INTEL CORE 2 QUAD Q6600 REVIEW BENCHMARK AND OVERCLOCK
Posted:2007-01-08 By cpu review Number of View:136231
INTEL CORE 2 QUAD Q6600 REVIEW BENCHMARK AND OVERCLOCK By :cpu review Posted:2007-01-08 xtreview is your : Video card - cpu - memory - Hard drive - power supply unit source  Two months after the launching of its first processor quad-core, Core 2 Extreme QX6700 tested in our review section in beginning of November , INTEL are back with a second processor quad-core. This time, it does not act more like one Extreme model Core 2 Quad. Concretely, the new one come to be more accessible than its predecessor, the goal of the founder being to democratize his technology quad-core as soon as possible, whereas its competitor, AMD, still do not have similar solution. Halfway between Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme, Core 2 Quad Q6600 is today the only representative of family, Core 2 Quad, which is dedicated to increase throughout 2007. Technically identical to Core 2 Extreme QX6700, Core 2 Quad Q6600 should however suffer from the same problem as his big brother, the software environment not being optimized yet for this type of processors massively parallel. The occasion for us to see whether the things moved in less than two months while checking the performances of the small last intel cpu :-) . INTEL Core 2 Quad: we takes the same ones and one starts again! Technically, Core 2 Quad takes again architecture of Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and known under name Kentsfield code. Concretely, INTEL uses receipt that it had already applied in the past with Pentium D. Rather than to join together four core to only one INTEL sticks literally two Core 2 Duo on the same physical chip. The characteristic of Core 2 Duo being to be processors dual core. Undoubtedly, the solution adopted by INTEL misses elegance and we will criticize the fact that the bus system is always limited to 1066 MHz in quad-pumped (4x266 MHz thus). The theoretical band-width between the chipset and memory thus does not move and stick to 8,5 GIG/S. While waiting, To bus 1066 MHz has an interest all the same since the current motherboard containing chipsets INTEL i975X or P965 are in fact compatible with this first Core 2 Quad. The other reproach which we will address to the design of Kentsfield relates to the fact that both core are partitioned: any communication between them must pass by the bus system and thus the chipset what can generate considerable time wastand load. Finally the cache is divided between the four core witch surely a benefit from Core 2 Quad Of course the current implementation of Kentsfield has its advantages , but those are primarily related to the manufacturing process. First advantage for INTEL, the founder has more outlets for its core Core 2 Duo at factory: same core will be able to be placed on Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad or Core 2 Extreme. Second favors is that the production of small core  size gets better output compared to the production of only one die quad-core whose size would be necessarily more imposing. INTEL Core 2 Quad Q6600: the processor, consumption Physically, the last small INTEL cpu has the format Socket LGA775 and it preserves its heatspreader with metal protection. With nearly 585 million transistors, it remains built in 65 Nm. Just like first Core 2 Extreme envoys in the last November, Core 2 Quad Q6600 uses the B3 revision Kentsfield core, a stepping which consumes and heats less than traditional B2  Core 2 Duo. Its supply voltage relatively weak since is raised with 1,176 volts on our  test. According to INTEL documents  it can vary between 0,9v and 1,5v to the maximum. by a FSB of 1066 MHz, the processor is working at 2,4 GHz and uses a multipler of 9x. Small difference with Core 2 Extreme QX6700, the coefficient is blocked here upwards: impossible thus to increase it. Processor INTEL Core 2 Quad Q6600 Having 8 Mb memory in the second level (4 Mb per die), Core 2 Quad Q6600 takes again the usual functionalities of Core 2 Duo. we thus finds famous  INTEL with Enhanced INTEL Speedstep for the frequency modulation and voltage according to the use of the system or the assumption of  VT, the techology of virtualisation . The EM64T is of course one part, you will be able to use Core 2 Quad with the version 64 bits of Windows Vista, just like instructions SSSE3 (Supplemental SSE3) intended to make us have