Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel announces C2Q 6400

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 19, 2006 4:03:03 PM

According to the guys at HKEPC(who always get the juicy info first), Intel has
announced the release of C2Q6400(2.13GHz/4MB L2/1066FSB). This baby should really put the pressure on AMD in the 4-core performance/$ wars...especially when overclocked. :p 

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=714636&starttim...

Unfortunately, release isn't scheduled til Q3 07. :x
December 19, 2006 4:47:37 PM

Wow, Intel is really trying to expand their product lines. A whole new refresh on the dual core C2D's, and now 2 lower end quad cores, looks like 2007 is going to be a very good year. :D 
December 19, 2006 4:53:35 PM

Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]
Related resources
December 19, 2006 5:04:41 PM

Quote:
Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]
There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.
December 19, 2006 5:38:09 PM

Quote:
Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]
There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

I can already do that on my C2D tho. :)  I routinely rip DVD's while surfing and usually have World of Warcrat up in windowed mode on my second screen, alont with a couple chat windows. I rarely get any performance degradation while doing this, and usually at that point it's page swapping that bogs things down...
December 19, 2006 5:45:52 PM

Quote:
Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]
There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

I can already do that on my C2D tho. :)  I routinely rip DVD's while surfing and usually have World of Warcrat up in windowed mode on my second screen, alont with a couple chat windows. I rarely get any performance degradation while doing this, and usually at that point it's page swapping that bogs things down...I know that...what i'm saying, is that there are a lot of people who's "ego's" make them think that they are heavy megataskers, and need as many cores as physics will allow. :wink: Don't forget also, that many people poo-pooed the need for dual-core as well. There will come a time, when 4 cores will be put to good use...probably be a few years though.
December 19, 2006 5:51:09 PM

Quote:
Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]
There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

I can already do that on my C2D tho. :)  I routinely rip DVD's while surfing and usually have World of Warcrat up in windowed mode on my second screen, alont with a couple chat windows. I rarely get any performance degradation while doing this, and usually at that point it's page swapping that bogs things down...
I know that...what i'm saying, is that there are a lot of people who's "ego's" make them think that they are heavy megataskers, and need as many cores as physics will allow. :wink: Don't forget also, that many people poo-pooed the need for dual-core as well. There will come a time, when 4 cores will be put to good use...probably be a few years though.

Nah, s'all good man, I know you knew it I was just tossing out my $.02 and my experiences in. Quad core would be cool from a bragging rights standpoint right now but IMO that's about it. Unless your BaronMegatasker. As a note I'm also trying to escape the other threads where the conservationists seem to have taken over...shhh...don't talk to loudly about more cores here or this thread will be next....
December 19, 2006 5:54:40 PM

Quote:

[]...

Unfortunately, release isn't scheduled til Q3 07. :x


Good! By Q3 07 we will be worrying about the fuse processor or else.
December 19, 2006 6:02:52 PM

Quote:


...As a note I'm also trying to escape the other threads where the conservationists seem to have taken over...shhh...don't talk to loudly about more cores here or this thread will be next....


[MegaBorgs] "Resistance is futile...this thread will be assimilated..."
December 19, 2006 6:11:35 PM

I'm imagining that the sidebar in Vista that allows all of those little "applets" running could make use of multiple cores pretty easily. Also, more cores will make the process of switching between applications that much faster, which will benefit everyone that runs more than one interactive application. The real key will to convince people to not starve their mult-core boxes. Very soon 2 GB of memory will be standard fair.
December 19, 2006 6:19:13 PM

Quote:
I'm imagining that the sidebar in Vista that allows all of those little "applets" running could make use of multiple cores pretty easily. Also, more cores will make the process of switching between applications that much faster, which will benefit everyone that runs more than one interactive application. The real key will to convince people to not starve their mult-core boxes. Very soon 2 GB of memory will be standard fair.
Yeah...come Jan.30th. :wink: VISTA.
December 19, 2006 6:24:34 PM

