Core 2 quad q6800: Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz vs Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz [cpubenchmark.net] by PassMark Software

Core2 Quad Q9450 vs Core2 Extreme Q6800 — Hitman: Absolution ilə GTX 680 Performans müqayisə

GTX 680 with

Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz

Hitman: Absolution

GTX 680 with

Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz


Core2 Quad Q9450
Core2 Extreme Q6800

Multi-Thread Performance

3762 Pts

3651 Pts

Single-Thread Performance

1132 Pts

1142 Pts

Hitman: Absolution

Core2 Quad Q9450 — Core2 Extreme Q6800 — Hitman: Absolution istifadə edərək, GTX 680 — 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K qətnamələrlə Ultra, Yüksək, Orta və Aşağı Keyfiyyət Ayarlarında CPU Performansının müqayisəsi

Core2 Quad Q9450
Core2 Extreme Q6800


Ultra Keyfiyyət
Görüntü imkanı Çərşənbə axşamı çərçivələr
1080p

26.8 FPS

1080p

30.2 FPS

1440p

30. 4 FPS

1440p

34.2 FPS

2160p
2160p
w1440p
w1440p
Yüksək keyfiyyət
Görüntü imkanı Çərşənbə axşamı çərçivələr
1080p

51.0 FPS

1080p

56.6 FPS

1440p

56.9 FPS

1440p

63.1 FPS

2160p

nan FPS

2160p

nan FPS

w1440p

nan FPS

w1440p

nan FPS

Orta keyfiyyət
Görüntü imkanı Çərşənbə axşamı çərçivələr
1080p

75.3 FPS

1080p

83.0 FPS

1440p

83. 5 FPS

1440p

91.9 FPS

2160p

nan FPS

2160p

nan FPS

w1440p

nan FPS

w1440p

nan FPS

Aşağı keyfiyyət
Görüntü imkanı Çərşənbə axşamı çərçivələr
1080p

123.8 FPS

1080p

135.9 FPS

1440p

136.6 FPS

1440p

149.6 FPS

2160p

nan FPS

2160p

nan FPS

w1440p

nan FPS

w1440p

nan FPS

Core2 Quad Q9450
    Core2 Extreme Q6800

      Compare Core2 Quad Q9450 vs Core2 Extreme Q6800 specifications

      Şərhlərinizi paylaşın 10

      Compare Core2 Quad Q9450 vs Core2 Extreme Q6800 in more games

      Elden Ring

      2022

      God of War

      2022

      Overwatch 2

      2022

      Forza Horizon 5

      2021

      Halo Infinite

      2021

      Battlefield 2042

      2021

      Assassin’s Creed Valhalla

      2020

      Microsoft Flight Simulator

      2020

      Valorant

      2020

      Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War

      2020

      Death Stranding

      2020

      Marvel’s Avengers

      2020

      Godfall

      2020

      Cyberpunk 2077

      2020

      Apex Legends

      2019

      Anthem

      2019

      Far Cry New Dawn

      2019

      Resident Evil 2

      2019

      Metro Exodus

      2019

      World War Z

      2019

      Gears of War 5

      2019

      F1 2019

      2019

      GreedFall

      2019

      Borderlands 3

      2019

      Call of Duty Modern Warfare

      2019

      Red Dead Redemption 2

      2019

      Need For Speed: Heat

      2019

      Forza Horizon 4

      2018

      Fallout 76

      2018

      Hitman 2

      2018

      Just Cause 4

      2018

      Monster Hunter: World

      2018

      Strange Brigade

      2018

      PlayerUnknown’s Battlegrounds

      2017

      Fortnite Battle Royale

      2017

      Need For Speed: Payback

      2017

      For Honor

      2017

      Project CARS 2

      2017

      Forza Motorsport 7

      2017

      Ashes of the Singularity

      2016

      Hitman

      2016

      Rise of the Tomb Raider

      2016

      The Division

      2016

      Overwatch

      2016

      Dishonored 2

      2016

      DiRT Rally

      2015

      Grand Theft Auto V

      2015

      The Witcher 3

      2015

      Total War: Attila

      2015

      Rocket League

      2015

      Need For Speed

      2015

      Project CARS

      2015

      Rainbow Six Siege

      2015

      Civilization: Beyond Earth

      2014

      Dragon Age: Inquisition

      2014

      Far Cry 4

      2014

      GRID Autosport

      2014

      Shadow of Mordor

      2014

      The Talos Principle

      2014

      Thief

      2014

      Battlefield 4

      2013

      Bioshock Infinite

      2013

      Company of Heroes 2

      2013

      Crysis 3

      2013

      GRID 2

      2013

      Metro: Last Light

      2013

      Total War: Rome 2

      2013

      DiRT: Showdown

      2012

      Far Cry 3

      2012

      Hitman: Absolution

      2012

      Sleeping Dogs

      2012

      Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

      2012

      Batman: Arkham City

      2011

      Battlefield 3

      2011

      DiRT 3

      2011

      Portal 2

      2011

      The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

      2011

      Total War: Shogun 2

      2011

      Civilization V

      2010

      Metro: 2033

      2010

      Starcraft II

      2010

      League of Legends

      2009

      Minecraft

      2009

      Crysis: Warhead

      2008

      Intel Core 2 Quad

      Der Intel Core 2 Quad Prozessor integriert vier Rechenkerne (Cores) auf einem Chip. Dieser Mehrkern-Prozessoren basiert auf der Core-Architektur von Intel, die auch schon beim Core 2 Duo und Core 2 Extreme verwendet wird. Aus diesem Grund hat Intel zwei Dual-Cores in einem Gehäuse zusammengepackt. Ein Core 2 Quad ist also kein «echter» Quad-Core. Der Grund dafür ist die Ausbeuteoptimierung von Intel. Je größer das Die, desto höher die Defektanfälligkeit. Deshalb baut Intel lieber zwei Core 2 Duos zu einem Core 2 Quad zusammen.

      Der Quad-Core-Prozessoren kommt für PCs und Server (Intel Xeon) zum Einsatz. Durch die vier Rechenkerne sind Quadcore-basierte PCs besonders für rechenintensive Applikationen geeignet, die Threading nutzen. Mehrere rechenintensive Multimedia-Applikationen laufen damit problemlos parallel auf demselben PC.

      Prozessor-Übersicht: Intel Core 2 Quad

      Intel kennzeichnet energiesparende Prozessorversionen mit einem angehängten «S».

