Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600

[PAGETITLE=Introduction] [Top Ad] There's no doubt that 2006 was one of the most incredible years in technology in recent memory. There were scandals, impressive landscape-shifting mergers, strange new alliances and many new products and technologies unveiled. One launch that stands out in everyone's mind is Intel's Conroe last summer. We were teased with leaked benchmark results and other information months before the release and once the launch finally hit, we were all relieved to see that it actually lived up to the hype. After a launch like this, we didn't think that a follow-up would arrive for a while. We were wrong. In the early fall, we first learned about Intel's quad-core CPU, which is essentially two Conroes under the same IHS. I admit, I didn't expect to actually see it so soon, but come November, it was publicly available for anyone to purchase. Intel's at the top of their game, and don't want to step down anytime soon. When they first launched their QX6700, they held off launching the Q6600 until early January. We don't know the reason for the delay, but now the possibility of having your own quad-core machine without breaking the bank has finally arrived. Let's first get the basics out of the way. Oh My Quad The Q6600 is a 2.4GHz chip, like its little brother the E6600. Both CPUs are nearly identical and use the same die(s), except that the Q6600 has two of them. Essentially, everything is doubled. Twice the cores, twice the cache and twice the drool. Like the other Core 2 Duos, Core 2 Quads are based on a 65nm process, although the process requires a slightly higher stock voltage. Since both the Quads are so similar to the Duos, it's no surprise to see that the die size is simply doubled as well, resulting in 2 x 143mm^2. When compared to the top of the line QX6700 chip, the specs are again identical except for the 2.66GHz clock speed. Other than that, the CPUs are the same, just binned differently. When comparing to the top end Core 2 Duo, the differences are a lot more meaningful. While the QX6700 retails for just under $1,000, so does the X6800. However, when considering the QX6700, you receive a lower clock speed in return for twice the cores. At that point, it's up to you whether you want or need the sheer clock speed or greater benefits for your multi-thread applications. To help put everything into perspective, here's a simple graph showcasing all of Intel's current Core 2 offerings. CPU Model Clock Speed FSB L2 Cache TDP Cores Pricing Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 130w 4 $999 Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB 75W 2 $999 Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 105W 4 $851 Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 $530 Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 $316 Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 $224 Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 $183 Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 1.80GHz 800MHz 2MB 65W 2 $163 One interesting point to note is that even though the Q6600 is essentially 2 x E6600, the TDP is not doubled, but rather sits at a comfortable 105W. The higher clocked QX6700 is 130W, however, which is why we don't see a QX6800 instead. A TDP of 130W is high to begin with, but considering the much slower 820 D we reviewed less than a year ago also had a TDP of 130W, power consumption still hasn't entered uncharted territory, and there are thermal solutions available to deal with that kind of heat. Below, you can see a highly detailed illustration of the quad-core's innards. In case you thought that two dies would be a tight squeeze, think again! Despite having four cores, there's still a reasonable amount of breathing room in there. For a more realistic view of the chip with the HS off, you can check out the picture provided by Intel here. As far as the back of the CPU goes, nothing can better explain it than a photograph. The E6600 sits on the left while the Q6600 is on the right. The only difference is in the number of filtering components. With introductions out of the way, let's explore the reason Quad-Core exists and take a look at its future. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Why Quad-Core?] [Top Ad] Before we jump into the review further, I think we need to take a look at why such a chip exists today. When I first learned of Kentsfield, like so many people, I thought, "Who needs four cores? Most people are still looking for a use for two." If you have to ask why you need four cores, then you probably don't need four cores. However, workstations, graphic/video designers, or even computers in the research field could well benefit from a single CPU with four cores under the hood. That's not to say normal users couldn't take advantage of four cores though, because there are a slew of applications out there today that -will- take advantage of every core available to them, and I am not just talking about applications such as 3D Studio Max or AutoCAD. When dual-cores first launched