I doubt that any *S*ignificant performance can be achieve under vi$ta or any other OS system, by mainly depending on cpu capacity. The reason for that is that any memory-dependent system, like vista is, really depends precisely on that...how much prime-memory you have...However, for CAD and CGI a 4p system + plenty of memory... the performance can be seen immediately...And you're definitely right, 2 gigs of ram will sooner than later not be enough...
December 19, 2006 6:30:22 PM

Quote:
I'm imagining that the sidebar in Vista that allows all of those little "applets" running could make use of multiple cores pretty easily. Also, more cores will make the process of switching between applications that much faster, which will benefit everyone that runs more than one interactive application. The real key will to convince people to not starve their mult-core boxes. Very soon 2 GB of memory will be standard fair.
Yeah...come Jan.30th. :wink: VISTA.

Although this might be somewhat off topic, but you don't need to wait until vista to realize that 2 gigs is nowadays the standard...no offense intended, but where you've been hiding? I have 1 gig running on my P4 system and I feel like I can do faster calculations by hand than by utilizing my PC trying to open up calc on windows...

Edit: I meant 2 gigs...
December 19, 2006 6:35:26 PM

I dispense a lot of computer advice and make a lot of purchasing decisions. For XP I use the standard of 1 gig. With the additional requirements of Vista I would recommend 2 gigs.

However, getting back on topic: Even Vista won't challenge a quad-core system greatly. The biggest vista challenge will be handled by a graphics card. However, I am looking forward to seeing OS and software that will seem even more responsive with multiple cores.

Currently with my dual-core opteron I notice the system being a little pepier, but rarely do I find myself utilizing both the cores. The only time that has happened thus far is doing some heavy duty napstering (downloading and transfering to an MP3 player) while playing an online game (CounterStrike: Source, Battlefield 2).
December 19, 2006 6:45:14 PM

But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS??? :wink:

</sarcasm>
December 19, 2006 6:56:10 PM

Sweet Mother of Murgatriod!

The sarcasm and underlying insinuations dripping from this thread (short as it is) are so thick I feel like I need a shower to cleanse myself.


Well Done!! :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
December 19, 2006 7:36:18 PM

blah ill just get a damn C2 E6600 and then upgrade to Quad Core if its worth it...so far its not due to the fact nothing is optimized foor even dual core and the benchmarks of Quad Core are not showing me its worth the money
December 19, 2006 7:44:12 PM

Well with a Quad Core I can Idle that much faster:) 
December 19, 2006 7:58:31 PM

Yeah, and what happens if you have 2 monitors and you want to encode a DVD while playing Oblivion and simultaneously idling in IRC? What then? Haha.
December 19, 2006 8:03:30 PM

Quote:
But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS??? :wink:

</sarcasm>


There is a performance gain to be had. QX6700 at 2.66Ghz can keep up with a X6800 (2.93Ghz) clocked at a higher clock speed in most applications, and can beat it in others.

Multicore is just an extension of dual processor motherboards. They've been around for a long time giving substantial benefits to users.

If you are video editing, these things kick butt! (from what I've read)

Truthfully, I think AMD is just trying to save face and look like they weren't caught with their pants down.
December 19, 2006 8:06:52 PM

Quote:
But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS??? :wink:

</sarcasm>
So...because AMD says it...makes it so?
December 19, 2006 8:08:41 PM

Quote:
Truthfully, I think AMD is just trying to save face and look like they weren't caught with their pants down.
BINGO!!
December 19, 2006 8:12:40 PM

Quote:
But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS??? :wink:

</sarcasm>
So...because AMD says it...makes it so?
Bingo!!!! Who cares if it's right at the time when they are getting their butts handed to them on the Multi-Core front? That's just a coincidence! ;) 

BTW, you KNOW I'm being sarcastic, right?

Quote:
Truthfully, I think AMD is just trying to save face and look like they weren't caught with their pants down.

My thoughts exactly... hence my post.
December 19, 2006 8:13:00 PM

It probably is just a trend. TV was said to be a trend that will never surpass radio in revenue and will die soon enough because the "average consumer doesn't have time to sit and watch TV, they can carry their radio with them."