      Stand: 15. 03.2011

      Modell Kerne Kerntakt L2-Cache FSB Sonstiges
      Intel Core 2 Quad (Kern: Kentsfield), 2 x 143 mm², 2 x 291 Mio. Transistoren, 65 nm, LGA775
      Q6400 2+2 2,13 GHz 2 x 4 MByte FSB1066 EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Q6600 2+2 2,40 GHz 2 x 4 MByte FSB1066 EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Q6700 2+2 2,66 GHz 2 x 4 MByte FSB1066 EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Intel Core 2 Extreme (Kern: Kentsfield), 2 x 143 mm², 2 x 291 Mio. Transistoren, 65 nm, LGA775
      QX6700 2+2 2,66 GHz 2 x 4 MByte FSB1066 EM64T, NX, VT, C1E, EIST
      QX6800 2+2 2,93 GHz 2 x 4 MByte FSB1066 EM64T, NX, VT, C1E, EIST
      QX6850 2+2 3,00 GHz 2 x 4 MByte FSB1333 EM64T, NX, VT, C1E, EIST
      Intel Core 2 Quad (Kern: Yorkfield), 2 x 107 mm², 2 x 410 Mio. Transistoren, 45 nm, LGA775
      Q8200 (S) 2+2 2,33 GHz 2 x 2 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, C1E, EIST
      Q8300 2+2 2,50 GHz 2 x 2 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, C1E, EIST
      Q8400 2+2 2,66 GHz 2 x 2 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, C1E, EIST
      Q9300 2+2 2,50 GHz 2 x 3 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Q9400 (S) 2+2 2,66 GHz 2 x 3 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Q9450 2+2 2,66 GHz 2 x 6 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Q9500 2+2 2,83 GHz 2 x 3 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Q9505 2+2 2,83 GHz 2 x 3 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C1E, EIST
      Q9550 (S) 2+2 2,83 GHz 2 x 6 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C2E, EIST
      Q9650 2+2 3,00 GHz 2 x 6 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, TXT, C2E, EIST
      Intel Core 2 Extreme (Kern: Yorkfield), 2 x 107 mm², 2 x 410 Mio. Transistoren, 45 nm, LGA775
      QX9650 2+2 3,00 GHz 2 x 6 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, C2E, EIST
      QX9770 2+2 3,20 GHz 2 x 6 MByte FSB1333 SSE4, EM64T, NX, VT, C2E, EIST

      Weitere verwandte Themen:

      • Intel Prozessoren
      • Intel Core 2 Duo / Extreme
      • Intel Core i7 / i5 / i3
      • Intel Centrino 2
      • Multicore / Mehrkern-Prozessoren
      • Quadcore / Vierkern-Prozessoren

      Teilen:

      Alles was Sie über Computertechnik wissen müssen.
      Computertechnik-Fibel

      Die Computertechnik-Fibel ist ein Buch über die Grundlagen der Computertechnik, Prozessortechnik, Halbleiterspeicher, Schnittstellen, Datenspeicher, Laufwerke und wichtige Hardware-Komponenten.

      Das will ich haben!

      Alles was Sie über Computertechnik wissen müssen.

      Computertechnik-Fibel

      Die Computertechnik-Fibel ist ein Buch über die Grundlagen der Computertechnik, Prozessortechnik, Halbleiterspeicher, Schnittstellen, Datenspeicher, Laufwerke und wichtige Hardware-Komponenten.

      Das will ich haben!

      Elektronik-Set Raspberry Pi Edition

      Elektronik erleben mit dem Raspberry Pi mit Python und GPIO Zero

      • leichter Einstieg ins Hardware-nahe Programmieren mit Python und GPIO Zero
      • Experimentieren und Programmieren ohne Vorkenntnisse
      • sofort Loslegen mit All-in-one-Set

      Mehr Informationen Elektronik-Set jetzt bestellen

      Intel Core 2 Quad QX6800 : meilleur prix, test et actualités

      Intel Core 2 Quad QX6800 : meilleur prix, test et actualités — Les Numériques

      Publicité, votre contenu continue ci-dessous

      Publicité

      1. Accueil
      2. Informatique
      3. Stockage & Composants
      4. CPU / Processeur

      Marque : Intel

      Testé le 31/10/08

      Partager :

      • résumé

      • test

      • Déposer un avis

      Intel Core 2 Quad QX6800 au meilleur prix

      En l’absence d’offres découvrez

      • Intel Core i5-12400F

        Meilleur prix : 219 €

        Voir le test

      • AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

        Meilleur prix : 862. 69 €

        Voir le test

      • AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

        Meilleur prix : 494.98 €

        Voir le produit

      • AMD Ryzen 7 7700X

        Meilleur prix : 492. 95 €

        Voir le test

      • Intel Core i9-12900K

        Meilleur prix : 679.9 €

        Voir le test

      • Intel Core i7-12700K

        Meilleur prix : 469 €

        Voir le test

      Partager :

      Résumé du test Intel Core 2 Quad QX6800

      Historique de la notation

      En savoir plus

      Note de la rédaction

      Votre avis

      Déposer un avis

      Extrait du test

      Ce fut l’un des premiers processeurs quad-core et force est de constater qu’il est toujours dans la course.

      Lire le test complet

      Avis utilisateurs (0)

        Voir tous les avis

        Déposer un avis

        Partager :

        Fiche technique / caractéristiques

        Socket 775
        Nombre de coeurs 4
        Fréquence 2.929999872 GHz
        Cache 8.0E-6 Mo
        Thermal Design Power 135 W

        Comparatif & Guides d’achat

        Comparatif / 40 cpu processeurs testés

        • Guide d’achat de la rédaction
          Quels sont les meilleurs processeurs (CPU) Intel ?

        • Quel est le meilleur processeur gaming / bureautique ?

        Voir tous les guides

        Tag associé :

        • Intel

        Articles en rapport

        • 2

          NEWS : CPU Processeur

          Rocket Lake : les Core de 13e gen. s’annoncent, Intel peaufine son architecture avant Meteor Lake

          Intel a officialisé les processeurs Intel Core de 13e génération «Raptor Lake» lors de son événement Intel On. Le fondeur améliore son ar…

        • 1

          NEWS : CPU Processeur

          Les Ryzen 7000 d’AMD prêts pour septembre, la 13e génération d’Intel à la traîne

          La nouvelle génération de processeurs AMD Ryzen 7000 est attendue pour le 15 septembre avec pas moins de quatre modèles à la clé. La 13e…

        • NEWS : CPU Processeur

          Pilotes graphiques : Intel va donner la priorité à ses GPU dédiés Arc

          Intel va focaliser le développement de ses pilotes graphiques sur ses nouvelles cartes dédiées Arc, délaissant au passage ses nombreux iGPU.

        • NEWS : CPU Processeur

          Les processeurs Intel Raptor Lake (13e génération) supporteront la DDR5 et la DDR4

          Une slide officielle présentée lors d’un événement Intel a confirmé la prise en charge de la RAM DDR4 sur les futurs processeurs de 13e g…

        Meilleurs prix

        En l’absence d’offres découvrez

        • Intel Core i5-12400F

          Meilleur prix : 219 €

          Voir le test

        • AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

          Meilleur prix : 862. 69 €

          Voir le test

        • AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

          Meilleur prix : 494.98 €

          Voir le produit

        • AMD Ryzen 7 7700X

          Meilleur prix : 492. 95 €

          Voir le test

        • Intel Core i9-12900K

          Meilleur prix : 679.9 €

          Voir le test

        • Intel Core i7-12700K

          Meilleur prix : 469 €

          Voir le test

        Produits alternatifs

        • Intel Core i5-12400F

          À partir de 219 €

          Comparer

        • AMD Ryzen 9 7950X

          À partir de 869. 99 €

          Comparer

        • AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

          À partir de 494.98 €

          Comparer

        • AMD Ryzen 7 7700X

          À partir de 499.9 €

          Comparer

        • Intel Core i9-12900K

          À partir de 679.9 €

          Comparer

        Revenir au début
        Page  — 7 produits

        Publicité, votre contenu continue ci-dessous

        Publicité

        Publications qui peuvent vous intéresser

        4

        Test : CPU Processeur

        AMD Ryzen 7 7700X : le CPU idéal pour les joueurs

        5

        Test : CPU Processeur

        Intel Core i7-12700 : un CPU doué pour les jeux

        3

        Test : CPU Processeur

        CPU Intel Core i5-12500 : polyvalent et peu énergivore

        Test : CPU Processeur

        Intel Core i5-12400F : un CPU de milieu de gamme facile à refroidir

        12

        Test : CPU Processeur

        Intel Core i7-12700K : un CPU idéal pour les joueurs et les créatifs

        2

        Test : CPU Processeur

        AMD Ryzen 7 5700G : un très bon processeur pour la bureautique

        1

        NEWS : CPU Processeur

        AMD Ryzen 7000 : Zen 4 réalise un tour de force brûlant en 5 nm et offre des CPU très rapides

        8

        NEWS : CPU Processeur

        Intel Core de 12e génération : les processeurs hybrides Alder Lake font une entrée fracassante

        NEWS : Informatique

        Que se cache-t-il derrière les IA de création d’images ?