patience before the arrival of instructions SSE4. the processor also supports Sayable Bit which makes possible to prohibit with the programs the access in writing to certain beaches memories and this in order to reduce the harmful effects generated by viruses. Lastly, Core 2 Quad Q6600 is certified INTEL Viiv. Core 2 Quad Q6600 seen by CPU-Z then by the manager of the Windows tasks With regard to the energy consumption, INTEL asserts a TDP of 105 Watts for this model. It is appreciably less than Core 2 Extreme QX6700 fixed at 130 Watts. In practice, the processor heats in a reasonable way whereas its electric consumption remains also a bit high . Here is the values recorded during our tests.   Total consumption of the system Recorded temperature AMD Athlon 64 FX-62 274 Watts 64 c INTEL Core 2 Duo E6700 203 Watts 39 c INTEL Core 2 Quad Q6600 210 Watts 40 c INTEL Core 2 Extreme QX6700 240 Watts 45 c INTEL Core 2 X6800 Extreme 210 Watts 39 c Note that the values communicated above are given as an indication and correspond to the overall consumption of the system. we note that the chipset nForce 590 SLI which equips our platform AMD consumes more than INTEL i975X , it would thus be necessary to withdraw 8 Watts with the consumption of Athlon 64 FX-62 to compare more precisely . our Core 2 Quad Q6600 consumes a few 60 Watts less! nice move, Core 2 Quad Q6600 has a reasonable TDP level ...   To test the performances of this INTEL cpu we had recourse to the following platform i975X:   Motherboard Asus P5W-DH Deluxe (BIOS 1707) 2x1 G Corsair Twin2X PC6400 C3, Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, 2x hard disks Western DIGITAL Raptor 150 G Provided with Windows XP Professionnel Service Pack 2 and with the last driver available to the date of test, this platform enabled us to measure the performances of processors INTEL : INTEL Core 2 Duo E6600 (2,4 GHz), INTEL Core 2 Duo E6700 (2,66 GHz), INTEL Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2,66 GHz) and X6800 (2,93 GHz) without forgetting Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2,4 GHz). We will confront the whole with processors AMD by basing us on this configuration: Motherboard Asus m2 N32-SLI Deluxe (BIOS 0811), 2x1 G Corsair Twin2X PC6400 C3, Graphics card NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX, 2x hard disks Western DIGITAL Raptor 150 G On this machine we will test Athlon 64 FX 62, working at 2,8 GHz but also Athlon 64 X2 5000+ (Windsor 90nm) which work at 2,6 GHz. 3DMark 06 - CPU - v1.1 we starts our tests with 3DMark 06 and its processor test , which particularly favors multi-threaded processors. Thus our two processors intel quad-core are at the head and Core 2 Quad Q6600 shows 54% faster performance than Core 2 Duo E6700! At same frequency it is even 71% more powerful than Core 2 Duo E6600 . PCMark 05 - CPU Test - v1.2.0 The processor test  PCMark 05 always was in favor of quad core processors , Core 2 Extreme QX6700 finishes first. Core 2 Quad Q6600 lays out an advance much less comfortable over Core 2 X6800 Extreme. If under 3DMark the 06 last-born from INTEL were 41% faster than Core 2 X6800 Extreme, its advantage falls here to 3%! Vs Core 2 Duo E6600, Core 2 Quad Q6600 is at equal frequency faster by 25%, if we believes the results gotten under PCMark 05. PCMark 05 -Memory Test - v1.2.0 The memory test of PCMark 05 hardly seems to benefit from the quad-core. Our Core 2 Quad Q6600 is almost with equality with Core 2 Duo E6600 which operates let us recall it at the same frequency whereas Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is a not in withdrawal vs Core 2 Duo E6700. The large winner is Core 2 X6800 Extreme which has here the first position. Sandra Xi - Processor Test This test of million operations in floating point at second or million instructions in second, the processors quad core excuted sucsesfully the test . Here Core 2 Quad and other Core 2 Extreme QX6700 post scores practically twice higher than their counterparts Core 2 Duo. Processors AMD are thus for their part in complete lost !!!. Sandra Xi - Memory Test The memory test of Sandra Xi, make the integrated controller at the first place, so here the processors Athlon 64 on the first two steps of the podium. note, the performances on our various processors INTEL Core are nearly identical. ScienceMark 2.0 Primordia ScienceMark 2.0 simulates various mathematical calculations to estimate the performances of a