You may still argue it is just a trend :p  But I for one, will follow that trend as far as it goes. As much as I hate being "trendy" :( ...
December 19, 2006 8:17:01 PM

Hah. So, wait, you mean PCs are just a trend as well? Holy crap... AMD sure is a forward-thinking company!!! ;) 
December 19, 2006 8:18:44 PM

Quote:
Wow, Intel is really trying to expand their product lines. A whole new refresh on the dual core C2D's, and now 2 lower end quad cores, looks like 2007 is going to be a very good year.


Add to that the new steppings for E6300 and E6400. Plus new stepping for Xeons 3000 series. In addition, New Steppings for the Intel Pentium 4 631, 641 and 651.

Amazing
December 19, 2006 8:19:56 PM

Long live multi-core!!! :wink: I just hope they keep socket 775 around so I can keep up without changing out my whole system.
December 19, 2006 8:21:09 PM

Quote:
It probably is just a trend. TV was said to be a trend that will never surpass radio in revenue and will die soon enough because the "average consumer doesn't have time to sit and watch TV, they can carry their radio with them."

You may still argue it is just a trend :p  But I for one, will follow that trend as far as it goes. As much as I hate being "trendy" :( ...
Most "change" is met with skepticism...that's in our nature. The thing to remember, is that just because skeptics write-off things, doesn't mean they're right. TV is a good example, and of course the idea of a PC in every home was also quite laughable. No(in western civilization) we laugh if one of our kids' friends don't have a PC, and wonder....how in the hell...do they do their homework?
December 19, 2006 8:35:59 PM

Quote:
http://www.gametrailers.com/umwatcher.php?id=15409 watch this C2Q6700 using 1 cpu core on just the tornado
Very cool. Alan Wake has been postponed until 2008, but the graphics look awesome. Nice video. Of course that was an O/Ced C2Q @ 3.73GHz... i would like to have seen it run @ stock speed..2.66GHz. :) 
December 19, 2006 9:57:59 PM

xD yea so insane graphic. well if u watch the water in the video u can see its pretty low fps so it would probably be sucky running on stock speed :b i just hope it will run ''ok'' on C2D.
December 19, 2006 10:22:12 PM

Quote:

Although this might be somewhat off topic, but you don't need to wait until vista to realize that 2 gigs is nowadays the standard...no offense intended, but where you've been hiding? I have 1 gig running on my P4 system and I feel like I can do faster calculations by hand than by utilizing my PC trying to open up calc on windows...

Edit: I meant 2 gigs...


Two GB of memory may be the standard for a gaming machine but that is pretty far from the standard for an business machine. All but a handfull of computers at my company have 512 MB of memory running XP. Nothing they do requires more than that.

Vista raises that bar just by being a fat, hairy OS. And since not everyone, especially businesses, will be moving to Vista right away, I think my assessment stands. ;) 
December 19, 2006 10:57:24 PM

Quote:
Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]
There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

I'm one of those people -who will be getting a quad.

Mega-Tasker ? -
hmm - let me see...

while still sober
{
play HF2
drink beer
if balls itch
then
scratch them
endif
}

Seriously, can you tell the difference between QX6700 and the X6800
in playing games. No.

But, as Valve (I love half-life) is doing now, and others will follow.
Having 4 cores - might come in handy. I will give up a little
speed today - for some performance gain - next year.

As far as what AMD says. I haven't read the complete article.
But, I do believe more cores does not mean better or faster. As the old
Gigaherz wars told us - But who can build the better machine -
where the cores are not being throttle-back with bottlenecks.
December 21, 2006 7:17:30 AM

I see people saying there is no point in quad core yet,but there better than you think,i just built my new rig with the QX6700 and this thing will encode a full 8 gig dual layer dvd (starwars episode 3) in 2 and a half minutes (2.30) with dvd shrink,thats with the QX6700 overclocked at 3200mhz and encoding from one raptor harddrive to another,can anyone do that with a core2duo 2 core running at same speed,all i am saying is that there are some apps out there that can use the 4 core,so there not completely useless.
!