        Publicité, votre contenu continue ci-dessous

        Publicité

        • Mentions légales
        • Politique de protection des données personnelles
        • Conditions Générales d’Utilisation
        • FAQ — Vos choix concernant l’utilisation de cookie
        • Tout droits réservés © 2022

        Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 im Test: Schnelle Osterüberraschung

        Inhaltsverzeichnis

        1. 1 Vorwort
        2. Technische Daten und Features
        3. 2 Testsysteme
        4. Benchmarks
          1. 3 Sandra 2007
          2. 4 Sciencemark
          3. PCMark05
        5. 5 System
          1. SYSmark 2004 SE
          2. 6 Photoshop
          3. 7-Zip
          4. WinRAR
        6. 7 Rendering
          1. Cinema4D
          2. 8 Lightwave
        7. 9 Videoencoding mit Nero Recode, Tsunami Video, Quicktime und Windows Movie Maker
          1. DVD zu DVD5
          2. H. 264
          3. 10 DivX 6.4
          4. MPEG2
          5. WMV
          6. WMV Adv. Prof.
        8. 11 Audioencoding mit iTunes, Lame und Oggdrop
          1. MP3
          2. AAC
          3. Ogg
        9. 12 Spiele
          1. 3DMark03
          2. 3DMark05
          3. 3DMark06
          4. 13 Battlefield 2
          5. FarCry
          6. Fear
          7. Half-Life 2
          8. 14 Quake 4
          9. Serious Sam 2
          10. Unreal Tournament 2004
        10. 15 Multitasking
        11. 16 Performance-Rating
        12. 17 Fazit und Preise

        Vorwort

        Quad-Core-Prozessoren bei AMD? Bis Mitte des Jahres Fehlanzeige! Einzig mit einer aus zwei Prozessoren „zusammen geschusterten“ Lösung, die den Namen QuadFX trägt und in Europa allenfalls auf dem Papier existiert, kann der in Dresden produzierende Halbleiterspezialist aufwarten.

        Andererseits hat Intel im Desktop-Segment nicht nur den besonders teuren Core 2 Extreme QX6700 im Angebot, sondern kann auch in „normalen“ Preisregionen mit dem Core 2 Quad Q6600 einen Prozessor mit vier Rechenkernen anbieten – sofern ein Preis jenseits von 700 Euro irgendwas mit „normal“ zu tun hat. Wie dem auch sei: Beide CPUs sind lieferbar und können auf einem breiten Mainboard-Portfolio betrieben werden. Zum Vergleich: QuadFX kann nur ein einziges Mainboard in die Waagschale legen.

        Es scheint, als hätte Intel bis zur Vorstellung der K8L/K10-Prozessormikroarchitektur und ihrem Einsatz im Athlon 64 X4 (Agena) die Performancekrone gepachtet. Schneller als Intels Quad-Core-Prozessor Core 2 Extreme QX6700 ist – in den wenigen, verbliebenen Fällen – nur der Zwei-Kern-Bolide Core 2 Extreme X6800, der aus demselben Lager kommt. Oh je, Quad-Core geschlagen.

        Mit der Vorstellung des 2,93 GHz schnellen Core 2 Extreme QX6800 soll nun auch dieses Problemchen gelöst werden. Bei Taktgleichheit mit dem X6800 und zwei zusätzlichen Prozessorkernen heißt das Ziel: unangefochtene Spitzenposition in allen Anwendungen.

        Wir zeigen die Leistungsfähigkeit von Intels neuestem Prozessor und lassen diesen zusätzlich gegen ein Dual-Xeon-5160-System antreten, um den Wettkampf etwas interessanter zu gestalten. Ein QuadFX-System stand uns leider ebenso wenig zur Verfügung wie Athlon 64 X2 über 5000+. Da selbst ein Athlon 64 X2 6000+ preislich gegen einen Core 2 Duo E6400 (800 MHz und zwei Kerne vom QX6800 entfernt) positioniert wird, wäre es ohnehin ein unfairer Vergleich.

        Im folgenden Abschnitt stellen wir den Core 2 Extreme QX6800 vor und konzentrieren uns auf allen weiteren Seiten voll und ganz auf die Performance.

        Technische Daten und Features

        Die Prozessoren im Überblick

        1. Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (CPU-Z)

        Bild 1 von 4

        Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (Draufsicht) Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (Rückseite) Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (Seite)

        Im neuen Core 2 Extreme QX6800 verstecken sich keine Geheimnisse. Der Prozessor setzt weiterhin auf das normale Kentsfield-Stepping „B3“ und unterscheidet sich vom QX6700 nur durch einen 266 MHz höheren Standard-Takt. Der höhere Takt wird durch einen auf 11 gekletterten Multiplikator (vorher 10) erreicht. Der Frontside-Bus bleibt mit 266 MHz (effektiv 1066) unverändert.

        Für die astronomisch hohe Preisempfehlung von 999 US-Dollar bei der Abnahme von Großhandelsmengen (1000 Exemplare) erhält man auch weiterhin die Möglichkeit, den Multiplikator nach belieben zu ändern. Dieser „Bonus“ wurde mit der Vorstellung des noch Pentium 4/D-basierten Pentium Extreme Edition 955 eingeführt, um einen weiteren Anreiz zu schaffen. Inzwischen ist es das einzig verbliebene Extra, dass ein „Extreme“-Prozessor – abgesehen vom höheren Takt – vorweisen kann.

        1. Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 (Overclocking) – 3,5 GHz (stabil) und 3,6 GHz (instabil) bei Luftkühlung

        Bild 1 von 4

        Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 Kentsfield – Cinebench 2003 – Overclocking 3600 MHz bei 1,4 Vcc 1,3 Vfsb 1,6 Vmch, Luftkühlung (instabil) Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 Kentsfield – Cinebench 2003 – Overclocking 3550 Mhz bei 1,4 Vcc 1,3 Vfsb 1,6 Vmch, Luftkühlung (instabil) Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 Kentsfield – Cinebench 2003 – Overclocking 3500 MHz bei 1,4 Vcc, 1,3 Vfsb 1,6 Vmch, Luftkühlung (anscheinend stabil)

        Im Vergleich zum QX6700 kann der QX6800 nicht einem mit höheren Overclocking-Potential aufwarten. Beide stoßen – außerhalb der Spezifikationen betrieben – mit Luftkühlung bei 3,5 GHz an ihre Grenzen. Höher hinaus geht es erst mit den in 45 nm gefertigten Produkten der Penryn-Generation. Die ersten Mitglieder diese Produktfamilie sollen zum Jahresende auch im Desktop-Bereich Einzug halten. Bis dahin wird der QX6800 Intels schnellster Desktop-Prozessor bleiben, da schnellere Quad-Core-Boliden – trotz des spielend leichten Overclockings – den Design-Point von 130 Watt für Mainboard und Kühllösungen übersteigen würden.