given system. The contribution of the four core is completely null here, our two processors quad core show identical performances, we see them in withdrawal, vs Core 2 Duo at the same frequency. For sure here Core 2 X6800 Extreme is at the head with performances 6% higher than those of Athlon 64 FX62 which finishes here in second position. , CineBench 9.5 CineBench is based on the engine 3D of professional application Cinema4D and measurement of time put by each one of our systems to excute the scene. Multi-threaded, software will really favors the four core processors since Core 2 Quad Q6600 show 66% faster performance here than its equivalent provided with only two core and working at the same frequency . Vs Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Quad Q6600 showing 36% faster result. As for Core 2 Extreme QX6700, it remain 14% swifter than Core 2 Quad Q6600. Adobe Photoshop CS2 We benefit from the new year to adopt version 2.0 Photoshop CS. The occasion to change our test to use in this time the filter of radial blur, a multi-threaded filter. We measure time necessary to the application of this filter on an image of 2.048 X 3.072 resolution. Attention, the results are expressed in second. The processors quad core are at the head. Whereas we needs nearly one minute for our Core 2 Duo E6600 to apply the filter, the same operation is done in thirty seconds on Core 2 Quad Q6600! If Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is faster than Core 2 Quad Q6600, the difference between the two processors is really tiny: hardly two seconds. Windows Media Encoder 9.0 The test of video encoding under Windows Media Encoder 9.0 consists in measuring the time put by each system to compress our AVI origin file. The results are expressed here in seconds. Athlon 64 X2 5000+ finishes here last whereas Athlon 64 FX-62 is slightly faster. The processors Core 2 Duo show overall more powerful performance than processors AMD, whereas Core 2 X6800 Extreme is here the fastesr processor. Obviously, the processors quad-core do not offer here any profit vs processors dual core , the proof that Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is as fast as Core 2 Duo E6700 whereas Core 2 Quad Q6600 is hardly faster as Core 2 Duo E6600, a processor which functions at the same frequency. Files Compression - WinRAR 3.62 To celebrate 2007 with dignity, we pass to version 3.62 WinRAR and we also increase the number of files to be compressed passing from 250 MB to a little more than 600 MB. The results are expressed here in seconds. Like Windows Media Encoder 9.0, WinRAR although is multi threaded it does not benefit from the contribution of the quad core. we thus finds at the head Core 2 X6800 Extreme whereas Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and Core 2 Quad Q6600 show identical performances to the models dual core whose frequency is similar. Vs Athlon 64 FX 62, the INTEL Core 2 Quad Q6600 is faster by 17 seconds. 3DSMax 8 - Radiosity With 3DSMax 8, we measure time necessary to complete the scene 3D in 800x600 with effects of radiosity. The results are once again expressed in seconds and the processors quad-core seem here to give their full potential. The small new one cpu, Core 2 Quad Q6600 excuted the scene in 37 seconds less than Core 2 Duo E6600. Processors AMD thus close again here the ball and Core 2 Quad Q6600 spends 35 seconds less than Athlon 64 FX62 to excute it. TMPGenc 4.0 TMPGenc is a software of encoding which we used here to convert a AVI of almost 1 Gig to format MPEG2 with bit rate of 9000 Mb/S. TMPGenc has an interesting future that it uses the pre-SSE4 instructions of processors Core 2 Duo. The results are expressed in seconds. The quad-core from INTEL are shown definitely more powerful than their counterparts Core 2 Duo having very significant profits. Whereas it takes 226 seconds for Athlon 64 FX62 for video encoder the same film will be converted into MPEG2 in only 140 seconds with Core 2 Quad Q6600. The difference between Core 2 Quad Q6600 and Core 2 Extreme QX6700 is tiny here. If one compares Q6600 with his counterpart dual-core E6600, the model quad-core spends 54 seconds less . Studio 10.7 Under Studio 10 we excuted a complete video project. as a start the compression with format MPEG 4 with a bit rate of 6 Mb/S. the results here are still expressed in seconds. Processors AMD remain slowest and quad-core INTEL does not bring here any profit in