Time: 23:57:24 CET 14:57:24 PST 17:57:24 EST 06:57:24 Seoul 05:57:24 Beijing
BLOGS
Hardware: Core 2 Quadro
We've all been eagerly anticipating Intel's release of its quad-core microprocessors. The chip maker hopes to regain its performance crown with these four-headed beasts. We got our hands on a sample and put it through its paces. Does it deliver?
Introduction
With the advent of the Intel Core architecture earlier this year, it became clear that Intel was back at the top as the performance king for the desktop processor market. Intel has shifted right away from clock-scaling and the Netburst architecture, and moved towards better performance-per-watt ratios and increasing the number of processing cores. The Intel Core series CPUs come in three main varieties:
* Core Solo: Single core CPU, code named Yonah, designed for notebooks; there will soon be an Allendale version for desktops.
* Core Duo: Dual core CPU, code named Yonah, designed for notebooks.
* Core 2 Duo: Dual core CPU available for both notebooks (code named Merom) and desktops (code named Conroe for 4 MB cached chips and Allendale for 2MB cached chips).
Intel plans to release a quad-core edition of the Core CPU some time during Q4 2006, codenamed Kentsfield. This CPU is to be available in QX6600 and QX6700 varieties. Each will have four cores clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.66GHz respectively, and 8MB cache, 4MB per each pair of cores. The Kentsfield, to be called Core 2 Quadro upon release, is to be the first quad-core CPU available to the desktop market, giving unprecedented performance to everyday users.
Essentially this CPU is just two Core 2 Duos slabbed on one PCB. One of the things that disappointed us most was that the 8MB of cache was not shared between all four cores, but rather only 4MB is available to each pair of cores, limiting single threaded performance to the equivalent of that of the Core 2 Duo at equivalent clocks.
It seems that after the disappointment of Netburst, Intel is rushing to reclaim the performance crown by rushing out the Kentsfield by the end of 2006. It was originally planned for a Q2 2007 release. By producing it using their 65nm transistors rather than moving to 45nm transistors as originally planned, they are able to have it ready at the end of this year. This may potentially lead to heat concerns; while the Conroe didn't have any heat issues, Kentsfield, being essentially two Conroes, each having a TDP of 65W, leads the Kentsfield to have approximately 130W TDP. That is somewhat shy of the furnaces that were the dual core Netburst chips, but it still produces a rather worrying amount of heat, which may limit its overclock with conventional cooling methods.
A Closer Look
Today we'll be looking at the Core 2 Quadro (Kentsfield). The sample we have is a QX6600, clocked by default to 2.4GHz per core, with a 1066MHz front side bus and a total of 8MB of cache.
Here is an image of our sample chip. The Core 2 Quadro is on the left, and a Core 2 Duo is on the right. They appear essentially the same, with no major differences other than the wording. As you can see our Quadro reads ES A4, indicating that it's an early engineering sample, while our Duo reads ES , indicating that it's intended to be identical to retail. Therefore, our chip may differ somewhat from retail Quadros.
Here is an image of the LGA (land-grid-array) of our two chips (Core 2 Quadro on the left and Core 2 Duo on the right). As you can see, the chip uses the standard LGA775 socket, which means that is should be drop-in compatible with most boards that run the Core 2 Duo. The most modification required should be a bios update, providing an exciting upgrade path for Core 2 Duo users.
We installed the CPU into our test setup, and quickly attempted to boot the board with success on the first run! The board posted correctly and the POST screen read: "Genuine Intel® CPU @ 2.66GHz Cores: 4". What surprised me was that it ran perfectly on our board with all cores being detected and with no need for a bios update.
Here is the POST screen of our Asus P5WDG2-WS Pro with the latest bios revision 0307. As you can see it detects our chip and sees all four cores.
The Test setup
Our test setup consisted of:
Power Supply: Antec Neo HE 500W
Motherboard: Asus P5WDG2-WS Pro I975X
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quadro QX6600 cooled with a Thermalright HR-01-775
Memory: 4x1024MB OCZ PC2-4200 EB Platinum
Video Array: 2xAsus branded X1600XT in Crossfire
Hard Disk Array: LSI Logic AcceleRAID 170 with 2x146GB Hitachi 10K U160 drives
Operating System: Windows Server 2003 32bit with physical address extension
As you can see, I've somewhat neglected to address the heat concerns that I predicted with this CPU. I'm concerned more with silence, and have no components being directly, actively cooled.
We booted the system and entered the BIOS setup. I quickly checked the temperature; it was sitting at a sound 65 degrees, not outstandingly cool, but quite incredible really when you consider there are essentially four CPUs running under that one sink.
Once I made it to Windows, temps were down to 59-60C due to the idle-state used within Windows, as opposed to the bios.