        Stromverbrauch: Quad-Core-Prozessoren

          • Core 2 Quad Q6600

          • Core 2 Extreme QX6700

          • Core 2 Extreme QX6800

          • Core 2 Quad Q6600

          • Core 2 Extreme QX6800

          • Core 2 Extreme QX6700

        Einheit: Watt (W)

        Gemessen am Gesamtstomverbrauch des Systems (gemessen bei Vcore 1,35 Volt) benötigt der QX6800 nur unwesentlich mehr. Bei Nichtbelastung taktet er sich auf 6×266 MHz (1,6 GHz) herunter und übt sich im Stromsparen.

        Seite 1/17

        Nächste Seite
        Testsysteme

        İntel Core 2 Quad Fiyatları

        1 yorum

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40 GHz 4 Çekirdekli 775Pin İşlemci

        1 yorum

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66 GHz 4 Çekirdekli 775Pin İşlemci

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.50 GHz 4 Çekirdekli İşlemci

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q95502.83 GHz 4 Çekirdekli 775Pin İşlemci

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66 GHz 4 Çekirdekli 775Pin İşlemci

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q8300 2.

        5 GHz 4 MB Cache 1333 MHz LGA775 İşlemci

        Intel Core 2 Quad Işlemci Q9550 12m Cache, 2.83 Ghz, 1333mhz Fsb QuadQ95502

        1 yorum

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.00 GHz 4 Çekirdekli İşlemci

        En Ucuz Fiyatlarla Yakında Cimri.com’da

        İntel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66 Ghz lga775

        Intel Slbbl – işlemci (Intel Xeon E5420 Quad-Core, 2.5 GHz, 12 MB önbellek)

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66 GHz 4 MB LGA 775 Tray Fansız İşlemci

        inteI Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 775 Pin 12mb Cache Işlemci q9550

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.

        33Ghz 4Mb 4 Çekirdek 775P Fansız Tray İ

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66Ghz 4Mb 4 Çekirdek 775P İşlemci + Termal Macun

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q9500 2,8 GHz Dört Çekirdekli CPU İşlemci 6M 95W LGA 775 FAN YOK

        Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 İşlemci ile Uyumlu chunx CPU 2.5GHz 4MB Önbellek Masaüstü LGA 775 CPU CPU’lar

        chunx Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.6GHz Dört Çekirdekli CPU İşlemci 6M 95W LGA 775 chunx için Uygundur

        chunx Intel Core 2 Quad Q9500 2.8 GHz Dört Çekirdekli CPU İşlemci 6M 95W LGA 775 chunx için uygundur

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q9400 2,6 GHz Dört Çekirdekli Dört İş parçacıklı CPU İşlemci 6M 95W LGA 775 FAN YOK

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2,6 GHz Dört Çekirdekli Dört İş parçacıklı CPU İşlemci 4M 95W LGA 775 FAN YOK

        inteI Intel Core 2 Quad Q8400 2.66ghz 4mb 4 Çekirdek 775p Işlemci + Termal Macun TKL8400

        chunx CPU Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 İşlemci ile Uyumlu 2.83GHz 6MB Önbellek FSB 1333 Masaüstü LGA 775 CPU CPU’lar

        chunx CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.3 GHz Dört Çekirdekli CPU İşlemci 4M 95W 1333 LGA 775 CPUs ile Uyumlu

        Intel Core i7 – 3740QM SR0UV 2.7 GHz Quad Core Mobile CPU 988 6 MB HD Graphics 4000 Tray CPU ohne soğutucu

        chunx CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 İşlemci ile Uyumlu 2.83GHz 12MB L2 Önbellek FSB 1333 Masaüstü LGA 775 CPU CPU’lar

        Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 3.

        0 GHz Dört Çekirdekli Dört İş parçacıklı CPU İşlemci 12M 95W LGA 775 FAN YOK

        chunx CPU Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 İşlemci ile Uyumlu 3.0GHz 12MB Önbellek FSB 1333 Masaüstü LGA 775 CPU CPU’lar

        chunx 4 bölmeli işlemci Core 2 Quad Q9400 SOCKET LGA 775CPU Intel Q9400 2.66 GHz / 6m / 1333g Hz) CPU’lar ile uyumlu

        Brightassistant G41 Desktop Motherboard For Intel Cpu Set With Quad Core 2.66G Cpu E5430 + 4G Memory + Fan Atx Computer Mainboard Assemble Set

        Hundnsney G41 Desktop Motherboard For Intel Cpu Set With Quad Core 2.

        66G Cpu E5430 + 4G Memory + Fan Atx Computer Mainboard Assemble Set

        Au-Ja! — Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 — 4 Kerne, 3 GHz und FSB1333

        Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 — 4 Kerne, 3 GHz und FSB1333 — 1/15
        16.07.2007 by doelf
        Der komplette Artikel als Druckversion

        Am heutigen Montag fällt die Informationssperre für Intels erste FSB1333 Prozessoren. Vor ziemlich genau einem Jahr hatten wir im Rahmen eines ausführlichen Testberichtes die ersten Core 2 Duo und Core 2 Extreme CPUs vorgestellt, welche ihren Frontsidebus mit 4x 266 MHz (FSB1066) takteten. Damit ist die Bandbreite zwischen CPU, Chipsatz und Arbeitsspeicher deutlich geringer als die maximale Bandbreite von Dual-Channel DDR2-800 Arbeitsspeicher und der Frontsidebus stellt folglich ein Nadelöhr dar. Mit der Anhebung auf 4x 333 MHz (FSB1333) will Intel seinen Core 2 Prozessoren nun wieder etwas Luft verschaffen, was insbesondere für DDR3-Speicher auch bitter nötig ist. Wir werden heute Intels neues Vierkern-Spitzenmodell, den Core 2 Extreme QX6850, gegen seinen Vorgänger Core 2 Extreme QX6800 testen und dabei insbesondere einen Blick darauf werfen, ob sich die gesteigerte Bandbreite in Form von Mehrleistung auszahlt.

        Sechs neue Core 2 Modelle
        Obwohl die Informationssperre erst am heutigen Morgen abläuft und die Prozessoren erst ab dem 22. Juli verkauft werden dürfen, fanden sich die technischen Details bereits vor einem guten Monat in bekannten Preisvergleichen. Es ist somit keine wirkliche Neuigkeit, dass der Core 2 Extreme QX6850 mit 3 GHz taktet, FSB1333 unterstützt und über 8 MByte L2-Cache verfügt. Es handelt sich um einen 65 nm Kentsfield Kern im Stepping G0, bisher war die Version B3 aktuell. Zusätzlich zum Core 2 Extreme QX6850 wird Intel vier neue Dual-Core Prozessoren und eine weitere Quad-Core CPU auf den Markt bringen. Seit einigen Tagen ist zudem bereits das Modell Core 2 E4500 im Handel.

