Last message on previous page:
from the test result chats, i see the cpu, e6650.
i don't think e6650 is existed.

supreme commander might utilize multiple cores but may not take advantage more then two, or the fsb may be capping it a little etc

as for some of the results, i wonder why the 5 series (1mb L2) P4 in some benchmarks beats the 6 series (2mb L2) in some and not in others? - http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/0 [...] age18.html - have a look at the 520 loosing to the 620, then further up, the 560 beating the 660??? even the latter vista scores show it?

Wish tomshardware would add the Opteron Series in comparison to the Intels and AMD64s...

But that might just be me.

Q: Can a Ford Pinto sometimes beat a Chevy Vega?
A: Who cares?



(sorry, no offense intended, just having a bit of fun... but maybe showing my age)

Interesting article! I've been wondering though, how older motherboards will cope with these new FSB1333 processors. According to ASUS several of their current boards which do not officially support FSB1333 can be made to do so by upgrading the BIOS. That includes i975X boards like the popular ASUS P5W DH Deluxe.

I've actually set my sights on this board and an E6600, but wanted to wait for the July 22 price cuts. Now, it seems, local dealers won't carry any FSB1066 processors.

Does anyone here have any idea how older motherboards that *do* support C2D and C2Q, but not yet have the very latest BIOS, will cope with these new FSB1333 processors? Will it be like the last time where you'd more or less need an earlier P4 or Celeron processor in order to power up the system and update the BIOS? Or would it be possible to power up a system with a new FSB1333, but not the latest BIOS, just long enough to do that BIOS update?

Any input on the subject would be more than welcome. I'm especially interested in the P5W DH Deluxe (surprise surprise ), since I *might* use some ECC DDR2 6400 memory with it...

I had to jump in on this.. but by the time we "need" quad cores for gaming, wouldnt we want to buy something better than a 6600 anyway that wold be around the same price by that time? like the 7700 or whatever for like 300 bucks wouldnt the 6850 be better for the next 18 months ?

just a thought why buy a quad now that in 12-24 months will be slow for quads

My sentiments exactly!

I'm personally going for the third option... Q6700.

I know intel Pulled support on the D975XBX2 for 1333FSB but has anyone slapped a E6X50 chip on this board and it posted??

once again lost in the dark no real advances and let alone software never catches up for years to come

Supreme Commander DOES take advantage of more cores.

SupCom is my fav game but with my old computer 4200+ X2 and 1650xt it just didn't go. As soon as got close to 1k units it just got sooo slow.

My Q6600 and soon to have 8800gts 640mb will be awesome for it. It seems it gets a lot of boost from the CPU, so overclocking it would be great.

Off topic: If they had just made supreme commander a bit faster it would kick *** but they went and thew away all the TA goodness and made it into large scale chess.

I think that pretty soon you will be buying an extra processor for a speed boost when you are out of processor power, that would be pretty cool, i know it is unlikely but it would still be cool.

I noticed after a review a couple months ago that after I mentioned that the AMD Quad FX-70+ processors had much more memory bandwidth (>14 GB/s) than any other X86 processors from either Intel or AMD, that all AMD Quad FX-70+ processors were deleted from Tom's tables over the course of the following month.

Now you claim to do a review of state-of-the-art processors and you completely omit the AMD Quad FX-70+ series.

Nice touch.

In the past I could at least use Tom's to lookup processor comparisons by the numbers (no commentary). Now you are just shameless shrills for Intel. Sad, when you start censoring out results you don't like and you are no longer a trustworthy source of IT information.