performances vs processors with dual-core. Core 2 X6800 Extreme is fastest to excute our project. Vs Core 2 Quad Q6600, Core 2 X6800 Extreme saves 33 seconds. Mathematica 5.1 The mathematical computation software and scientific Mathematica evaluates the performances of our processors as regards mathematical calculation. we notes here no profit in performances at equal frequency between processors INTEL dual - core and quad-core. Core 2 X6800 Extreme is thus the fastest processor. Curiously, Athlon 64 FX62 is in withdrawal vs Athlon 64 X2 5000+. Call Off Duty 2 - v1.3 - 1024x768x32 we passes to the gaming performance tests. Here our various processors seem to be limited by the graphics card and Core 2 Quad Q6600 and other QX6700 do not offer any profit vs their dual-core equivalents. Vs the best AMD processors : Athlon 64 FX62, the offer of INTEL remain however faster with a variation which can reach 15%. Doom 3 v1.3 - 1024x768x32 To more than 200 fps, Doom 3 is severely limited by the graphics card. Result, all our processors are in a same fps range and only Athlon 64 X2 5000+ show lower performance. Far Cry - v1.4 - 1024x768x32 Without much surprise, the friend Jack Carver do not benefits from the processors quad-core from INTEL. Those post indeed the same performances as Core 2 Duo E6600 and E6700 whose frequencies are identical. Vs Athlon 64 FX62, Core 2 Quad Q6600 are 12%  faster. Overclocking Core 2 Quad Q6600 not making party of the great family Core 2 Extreme, its coefficient multiplyer is blocked (only upwards). Impossible thus for overclocker to easily overclock Q6600 as its big brother QX6700. For our part, we did not exceed the 3,15 GHz frequency with a multiplyer of 9x and FSB with 350 MHz. . To reach a frequency of 3,15 GHz, it was necessary for us to increase the vcore and to reduce our memory latency  . Finally this overclocking was done on the P5W-DH Deluxe from Asus with the boxed origin INTEL cooler. Intel core 2 quad Q6600 overclocking! Conclusion For INTEL, the future is with the multiplication of the core number and the arrival of Core 2 Quad is well to popularize the four core processors . Naturally the software environment is not ready today to profits from four core as it is in same time limited to dual core cpu . In majority the cases, Core 2 Quad Q6600 makes equal performance with Core 2 Duo E6600. But with the real multithreaded software, like video applications or 3d rendering software  the profits offered by this new processor are sometimes spectacular. Creation by INTEL of a new family of processors located halfway between Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme, is a chance to make pressure on the developers of software to start to use of greatest number of core placed at their disposal by the last processors in date. Technically Core 2 Quad Q6600 the same as his predecessor Core 2 Extreme QX6700, which is perfectly normal since the two processors divide the same Kentsfield core. On the other hand, the multiplying coefficient of Core 2 Quad Q6600 being blocked, the overclocking offered by this new model is inevitably less than that generally obtained with its big brother whereas one regrets with the bus system of 1066 MHz. Side price, Core 2 Quad Q6600 is expensive, very expensive, too expensive :-), since INTEL markets it as 827 dollars with quantity of thousand is a little more than 800 euros part. They is of course cheaper than Core 2 Extreme QX6700 witch cost more than 1000 euros, but that remains too much expensive to make Core 2 Quad a really popular processor. With this price, and considering the scarcity of applications benefitting from its four core, Core 2 Quad Q6600 remains for us confined with a primarily professional use in the mediums of creation 3D or the cinematographic production for example. In premium, we should not lose sight of the fact the nearest arrival of a new platform at INTEL with new chipsets and a finally higher bus frequency ! xtreview is your : Video card - cpu - memory - Hard drive - power supply unit source we would be happy to answer for your question . if you have suggestion or comment regarding this review our support would be glad to help just join our forum and ask u will get the best answer to discuss check our forum section :-) RATE THIS REVIEW 1 2 3 4 5    / 5   View Stat

computer news computer parts review Old Forum Downloads New Forum Login Join Articles terms Hardware blog Sitemap Get Freebies