        Höchste Zeit, dass wir uns einen Überblick verschaffen. In der folgenden Tabelle wurden die alten Modelle grau und die neuen Prozessoren weiß hinterlegt:

        CPU Takt FSB L2-Cache
        Quad-Core
        Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3,00 GHz FSB1333 2x 4MB
        Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2,93 GHz FSB1066 2x 4MB
        Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2,66 GHz FSB1066 2x 4MB
        Core 2 Quad Q6700 2,66 GHz FSB1066 2x 4MB
        Core 2 Quad Q6600 2,40 GHz FSB1066 2x 4MB
        Dual-Core
        Core 2 Duo E6850 3,00 GHz FSB1333 4MB
        Core 2 Extreme X6800 2,93 GHz FSB1066 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6750 2,67 GHz FSB1333 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6700 2,67 GHz FSB1066 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6600 2,40 GHz FSB1066 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6550 2,33 GHz FSB1333 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6540 2,33 GHz FSB1333 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6420 2,13 GHz FSB1066 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6400 2,13 GHz FSB1066 2MB
        Core 2 Duo E6320 1,86 GHz FSB1066 4MB
        Core 2 Duo E6300 1,86 GHz FSB1066 2MB
        Core 2 Duo E4500 2,20 GHz FSB800 2MB
        Core 2 Duo E4400 2,00 GHz FSB800 2MB
        Core 2 Duo E4300 1,80 GHz FSB800 2MB

        Der Core 2 Extreme QX6850 ist das neue Spitzenmodell und vereint vier Kerne, 3 GHz Taktrate und FSB1333 — mehr Leistung bietet Intel derzeit nicht. Wie bei allen Prozessoren auf Basis des Kentsfield Kernes stecken auch unter dem Heatspreader des Core 2 Extreme QX6850 eigentlich zwei Dual-Core Conroes. Technische Details zum Kentsfield sowie zur Core-Mikroarchitektur werden wir an dieser Stelle überspringen und stattdessen auf den Test des Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 verweisen, in dem diese Themen bereits ausführlich behandelt wurden. Vorerst bleibt der Core 2 Extreme QX6850 zudem das einzige Quad-Core Modell, welches FSB1333 beherrscht. Der Prozessor soll bei einer Abnahme von 1000 Stück 999 US-Dollar kosten — deutlich weniger als der Core 2 Extreme QX6800, welcher im Frühjahr mit einem Preis von 1199 US-Dollar eingeführt wurde. Die TDP beider Prozessoren liegt bei 130 Watt. Intels erster Quad-Core, der Core 2 Extreme QX6700, wird durch das Modell Core 2 Quad Q6700 ersetzt, welches gleich schnell taktet, aber keinen freien Multiplikator besitzt. Mit einem Preis von 530 US-Dollar ist der Core 2 Quad Q6700 ebenfalls günstiger als der Core 2 Extreme QX6700, für den Intel derzeit 999 US-Dollar in Rechnung stellt.

        Bei den Zwei-Kern Prozessoren löst der Core 2 Duo E6850 mit 3 GHz Taktrate, FSB1333 und 4 MByte L2-Cache den Core 2 Extreme X6800 ab. Musste man bisher für 2,93 GHz satte 999 US-Dollar auf den Tisch legen, bekommt man nun eine schnellere CPU für lediglich 266 US-Dollar. Echtes Schnäppchenpotential bieten zudem die weiteren FSB1333 Dual-Cores namens Core 2 Duo E6750 (2,66 GHz) für 183 US-Dollar und Core 2 Duo E6550 (2,33 GHz) für 163 US-Dollar. Die Modelle Core 2 Duo E6550 und Core 2 Duo E6540 sind übrigens weitgehend identisch, letzterem fehlt lediglich die Trusted Execution Technology (LaGrande).

        Intel hat bisher nur die Preise für die neuen Prozessoren bekannt gegeben, es ist jedoch sehr wahrscheinlich, dass auch die aktuellen Modelle am 22. Juli im Preis gesenkt werden. Hier noch einmal die Preise der neuen CPUs in der Übersicht:

        • Core 2 Extreme QX6850: 999 US-Dollar
        • Core 2 Quad Q6700: 530 US-Dollar
        • Core 2 Duo E6850: 266 US-Dollar
        • Core 2 Duo E6750: 183 US-Dollar
        • Core 2 Duo E6550: 163 US-Dollar
        • Core 2 Duo E6540: 163 US-Dollar

        Extreme wird Mobile
        Zudem wird Intel heute erstmals eine «Extreme» CPU für Notebooks einführen. Da der Mobilsektor immer wichtiger wird, soll das Modell Core 2 Extreme X7800 Mobile im Hochpreissegment auf Kundenfang gehen. Auch dieser Prozessor hat einen verstellbaren Multiplikator und basiert auf dem 65 nm Merom Core. Er besitzt zwei Kerne, taktet mit 2,60 GHz und besitzt 4 MByte L2-Cache. Über die TDP ist leider nichts bekannt, der Preis beträgt bei einer Abnahme von 1000 Stück 851 US-Dollar. Im Gegensatz zu den Desktop Prozessoren, welche erst am 22. Juli in den Handel kommen, ist der Core 2 Extreme X7800 Mobile ab heute erhältlich.

        Testumgebung
        Bisher haben wir für den Test der Intel Dual- und Quad-Core Prozessoren das Biostar TForce 965PT verwendet, doch leider unterstützt der Intel P965 Chipsatz dieser Hauptplatine keinen FSB1333:

        Aus diesem Grund werden wir den Core 2 Extreme QX6850 und den Core 2 Extreme QX6800 auf einem ASUS P5K Premium testen, welches auf Intels P35 Chipsatz basiert. Mit Hilfe des Core 2 Extreme QX6800 werden wir zudem den Core 2 Quad Q6700 emulieren.

        Zudem verwendeten wir für unseren Test die folgende Hardware:

        • Gehäuse: 19″ Servergehäuse
        • Netzteil: be quiet! BQT P6-Pro 530 Watt
        • Mainboard/CPU:
          • Biostar TForce 965PT mit Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800, Intel Core 2 Duo E6600, Intel Core 2 Duo E6320, Intel Core 2 Duo E6300, Intel Core 2 Duo E4300
          • ASUS P5K Premium mit Core 2 Extreme QX6850 und Core 2 Extreme QX6800
        • CPU Cooler: Scythe Andy Samurai Master
        • DDR-RAM Module: 2x Mushkin 1 GByte DDR2-800 (4-4-3-10), Corsair Dominator CM2X1024-8500C5D DDR2-1066 (5-5-5-18), Corsair Dominator CM2X1024-8888C4D [email protected] (4-4-4-12)
        • Grafikkarte(n): MSI RX850XT-PE VT2D256E mit Catalyst 6.6
        • Primary Master: CD-ROM Teac 40x
        • Primary Slave: —
        • Serial-ATA: Maxtor MaxLine III 250 GB SATA
        • OS: Windows XP Pro SP2, DirectX 9c Juni 2007

        Im Rahmen der Benchmarks wurden die fett hervorgehobenen Komponenten eingesetzt.

        Weiter: 2. Stromverbrauch

        1. Intels neue Prozessoren, Testsetup
        2. Stromverbrauch
        3. CPU-Leistung (synthetisch)
        4. Multithreaded (synthetisch)
        5. Datendurchsatz von Speicher und Cache
        6. Primzahlen und Pi
        7. Raytracing und Rendering
        8. Kompression und mp3-Encoding
        9. Video-Encoding
        10. 3DMark06 und F.E.A.R.
        11. Riddick und UT2004
        12. QX6800 vs QX6850 @ 3 GHz
        13. Übertakten
        14. Übertakten: Benchmarks
        15. Fazit

        Diesen Testbericht diskutieren…

        Core 2 quad best processor • Web cheat sheet for internet entrepreneurs!