less than two years ago, there were many people who didn't understand why you would need more than one core, or how it would be possible to utilize both in a realistic scenario. I think it's fair to say that today, most people who use Dual Cores love them. Just last week, I was fixing a friends computer who is still stuck with a Single Core processor. I was thankful that I could go back to my Dual Core later that evening. Spreading huge workloads over multiple cores just makes sense... and leads to a smoother and more responsive computer experience. So two we understand, but what about four? As we will find out from a few specific tests, some everyday applications that we already use are designed to utilize more than one core. Nero Recode for example, is one of these applications. At it's peak, it will use all cores up to 90%, effectively cutting the time in half off an encoding project when compared to a Dual Core processor at the same speed. This is just one of the many possible examples of how even the average user can benefit from quad-core. But as it stands today, the users who will really enjoy the benefits of a quad-core chip are those who are into heavy duty multi-media work, whether it be rendering high-resolution models or encoding a home video. I've already mentioned 3D Studio Max, a popular 3D graphics application. Big movie studios use it, game designers use it, advanced hobbyists use it, and they all realize what a resource hog 3DS Max can be. Some projects may take hours to render, while others take days. When you can install a CPU of identical physical size to the one you are using now and effectively cut rendering time in half... it's practically a no-brainer. When Dual Core CPUs first launched, there was a popular scenario given. "Imagine playing your favorite game while ripping a DVD!" If you are a believer of this outlook, then quad-core takes it a step further. Imagine re-encoding a DVD at twice the speed (or triple the speed if the game is not using two full cores) while playing your favorite game. That's now possible with multiple core machines. With the launch of the QX6700 chip in November, Intel became the first out the door with a quad-core CPU for public consumption. Nobody has yet followed up to this launch, unless you count Quad FX, which is not actually a quad-core processor, but rather a quad-core machine. I've not played with Quad FX personally, but it will be AMD's Barcelona that we will all be waiting for. Whether or not it will be able to compete with Kentsfield will be seen later this year. Quad-Like Technology As mentioned in the intro, Kentsfield doesn't have a single die, but rather consists of two dual-core dies. Think of the Q6600 as essentially two E6600s joined at the hip. Some purists may complain that all four cores don't share a single die, so Intel's Core 2 quads aren't true quad-cores, but since both dies share a single LGA775 package, it's reasonable to regard them as a functional unit. Intel has a couple reasons for doing things this way, the primary one being that having two dies result in better yields and bins. A second reason is the fact that it requires less engineering resources, because they already have the technology... they just needed to simply throw two dies onto the processor. All of these reasons save both Intel and the consumer money in the long run. Even though the Q6600 denotes 4MB x 2 L2 cache, the entire cache can be shared by any of the cores. If one core, for example, is doing most of the legwork and needs extra cache, it can use what's available off the other cores. It's an "8-way" cache system, so store/load sequences should prove faster than the 4-way system that would result if each die was limited to its own onboard cache. Greater memory bandwidth is another of Intel's design priorities, so all Core CPUs utilize what's called Smart Memory Access. What it effectively does is allow more than one execution to occur at any given time, instead of one application having to wait on another set of instructions to finish. This results in reduced latency and higher overall bandwidth. This still doesn't match AMD's on-die memory controller however, as it has larger bandwidth capabilities. Whether or not this extra bandwidth would make difference in the grand scheme of things is still up for debate. As it stands, receiving bandwidth of "5,000MB/s" might be all anyone needs, depending on what you are doing. Looking to the future, Intel released their latest roadmap at the last IDF which shows their Core 2 architecture's next steps: Penryn and Nehalem. These CPUs will have a huge slew of benefits, including a 45nm process, improved transistors, lower power requirements, higher clock speed. For the enthusiasts, lower power and the smaller process usually mean better overclocking. We will not be seeing these released until late 2007 or early 2008. [PAGEBREAK] [PAGETITLE=Testing Methodology, SYSmark] [Top Ad] Our testing methodology is simple. Two copies of Windows XP Pro are...

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600

Page 156 –

Rob Williams