Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The worst review ever of a Core 2 Extreme QX6850

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 6, 2007 7:59:28 PM

Check out this article.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?a...

Intel sent this guy (Alexander Wolfe) a QX6850 CPU to review. So he decides to build a PC around this CPU on a budget of $1,666! The CPU alone costs $1,100 and he only had $566 left to use for all the other parts. He used an nVidia FX 5200 graphics card, an 80GB hard drive that runs at 5,400 RPMs, a single 1GB chip of value RAM, a generic 450 watt power supply, and a plain looking beige case! Most of those parts are at least 4 years old and manufacturers stopped using them on value computers years ago.

This is like General Motors sending a 505 hp V8 Corvette engine to a website to review. So the reviewer decides he's on a budget and puts the car in a rusted out 1989 Chevy Cavalier. Here is what the author would write: "Once we got the car running, I took it out on the test track and I got it up to 70 mph. When I hit that speed, all the body panels flew off and the front axle broke in half because of all the power being fed to the wheels. So it seems this engine is only capable of pushing a car up to 70 mph." NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

On the PCMark05 benchmark he got a score around 2,800. Some of the other websites that reviewed the QX6850 got a score of over 9,000!

I bet this is the LAST time Intel sends an enthusiast CPU to Information Week for a review. You can leave a comment about the article. Please slam the author for using parts from a 1GHz machine.
September 6, 2007 8:51:53 PM

Obviously I didn't read the whole article... I jumped to the last page and found this:

"Finally, with the QX6850, clearly my benchmarks didn't match what other reviews have achieved when they've matched the processor with state-of-the-art sister components in fully outfitted labs. Nevertheless, the QX6850 is clearly the smoothest running and fastest chip I've ever used, with ample headroom for any task.

However, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it's worth spending $1,100 on a processor if you're not going to build a so-called "enthusiast" (i.e., gaming) system. Either wait until the QX6850 comes down in price, or select a worthy but lower-cost alternative, such as the $300 Core 2 Quad Q6600."

Here the author clearly acknowledges his use of outdated hardware but still claims the chip is great. (He acknowledges the shortcomings of his "benchmark").

I do agree it was a waste of effort for him to do and for the reader to read. Why slap an enthusiast processor into grandma's "can barely view a web-page" PC. His time and energy could have been better spent elsewhere.
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2007 9:11:32 PM

"Finally, with the QX6850, clearly my benchmarks didn't match what other reviews have achieved when they've matched the processor with state-of-the-art sister components in fully outfitted labs. Nevertheless, the QX6850 is clearly the smoothest running and fastest chip I've ever used, with ample headroom for any task.

However, I think it's reasonable to ask whether it's worth spending $1,100 on a processor if you're not going to build a so-called "enthusiast" (i.e., gaming) system. Either wait until the QX6850 comes down in price, or select a worthy but lower-cost alternative, such as the $300 Core 2 Quad Q6600."

The most pointless article ever written. I could see them using a Q6600 with the setup, but not the QX6850. Who in their right mind would build such a setup? Half the stuff in the setup I have laying around! Again, waste of time to write that article.

Related resources
September 6, 2007 9:15:31 PM

He stated several times that the FX 5200 was holding back the performance in some of the benchmarks. And also that the hard drive and other parts were substandard. But if he cannot do this CPU justice, why even try? He mentioned he had built several other systems recently, why not take some of the parts off GOOD computers.

Again it was a waste of effort.
September 6, 2007 9:20:04 PM

He must not know much about Intel's "Extreme" processors if he is telling readers to wait until it comes down in price.

The extreme lines never drop in price...
September 6, 2007 11:38:05 PM

Ive got a better idea he could have shipped the CPU to me and i could have tested it, ive got 4 machines that the QX6850 would fit into that would destroy the system he used...

Plus i woulda got a awesome CPU out of it ;) 
September 6, 2007 11:50:01 PM

The most ridiclous thing about this is that if you have the money for that processor, odds are you have the money to get the other components that would complement it. Who would spend that much and connect a crappy vid card, etc. I agree with the other posters, what a waste of time both for the author and for me having spent any time reading the article. He acknowledges the bad choice in components, but shouldn't he have know not to use them from the outset.

If I was Intel I'd send this guy a bunch of P3's for him to benchmark, they probably have a few laying around the warehouse.

LOL, budget build with an $1100 processor. Thats like putting a Corvette motor in a Civic.

a c 125 à CPUs
September 7, 2007 12:01:08 AM

LOL....was a good laugh....should send it to me...i will make good use of it

Just for the point
9347 is my score
September 7, 2007 10:17:01 PM

some people are such noobs - this guy with a $1000 chip in $1500 computer is nodoubt a noob!
a b à CPUs
September 7, 2007 11:01:37 PM

Yeah, jwolf, even the P4/D EE CPU's are running $900+ I believe. Intel will never drop the price of the Extreme CPU's.
September 8, 2007 12:05:16 AM

Yep, a killer of a processor using very outdated supporting equipment. Didn't the brains at Intel tell the dude to use something resembling current gear, maybe something that meets MS Vista requirements?
!