        • Socket T (LGA775)

        Core 2 Quad is a quad-core processor from Intel. The processor under this brand appeared in January 2007 and was based on the design of the Kentsfield cores, which was produced according to the 65-nm process technology and was called the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, had a clock frequency of 2400 MHz, a 1066 MHz bus and a fairly large L2 cache size of 8 MB. And the first quad-core Intel processor was announced back in the fall of 2006, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 with a clock speed of 2667 MHz and an unlocked multiplier — it was really an extremely powerful processor at that time with no less extreme cost. A little later, in 2007, updated models Core 2 Quad Q6700 with a frequency of 2667 MHz and Core 2 Extreme QX6800 appeared 2933 MHz with a 1066 MHz bus, later in 2007 added the QX6850 at 3000 MHz with a fairly high 1333 MHz bus — this was the most powerful and latest of the Kentsfield design processors. Already in March 2009, Kentsfield chips stopped rolling off the assembly line. At the beginning of 2008, Intel significantly increased the range of quad-core processors for the LGA775 and the processor models of which started with the nine Q9400, Q9450 and Q9550, based on the updated design of the Yorkfield cores, which had already begun to be produced using the 45-nm process technology, went on sale. a set of SSE4.1 instructions, an increase in the L2 cache from 8 MB to 12 MB and a bus frequency of 1333 MHz up to 1600 MHz for Core 2 Extreme, also some Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Extreme models were produced for the LGA771 socket, which could be seen in expensive gaming computers Dell Alienware and Acer Predator. In 2009Intel continued to fill the lineup of Core 2 Quad processors with Yorkfield design even despite the release at the end of 2008 of completely new processors that differed significantly from the design of Yorkfield cores under the new Core i7 brand with a new Bloomfield core design and a new LGA 1366 socket. Quads with Yorkfield core designs were produced until February 7, 2011.

        The Intel Core 2 Quad family is the latest LGA775 solution.

        Contents

        Kentsfield [edit | edit code]

        Kentsfield — the design of the cores that formed the basis of the quad-core processors, was announced on November 2, 2006. The announcement came only a couple of months after the announcement of the Conroe design, due to the fact that the development of these designs was going on at the same time. The main model based on the Kentsfield design is the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, which went on sale on January 8, 2007 for $851. It was the only model until July 22, 2007, when the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 and Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 went on sale for 530 and 9$99 respectively. The Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 was based on the Kentsfield XE design. The price of the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 was further reduced to $266, making the processor available to the general public.

        Kentsfield XE is an upgraded design of Kentsfield cores that has minor differences from the original, namely more efficient high frequency stability and free multiplier. This design was used in the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700, QX6800 and QX6850 processors.

        Kentsfield nuclei design has an area of ​​286 mm² and 582 million transistors. The L1 cache is 32 KB for instructions and 32 KB for data per core. The volume of the total second-level cache is 8 MB. For the production of the design, the norms of the 65-nm semiconductor manufacturing process are used. Energy consumption is 95-105 for Kentsfield and 130 W at Kentsfield XE. The maximum supply voltage is 1.350 V. The last steppaper is G0.

        Yorkfield [edit | edit code ]

        Yorkfield — similar Kentsfield dual-chip core design but uses 45nm Wolfdale chips which are based on the new Intel Penryn architecture, however they do not carry significant architectural changes compared to the 65nm Conroe chips based on core microarchitecture. The Yorkfield chips were originally scheduled to go on sale in January 2008, but the date had to be pushed back to March due to a design error. First models — Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300 and Q9450, which had frequencies of 2500 and 2667 MHz and were sold at a price of $266 and $316, respectively. In April, the 2833 MHz Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 was released for $530.

        The Yorkfield core design has an area of ​​214 mm² and 820 million transistors, the design uses 45 nm process standards to produce the design. The L1 cache is 32 KB for instructions and 32 KB for data per core. The total cache memory of the second level is 12 MB. The maximum supply voltage is 1.200 V. The power consumption is 65-95W for Yorkfield and Yorkfield 6M and 130W for Yorkfield XE. The last stepping is R0.

        Yorkfield XE — the design that formed the basis of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650, QX9770, QX9775 processors. The earliest — November 11, 2007, that is, even before the main Yorkfield design was released — went on sale Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650. This design is compatible with LGA771 server socket. Also, a design feature can be called a free multiplier, which is a natural characteristic of the Intel Core 2 Extreme line.

        Yorkfield-6M is a core design based on a pair of Wolfdale-3M chips used in cheap Intel Core 2 Duo E7xxx models. The Yorkfield-6M design was used in the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9xxx which has 6MB L2 cache and the Q8xxx which has 4MB L2 cache. The number of transistors in this design was reduced to 548 million pieces, and the area was reduced to 162 mm².

        Technology [edit | edit code]

        Technologies supported by Intel Core 2 Quad processors:

        • Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) (except Q8200, Q8200s, Q8300)
        • Intel Streaming SIMD Extensions 4.1 (SSE 4.1) (45nm Yorkfield only)
        • Intel Enhanced Virus Protection or Execute Disable Bit (EVP)
        • Intel Extended Memory 64 Technology (EM64T)
        • Enhanced Intel SpeedStep Technology
        • Enhanced Halt State (C1E)
        • Intel Thermal Monitor 2

        Despite the fact that motherboards and processors for the scoet 775 were released a decade ago, in 2004, they still remain relevant for solving a certain range of tasks. The best processors of that time can operate at fairly high frequencies, up to 3.5 GHz, and they are now very cheap, since the technology by which they were manufactured has long been outdated.

        In this article, we’ll take a look at the best socket 775 processors you can use to upgrade your old computer or server. All models are located in random order and they are all suitable for this socket.

        Best processors for 775 socket

        Intel has released a lot of processors for socket 775. Several lines of Celeron, Core, Pentium and Xeon. Not all of them will fall into our article. We will try to select only the best lga775 processors that may interest you and be useful.

        1. Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770

        This is one of the top Intel processors of that time. He was the first to teach the fastest data bus with a frequency of 1600 MHz; earlier, the company used buses with a frequency of 1333 MHz in its processors. However, due to the bus frequency, this processor will not maximize its capabilities on all motherboards with socket 775. It requires an X48 chipset or another one with support for a 1600 MHz bus. This processor also has almost the highest clock speed of all those listed, it is second only to the Intel Core 2 Duo E8600, but has a high heat dissipation.

        • Number of cores: 4;
        • L2 cache: 12 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 3.2 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1600 MHz;
        • Process: 45 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 130 watts.

        2. Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800

        A fairly good Intel processor of an older generation than the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770. It operates at a lower frequency — 2.93 GHz and the speed of its bus is only 1066 MHz. There are only two cores here, not four. And an older process.

        • Number of cores: 2;
        • L2 cache: 4 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 2. 93 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1066 MHz;
        • Process: 65 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 75 watts.

        3. Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650

        This processor has almost the same clock speed as the previous one, but is manufactured using a more modern process technology, has more L2 cache and a higher bus frequency. It has reduced heat dissipation, as well as optimized actuating units.

        • Number of cores: 4;
        • L2 cache: 12 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 3 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1333 MHz;
        • Process: 45 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 95 watts.

        4. Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550

        This is a processor from the same line as the previous one and it differs from it only by a lower clock frequency. At the moment, the performance of this processor may not be enough, but at one time it was one of the best. In benchmarks, the previous processor performs a little better, due to the increased frequency.

        • Number of cores: 4;
        • L2 cache: 12 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 2.83 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1333 MHz;
        • Process: 45 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 95 watts.

        5. Intel Core 2 Duo Extreme QX9775

        This is one of the most powerful processors of its time using this socket. It was released in 2007 and has a clock speed of 3.2 GHz and four processing cores. Compared to the previous generation of processors, this product has increased the L2 cache to 12 megabytes, added support for the SSE4 instruction set, which provide a significant acceleration for multimedia applications. These improvements require more transistors, the previous generation of processors manufactured using the 65 nm process had 582 million transistors, and this one already has 820 million.

        • Number of cores: 4;
        • L2 cache: 12 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 3.2 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1600 MHz;
        • Process: 45 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 150 watts.

