. Imagine doing this AV check while playing upcoming Crysis :twisted: . First one is possible, not the second one in my case.

I personally own a P4 3,0ghz Northwood right now. Imagine how worst it would be if this would be a P4 2,53ghz instead (no HT support :cry:  ). Not that my current cpu shine, but I just want to show my point. In my case it's probably gonna be C2D Q6600 if it's being released at the same time as the QX6700 in november. And i think I won't regret it in 2 years from now.

Look at it this way, some of you (and me to a point) were making fun of people purchasing A64X2 when it first came out. But how would you feel better now, having a lowly A64 4000+ (single-core) or, say, a A64X2 4600+?

We should all look at the ease of use in general as oppose to performance in single threaded applications.

Oh! I forgot, 1000$ is way too much for upcoming QX6700 unless money is absolutly no problem to you... and even then... :tongue: :roll:

What your saying is very true but what prozac was trying to say was that we dont NEED them. Its a personal preference as of now. Sure, games have dual core support, but do you NEED it? Not neccesarily. It is becomming more and more useful in the video decoding department, the numbers speak for themselves. But your average joe doesnt do a lot of video decoding. Now in the future anything less than dual core will get laughed at by games/apps that must have dual core to function. As of now though, a single core is all you need.
October 13, 2006 2:24:13 AM

Don't know if this has been said but there are only a hand full of games optimized for dual core CPU's and few if any that are designed with quad cores in mind. More cores doesn't actually help in gaming, since it is mainly graphics and RAM dependant.

For instance I have a test bed system that has a Celeron D LGA775 at 3.06Ghz and 533Mhz FSB that runs on a stock Intel D101GGCL ATI Socket 775 MicroATX Motherboard (has PCIe x16 and x1 slots). When using either onboard or a 6800XT in conjunction with DDR PC3200 running stock and only 512Mb at 400Mhz, the graphics, FPS and responsiveness is very poor (10 - 26 FPS) if not laughable when playing NFS MW which is hardly the pinnacle of high powered games.

But when I use DDR PC3200 with 2Gb instead of a quarter of that and also utilize a 7800GT the game play and FPS jumps back to what can be determined as normal levels (something around the area of 40 to 44.5 FPS).

I'm not in any way saying that a Core 2 X6800 is not better than either a E6600 or the Pentium series 950 or 805 D chips. But we have to remember that its the implementation of the Cores and not the amount as of yet. The X6800 is manufactured to higher tolerances than even its E6600 brother, and the D chips where based on the infamous Netburst architecture (which actually wasn't that bad for gaming, although it paled in comparison to competing AMD chips).

Better core, faster everything. More cores, better for multitasking, since Windows or whatever OS you have automatically assigned process to each core. More cores has a negligible effect on games.

I'd like to test this theory further when I get my E6600, E6300. I'm also looking for a Core 2 Solo of good quality if they are out yet to also test this theory.

Anyone feel free to correct or make collaries to my post. I'll be here till 3 AM EST GMT -5.
Ninja
October 13, 2006 3:17:44 AM

Good point, i was thinking that but never mentioned it. Gaming, as of now, doesnt utilize the CPU very much at all. Some newer games are starting to but nothing to take notice.
October 13, 2006 3:28:04 AM

I believe that there are as many games supported by Vista as there are made for multicore CPU's.
October 13, 2006 4:09:10 AM

Quote:
I believe that there are as many games supported by Vista as there are made for multicore CPU's.


:D  And all 4 of those games are very fun indeed.
October 13, 2006 4:10:36 AM

Alan wake make use of quad core, other processors will have a hard time keeping up in that game, so plz shush while u can. 8)
October 13, 2006 7:59:51 AM

Quote:
Thats the best reason to buy one i supppose, setting aside bragging rights. How does it perform for you, and you ninja as well? How does this CPU handle real world applications?


Actually the reason why I'm personally going to go quad as soon as the insects are ironed out is because my system needs replacing and I'm not a fanboy with unlimited access to the trust account so I can replace my system six times a year every time a new CPU comes out. I am sick and tired of playing the upgrading game and in my long history with PCs and Macs going back to 1981 (a $7,000 Toshiba with a nuclear green screen that would etch your retina and make you see magenta for hours afterwards), I've gone through well over 30 systems. I wish I could have had as many cars through that time! I'm still driving a 1991 s#!tbox!

I want to go with a state of the art quad sometime in Q3-Q4 '07 so that in '08-'09-'10 I'll still have something that is somewhat reasonable to handle the work I want to do at that time. Yes, I fully realize that by 2010 Octos or Sixteenos or whatever will be the way to go, but I figure that my quad will be that year's equivalent of my Prescott now. Dated, but can still get the job done.

I'm strange in that way. I actually like to use my PC, not just rip it apart and replace its bits all the time! :lol: 
October 14, 2006 2:44:24 PM

I probably misexplain myself AIDS.

My point was meant to say that if somebody purchassed a new computer now, they'll be stupid to go for any single-core cpu. I usually tell poeple (friends of mine) asking for advice that they should always purchased a computer that's (at least) more powerful than what they need today, because what they'll do tomorrow will need more cpu power for sure.

Considering that multithreaded apps are becoming the norm, even quad-core will be a best buy in the long run, for a fair price of course. Plus, any user that want to be able to more than one thing at a time will really see the benifit of quad+ core cpu even with single threaded apps.

Also, it will get even better with Vista (read before flaming!!!! :evil:  ). Altough tougher on the cpu-memory subsystem, Vista should easily surpass WXP in splitting thread amongst available core, giving you better performances in multi apps environment.

Those saying otherwise should go get a super 486DX/50 with 16MB (wow, 16!!!) memory system on Windows3.1. That was then more than enough to play Doom (end-1993), wasn't it? Oh, but was it for Lara Croft 3 years after (end-1996)? No offence to anybody, I'm just trying to show my point.

For those in doubt, I do enjoy being challenged with different opinion and I respect yours. I know I might sound rude, but being french speaking I use the words I know as well as I can... :oops: 
December 27, 2007 10:53:55 AM

Well, I please counter strike.. it take MORE CPU and RAM than graphics... I saw the Core2duo make my normal single core look like shizness.. I.O.W. like sh*t.. My friend get like 250FPS in css with a more crappier graphics card than mine.. just bcZe of his CPU.. so ya. CPU is worth every thing when you buy it. dont make a mestake.. even though the cheap entry level core2's from intel is kickass.

So ya.. save your money and buy Core2.. how better the processor, the better FPS and performance and better the game. dont let anyone fool you.. 1gig of fast ram is more than enough.. good processor and good graphics = good combination.
December 27, 2007 1:52:11 PM

Wow...you do realize that this thread was over a year old when you repsonded, right?
December 27, 2007 4:17:57 PM

Aids said:
Back to hardware talk. If there were an X6900 clocked at 3.2 ghz. Would anyone here consider purchasing it, if it were at a reasonable price?


At a reasonable price, yes.

At $1,000, hell no.

I won't buy any CPU that costs more than $300 from either Intel or AMD. I don't get these people that buy CPUs that cost more than my average complete build.
December 27, 2007 5:16:39 PM

:sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  Unbeleivable. :sarcastic:  :sarcastic:  :sarcastic: 

Check the post dates please....this horse was dead and resting peacefully
!