We used Core Temp to determine the temperatures. It read 59 to 60C across all four cores. It did however read our CPU as a Clovertown core Xeon (quad core Xeon) and claims we're on the LGA771 platform. Let's see what CPUz says instead.
CPUz was unable to figure out our multiplier, and thus our actual clock, but managed to get the rest correct.
Our comparison AMD Setup consisted of:
Power Supply: Antec Neo HE 500W
Motherboard: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
CPU:AMD FX-60 cooled with stock cooler
Memory: 2x512MB Crucial Ballistix
Video Array: BBA X1800XT
Hard Disk Array: 2x 74GB Western Digital Raptor
Operating System: Windows Server 2003 32bit
Power Usage
As the intended replacement for a CPU range that had a power density of far greater than that of a nuclear power station, no review would be complete without a test of its power usage.
Intel has not yet specified any TDP for this CPU, however, since it is basically two E6600 slabbed on one PCB, one would assume it's quite simply double the 65W TDP of the E6600, giving 130W.
However we decided to confirm this. Our cooling has a watt-to-degree ratio of 0.25W/°C. We were running with an ambient temperature of 26°C, and at full load on all four cores, temperatures maxed at 63°C, giving a delta in temperature of 37°C, giving a power usage of 148W, slightly above our estimate, and even in excess of the 135W Pentium Extreme Edition 955. Performance-wise though this CPU is more than twice as fast as the 955, thus still giving it a lead in the more important performance-per-watt ratio.
We overclocked the chip to 2.7GHz and repeated the test. The CPU maxed at 66°C giving a delta of 40°C, increasing the power usage to 160W. Not a bad increase in power usage given we increased clocks by 13%, while power usage only went up by 8%.
While the power usage is still comparable to Intel's previous line of CPUs, you have to remember that there are four cores under the hood, as opposed to their previous lines having only two cores. When you consider that, it's truly amazing that all four CPUs can run under a passive heatsink without any real heat troubles.
Conclusion
It is clear now that Intel have reclaimed the performance crown, with this chip totally annihilating every other desktop chip on the market. However it will still be many months before release, and the cost of this chip is expected to be somewhat provocative, estimated at around USD 700 to USD 1000.
Pros
* Incredibly fast at both multithreaded and single threaded applications.
Cons
* Motherboard companies still need time to make their boards able to overclock this beast. Power usage is quite high.
* Expensive
By Pierro 'aKileN' G
Jan 25, 2007 20:17
We've all been eagerly anticipating Intel's release of its quad-core microprocessors. The chip maker hopes to regain its performance crown with these four-headed beasts. We got our hands on a sample and put it through its paces. Does it deliver?
Introduction
With the advent of the Intel Core architecture earlier this year, it became clear that Intel was back at the top as the performance king for the desktop processor market. Intel has shifted right away from clock-scaling and the Netburst architecture, and moved towards better performance-per-watt ratios and increasing the number of processing cores. The Intel Core series CPUs come in three main varieties:
* Core Solo: Single core CPU, code named Yonah, designed for notebooks; there will soon be an Allendale version for desktops.
* Core Duo: Dual core CPU, code named Yonah, designed for notebooks.
* Core 2 Duo: Dual core CPU available for both notebooks (code named Merom) and desktops (code named Conroe for 4 MB cached chips and Allendale for 2MB cached chips).
Intel plans to release a quad-core edition of the Core CPU some time during Q4 2006, codenamed Kentsfield. This CPU is to be available in QX6600 and QX6700 varieties. Each will have four cores clocked at 2.4GHz and 2.66GHz respectively, and 8MB cache, 4MB per each pair of cores. The Kentsfield, to be called Core 2 Quadro upon release, is to be the first quad-core CPU available to the desktop market, giving unprecedented performance to everyday users.
Essentially this CPU is just two Core 2 Duos slabbed on one PCB. One of the things that disappointed us most was that the 8MB of cache was not shared between all four cores, but rather only 4MB is available to each pair of cores, limiting single threaded performance to the equivalent of that of the Core 2 Duo at equivalent clocks.
It seems that after the disappointment of Netburst, Intel is rushing to reclaim the performance crown by rushing out the Kentsfield by the end of 2006. It was originally planned for a Q2 2007 release. By producing it using their 65nm transistors rather than moving to 45nm transistors as originally planned, they are able to have it ready at the end of this year. This may potentially lead to heat concerns; while the Conroe didn't have any heat issues, Kentsfield, being essentially two Conroes, each having a TDP of 65W, leads the Kentsfield to have approximately 130W TDP. That is somewhat shy of the furnaces that were the dual core Netburst chips, but it still produces a rather worrying amount of heat, which may limit its overclock with conventional cooling methods.