        6. Intel Core 2 Duo E8600

        This is the most powerful processor for socket 775. It was released in 2008 and has the highest frequency among all personal computer processors on this socket. It is also faster than the previous generation processor — Core 2 Duo E8500 at 167 MHz. The processor is manufactured using the 45 nanometer process technology and has a very low heat dissipation for this frequency — only 65 watts. Of the shortcomings — there is only 6 megabytes of cache memory in the second level. In fact, this is the best dual-core processor of the time. You can put it on your motherboard if you need an economical low heat processor.

        • Number of cores: 2;
        • L2 cache: 6 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 3.33 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1333 MHz;
        • Process: 45 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 65 watts.

        7. Intel Core 2 Duo E8500

        Prior to the release of the Core 2 Duo E8600, this processor was the fastest dual-core processor from Intel. Unlike the older model, here the frequency is slightly lower, and all other parameters are the same. The processor is also manufactured using the 45 nm process technology and has 6 megabytes of L2 cache.

        • Number of cores: 2;
        • L2 cache: 6 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 3.16 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1333 MHz;
        • Process: 45 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 65 watts.

        8. Intel Core 2 Duo E8400

        Another model from the same processor line as the previous one. Here, the clock frequency is lower by 160 MHz, and all other parameters remain the same. It also supports bus operation at a frequency of 1333 MHz and instruction sets MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1, EM64T. The critical operating temperature of this processor is 72.4 degrees, which is the average value for processors of that time.

        • Number of cores: 2;
        • L2 cache: 6 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 3 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1333 MHz;
        • Process: 45 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 65 watts.

        9. Intel Celeron D 365

        One of the oldest and most powerful processors. Despite the very high frequency for that time and low heat dissipation, this processor is far from the performance of the Core 2 Duo E8600. It is made according to the old process technology and uses a bus with a frequency of 533 MHz, and also does not support the SSE4 instruction set, which cannot but affect its performance. This model is great for gaming.

        • Number of cores: 2;
        • L2 cache: 512 KB;
        • Clock frequency: 3.6 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 533 MHz;
        • Process: 65 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 65 watts.

        10. Intel Pentium Extreme Edition 965

        This is another processor similar to the previous one. It has a very high clock speed, but little L2 cache, not a very high processor bus frequency, and an old process technology. As a result, this processor has a very high heat dissipation — 130 watts. But despite the fact that there are two cores, applications will be able to use four threads.

        • Number of cores: 2;
        • Number of threads: 4;
        • L2 cache: 4 MB;
        • Clock frequency: 3. 73 GHz;
        • Bus frequency: 1066 MHz;
        • Process: 65 nm;
        • Heat dissipation: 130 watts.

        Terminals

        Now you can determine for yourself which processor is better on socket 775 and choose what you need. As you can see, there are a lot of processors and, perhaps, not all the best ones made it to the list. Which processor is better for you? Write in the comments!

        Intel Core 2 Extreme — frwiki.wiki

        The Intel Core 2 Extreme processors are a series of 64-bit x86 processors for the high-end market. These processors are derivatives of the Intel Core architecture as well as its shrinkage, the Enhanced Intel Core Architecture.

        The Core 2 Extreme also features a $999 launch price compared to its mainstream Core 2 counterpart, the ability to increase the multiplier (whereas for the Core 2 it can only be reduced), which makes overclocking easier. (acceleration). In addition, their thermal envelope is higher, from 10 to 35 watts, compared to lower frequency processors.

        CV

        • 1 Intel Core architecture

          • 1.1 Conroe XE
          • 1.2 Kentsfield XE
          • 1.3 Measure XE
        • 2 Improved Intel Core architecture

          • 2.1 Yorkfield XE
          • 2.2 Penryn XE
        • 3 Notes and references

        Intel Core

        Conroe XE

        Model Nb. hearts Frequency Hidden Mult. Voltage Revision TDP FSB Connector Recommendations Marketing
        L1 L2 Start End
        Core 2 Extreme — X6x00
        X6800 2 2. 93 GHz 2×64 KB 4MB × 11 0.85 — 1.5 V 75 W 1066 mt/s LGA 775 HH80557PH0774M 4- cut. 2007

        Kentsfield XE

        Kentsfield XE is a quad-core processor from Intel. The first model was released as the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 at 2.66 GHz. A less expensive 2.4GHz version of the Core 2 Quad Q6600 was released in early 2007.

        Model Nb. hearts Frequency Hidden Mult. Voltage Revision TDP FSB Connector Recommendations Marketing
        L1 L2 Start End
        Core 2 Extreme — QX6xx0
        QX6850 4 3. 00 GHz 4×64 KB 2 × 4 MB × 9 0.85 — 1.5 V 130 W 1333 mt/s LGA 775 HH80562XJ0808M
        QX6800 4 2.93 GHz 4×64 KB 2 × 4 MB × 11 0.85 — 1.5 V 130 W 1066 MT / s LGA 775 HH80562PH0778M
        QX6700 4 2.66 GHz 4×64 KB 2 × 4 MB × 10 0.85 — 1.5 V 130 W 1066 mt/s LGA 775 HH80562PH0678M

        By measure XE

        Core 2 Extreme X7900 and X7800 are the only two models that can use Intel Dynamic Acceleration , they have replaced the Core 2 Duo T7600G.

        Model Nb. hearts Frequency Hidden Mult. Voltage Revision TDP FSB Connector Recommendations Marketing
        L1 L2 Start End
        Core 2 Extreme Mobile — X7x00
        X7900 2 2.80 GHz 2×64 KB 4MB × 14 1.1 — 1.375 V 44 W 800 MT/s socket P LF80537GG0724M
        X7800 2 2. 60 GHz 2×64 KB 4MB × 13 1.1 — 1.375 V 44 W 800 MT/s socket P LF80537GG0644M

        Enhanced Intel Core Architecture / Penryn is the name of the new Intel processor architecture. This is a 45 nm reduction of the Core architecture, it should be equipped with a quad-pump 1333 MHz (later 1600 MHz) system bus and 6 MB of L2 cache, as well as a new SSE4 instruction. It will include dual and quad core, desktop and mobile versions.

        Yorkfield XE

        Yorkfield is a quad-core processor from Intel combining 2 Wolfdale cores on the same die that will therefore be equipped with a shared 2×6 MB L2 cache. According to information provided by Intel LaGrande Technology or TXT. The engraving will obviously be done in 45nm increments.

        A version for the LGA 771 socket is planned to offer two-processor computers (which was not possible with Intel Pentiums after the Pentium 3) and eight-core, this is the platform: Intel Skulltrail.

        Model Nb. hearts Frequency Hidden Mult. Voltage Revision TDP FSB Connector Recommendations Marketing
        L1 L2 Start End
        Core 2 Extreme — QX9xxx
        QX9775 4 3.20 GHz 4×64 KB 2 × 6 MB × 8 0.85 — 1.3500 V 150 W 1600 MT/s LGA 771 EU80574XL088N 1- cut. 2008
        QX9770 4 3. 20 GHz 4×64 KB 2 × 6 MB × 8 0.85 — 1.3625 V 136 W 1600 MT/s LGA 775 EU80569XL088NL 1- cut. 2008
        QX9650 4 3.00 GHz 4×64 KB 2 × 6 MB × 9 0.85 — 1.3625 V 130 W 1333 mt/s LGA 775 EU80569XJ080NL

        Penryn XE

        Penryn XE is a Merom XE notebook heat shrink matrix.

