Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Q6600: True or Lie?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 18, 2007 4:29:55 AM

Here is weird comment I came across searching info about Q6600.
What you think about it? Is this true?

Intel caused a bottle neck with this when they doubled the cores and didnt bump up the bus speed. E6600 gives 533Mhz per core, the Q6600 only gives 266Mhz or 333Mhz depending on if you are runnign a 1066Mhz FSB or 1333Mhz FSB. The gain from this is definately not worth the cost even after the price drop will happen. Definately dont get this. Wait for the true quads or get the E6600.

More about : q6600 true lie

April 18, 2007 4:33:41 AM

Both.

Intel didn't drop anything, they just went with the same bandwidth limit for the package. The Q6600 runs with a front side bus of 266mhz, quad pumped to 1066mhz, the same as all conroes and kentfields.

Yes, the more cores there are, the more bandwidth that will be needed. But from what I'm hearing, bandwidth starvation is not happening.
April 18, 2007 4:38:38 AM

Whoever said that is an idiot and hasn't got a clue. Otherwise how the heck are the C2Qs comprehensively beating C2Ds in multithreaded benchmarks if the FSB is such a bottleneck?

The 1066MHz FSB is more than sufficient for a Q6600. I remember seeing an article months ago (I don't have the link anymore, didn't bother to bookmark it) where they were comparing a QX6700 on a 1066MHz/1333MHz FSB and only on very select bandwith constrained benchmarks is there a difference exceeding 5% between the bus speeds. Most of the time the 1333MHz bus is only 1 - 2% faster than the 1066MHz bus, which leads me to conclude that a Q6600 is not overly bottlenecked by the FSB.

I believe JumpingJack did some testing on his own as well on this topic, perhaps he would like to enlighten us with his results?
Related resources
a c 111 à CPUs
April 18, 2007 5:47:54 AM

The FSB bottleneck will start to get more noticeable but as it stands there are several tests that show there is only a small difference(1-5%) with a higher FSB. This will be taken into account(and changed if needed) on future processors. Don't worry about FSB, its fast enough for current CPU's

EDIT
wow Jack! ure fast
April 18, 2007 5:53:15 AM

Indeed, upcoming 45nm quads will have a 1333MHz FSB, but the clockspeed is also significantly higher than current quads, so the clockspeed-to-FSB ratio is actually still quite close.
April 18, 2007 6:18:17 AM

Quote:
Here is weird comment I came across searching info about Q6600.
What you think about it? Is this true?

Intel caused a bottle neck with this when they doubled the cores and didnt bump up the bus speed. E6600 gives 533Mhz per core, the Q6600 only gives 266Mhz or 333Mhz depending on if you are runnign a 1066Mhz FSB or 1333Mhz FSB. The gain from this is definately not worth the cost even after the price drop will happen. Definately dont get this. Wait for the true quads or get the E6600.

sounds like what sharikouboombaboom, and also AMD marketing team will say... :roll:
April 18, 2007 6:53:55 AM

Jack, so what is the ETD on your data?
a b à CPUs
April 18, 2007 7:08:33 AM

Alas, Jack, the Academy thought "Yo, she-b*!ch!" wasn't Oscar worthy.
April 18, 2007 8:32:41 AM

Quote:
Alas, Jack, the Academy thought "Yo, she-b*!ch!" wasn't Oscar worthy.


It was in my book.... in fact I count at least 4 lines from that movie that are in a tie for "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn" ... you pegged one of them.... probably the best one.

- "First you want to kill me, now you want to kiss me .... blow"
- "Oh, dear God, it's growing bigger! "
- "This is my boom stick.... shop smart, shop s-mart"
- "Hail to the king, baby. "

I just love that movie.... and I enjoyed watcing spiderman 2 as you can see tidbits of AoD all over the place.

not to nitpick....
Anonymous
April 18, 2007 9:42:29 AM

Bandwidth isn't an issue here. What could be an issue is FSB overclocking with the quads. Because they aren't true quads, and just two dual cores put together, the two sets have to use the FSB to get information to the other set. With true quads, the FSB would not be involved. So in that respect, yes, FSB is a bottleneck. But it still isn't major.
April 18, 2007 1:13:41 PM

It is if you utilize the full potential of Intel's measly narrow FSB that the glue (elmers) that is holding the affixed processors together begins to melt... but not to worry, since next revision quad processors welded solidly together, thus no melting...
!