A Closer Look
Today we'll be looking at the Core 2 Quadro (Kentsfield). The sample we have is a QX6600, clocked by default to 2.4GHz per core, with a 1066MHz front side bus and a total of 8MB of cache.
Here is an image of our sample chip. The Core 2 Quadro is on the left, and a Core 2 Duo is on the right. They appear essentially the same, with no major differences other than the wording. As you can see our Quadro reads ES A4, indicating that it's an early engineering sample, while our Duo reads ES , indicating that it's intended to be identical to retail. Therefore, our chip may differ somewhat from retail Quadros.
Here is an image of the LGA (land-grid-array) of our two chips (Core 2 Quadro on the left and Core 2 Duo on the right). As you can see, the chip uses the standard LGA775 socket, which means that is should be drop-in compatible with most boards that run the Core 2 Duo. The most modification required should be a bios update, providing an exciting upgrade path for Core 2 Duo users.
We installed the CPU into our test setup, and quickly attempted to boot the board with success on the first run! The board posted correctly and the POST screen read: "Genuine Intel® CPU @ 2.66GHz Cores: 4". What surprised me was that it ran perfectly on our board with all cores being detected and with no need for a bios update.
Here is the POST screen of our Asus P5WDG2-WS Pro with the latest bios revision 0307. As you can see it detects our chip and sees all four cores.
The Test setup
Our test setup consisted of:
Power Supply: Antec Neo HE 500W
Motherboard: Asus P5WDG2-WS Pro I975X
CPU: Intel Core 2 Quadro QX6600 cooled with a Thermalright HR-01-775
Memory: 4x1024MB OCZ PC2-4200 EB Platinum
Video Array: 2xAsus branded X1600XT in Crossfire
Hard Disk Array: LSI Logic AcceleRAID 170 with 2x146GB Hitachi 10K U160 drives
Operating System: Windows Server 2003 32bit with physical address extension
As you can see, I've somewhat neglected to address the heat concerns that I predicted with this CPU. I'm concerned more with silence, and have no components being directly, actively cooled.
We booted the system and entered the BIOS setup. I quickly checked the temperature; it was sitting at a sound 65 degrees, not outstandingly cool, but quite incredible really when you consider there are essentially four CPUs running under that one sink.
Once I made it to Windows, temps were down to 59-60C due to the idle-state used within Windows, as opposed to the bios.
We used Core Temp to determine the temperatures. It read 59 to 60C across all four cores. It did however read our CPU as a Clovertown core Xeon (quad core Xeon) and claims we're on the LGA771 platform. Let's see what CPUz says instead.
CPUz was unable to figure out our multiplier, and thus our actual clock, but managed to get the rest correct.
Our comparison AMD Setup consisted of:
Power Supply: Antec Neo HE 500W
Motherboard: Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe
CPU:AMD FX-60 cooled with stock cooler
Memory: 2x512MB Crucial Ballistix
Video Array: BBA X1800XT
Hard Disk Array: 2x 74GB Western Digital Raptor
Operating System: Windows Server 2003 32bit
Power Usage
As the intended replacement for a CPU range that had a power density of far greater than that of a nuclear power station, no review would be complete without a test of its power usage.
Intel has not yet specified any TDP for this CPU, however, since it is basically two E6600 slabbed on one PCB, one would assume it's quite simply double the 65W TDP of the E6600, giving 130W.
However we decided to confirm this. Our cooling has a watt-to-degree ratio of 0.25W/°C. We were running with an ambient temperature of 26°C, and at full load on all four cores, temperatures maxed at 63°C, giving a delta in temperature of 37°C, giving a power usage of 148W, slightly above our estimate, and even in excess of the 135W Pentium Extreme Edition 955. Performance-wise though this CPU is more than twice as fast as the 955, thus still giving it a lead in the more important performance-per-watt ratio.
We overclocked the chip to 2.7GHz and repeated the test. The CPU maxed at 66°C giving a delta of 40°C, increasing the power usage to 160W. Not a bad increase in power usage given we increased clocks by 13%, while power usage only went up by 8%.
While the power usage is still comparable to Intel's previous line of CPUs, you have to remember that there are four cores under the hood, as opposed to their previous lines having only two cores. When you consider that, it's truly amazing that all four CPUs can run under a passive heatsink without any real heat troubles.
Conclusion
It is clear now that Intel have reclaimed the performance crown, with this chip totally annihilating every other desktop chip on the market. However it will still be many months before release, and the cost of this chip is expected to be somewhat provocative, estimated at around USD 700 to USD 1000.
Pros
* Incredibly fast at both multithreaded and single threaded applications.
Cons
* Motherboard companies still need time to make their boards able to overclock this beast. Power usage is quite high.
* Expensive
« Previous1Next »
http://www.sk-gaming.com/rss/blog/aKileN