        Model Nb. hearts Frequency Hidden Mult. Voltage Revision TDP FSB Connector Recommendations Marketing
        L1 L2 Start End
        Core 2 Extreme Mobile — QX9x00
        QX9300 4 2.53 GHz 4×64 KB 2 × 6 MB × 9.5 0.9 — 1.25 V 45 W 1066 mt/s socket P AW80581ZH061003
        Core 2 Extreme Mobile — X9x00
        X9100 2 3. 06 GHz 2×64 KB 6 MB × 11.5 1 — 1.275 V 44 W 1066 mt/s socket P AW80576ZH0836M
        X9000 2 2.80 GHz 2×64 KB 6 MB × 14 1 — 1.275 V 44 W 800 MT/s socket P FF80576ZG0726M

        Notes and links

        1. ↑ 4 cores per chip: Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (Clubic.com)
        2. ↑ 4 hearts for all? Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 (Clubic. com)

        Intel

        processors

        Abandoned
        4 bits
        • 4004
        • 4040
        Pre-x86 (8-bit)
        • 8008
        • 8080
        • 8085
        x86-16 (16bit)
        • 8086
        • 8088
        • 80186
        • 80188
        • 80286
        x87 (external FPU)
        • Bus 8/16 bit: 8087
        • 16-bit bus: 80287
        • 32-bit bus: 80387 , 80487
        x86-32 / IA-32 (32-bit)
        • 80386

          • SX
          • 376
          • EX
        • 80486

          • SX
          • DX2
          • DX4
          • SL
          • RapidCAD
          • OverDrive Intel 80486 (ru)
        • Pentium

          • Original
          • Overdrive
          • Pro
          • II
          • II OverDrive
          • III
          • 4
          • M
        • Main
        • Celeron M
        • Celeron D
        • A100 / A110 (ru)
        x86-64 / EM64T (64-bit)
        • Pentium 4
        • Pentium D
        • Pentium Extreme Edition
        • Celeron D
        • Core 2
        • Core 2 Extreme
        • Dual-core Pentium
        RISC
        • i860
        • i960
        • Strong hand
        • IOP and XScale
        Other
        • Pentium 4-M
        • Centrino
        Current
        x86-32
        • EP80579 (en)
        • Atom
        x86-64
        • Atom
        • Celeron
        • Pentium
        • Core i3
        • Core i5
        • Core i7
        • Core i9
        • Xeon
        • Core M
        Other Itanium
        Microarchitectures
        • P5
        • P6
        • NetBurst
        • Main
        • Bonnel
        • Nehalem
        • Sandy Bridge
        • Haswell
        • Silvermont
        • Skylake
        • Kaby Lake
        • Coffee Lake
        • Apollo Lake
        • Comet Lake

        wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1×1″ alt=»» title=»»>

        Quad-core processor. A simple explanation of the question «what is a processor». What is the largest number of cores in a smartphone

        Good afternoon, dear readers of our technoblog. Today we do not have a review, but a kind of comparison, which processor is better 2 core or 4 core? I wonder who shows himself cooler in 2018? Then let’s get started. Let’s say right away that in most cases the palm will go to a device with a large number of physical modules, but chips with 2 cores are not as simple as they seem at first glance.

        Many have probably already guessed that we will consider all the current representatives from Intel of the Pentium Coffee Lake family and the popular «hyperstump» G4560 (Kaby Lake). How relevant are the models in the current year and is it worth thinking about buying more productive AMD Ryzen or the same Core i3 with 4 cores.

        The AMD Godavari and Bristol Ridge family is deliberately not considered for one simple reason — it has no further potential, and the platform itself turned out to be not the most successful, as it could be expected.

        Often these solutions are bought either out of ignorance, or “on hand” as some kind of the cheapest assembly for the Internet and online movies. But we are not particularly happy with this state of affairs.

        Differences between 2-core and 4-core chips

        Let’s consider the main points that distinguish the first category of chips from the second. At the hardware level, you can see that only the number of computing units differs. In other cases, the cores are united by a high-speed data exchange bus, a common memory controller for fruitful and efficient work with RAM.

        Often the L1 cache of each core is an individual value, but L2 can be either the same for all, or also individual for each block. However, in this case, the L3 cache is additionally used.

        In theory, 4-core solutions should be 2 times faster and more powerful, since they perform 100% more operations per clock (we will take identical frequency, cache, process technology and all other parameters as a basis). But in practice, the situation changes completely non-linearly.

        But here it is worth paying tribute: in multithreading, the whole essence of 4 cores is fully revealed.

        Why are 2-core processors still popular?

        If you look at the mobile electronics segment, you can see the dominance of 6-8 nuclear chips, which look as organic as possible and are loaded in parallel when performing all tasks. Why is that? Android and iOS operating systems are quite young systems with a high level of competition, and therefore the optimization of each application is the key to success in device sales.

        The PC industry is different and here’s why:

        Compatibility.
        When developing any software, developers strive to please both new and old audiences with weak hardware. There is more emphasis on 2-core processors to the detriment of 8-core support.

        Task parallelization.
        Despite the dominance of technology in 2018, getting a program to work with multiple CPU cores and threads in parallel is still not easy. If it comes to calculating several completely different applications, then there are no questions, but when it comes to calculations within one program, it’s already worse: you have to regularly calculate completely different information, while not forgetting about the success of tasks and the absence of errors in calculations.

        In games, the situation is even more interesting, since it is practically impossible to divide the volumes of information into equal “shares”. As a result, we get the following picture: one computing unit is 100% oiled, the remaining 3 are waiting for their turn.

        Succession.
        Each new solution builds on previous developments. Writing code from scratch is not only expensive, but also often unprofitable for the development center, because «people will have enough, and users of 2-core chips are still the lion’s share.»

        Take for example many cult projects like Lineage 2, AION, World of Tanks. All of them were created on the basis of ancient engines that can adequately load only one physical core, and therefore only the chip frequency plays the main role in calculations.
        Financing.
        Not everyone can afford to create a completely new product, designed not for 4.8, 16 threads. It is too expensive, and in most cases unjustified. Take for example the same cult GTA V, which will “eat” both 12 and 16 threads without any problems, not to mention the cores.

        The cost of its development has exceeded a good 200 million dollars, which in itself is already very expensive. Yes, the game was a success, because Rockstar’s credibility among the players was huge. What if it was a young startup? Here you already understand everything.

        Are multi-core processors necessary?

        Let’s look at the situation from the point of view of a simple layman. Most users are satisfied with 2 cores for the following reasons:

        • low needs;
        • most applications are stable;
        • games are not a top priority;
        • low assembly cost;
        • processors themselves are cheap;
        • most buy ready-made solutions;
        • some users have no idea what they are selling in stores and feel great.

        Can I play with 2 cores? Yes, no problem, which the Intel Core i3 line up to the 7th generation proved with success for several years. Also very popular were Pentium Kaby Lake, which for the first time in history introduced support for Hyper Threading.
        Should I now buy 2 cores, albeit with 4 threads? Exclusively for office tasks. The era of these chips is gradually fading, and manufacturers have begun to massively switch to 4 full-fledged physical cores, and therefore you should not consider the same Pentium and Core i3 Kaby Lake in the long term. AMD has completely abandoned 2 cores.

        Victor
        Kutz

        The most significant event of recent times in the field of microprocessors has been the appearance in wide availability of CPUs equipped with two computing cores. The transition to a dual-core architecture is due to the fact that the traditional methods of increasing the performance of processors have completely exhausted themselves — the process of increasing their clock frequencies has recently stalled.

        For example, in the last year before the advent of dual-core processors, Intel was able to increase the frequencies of its CPUs by 400 MHz, and AMD even less — by only 200 MHz. Other performance enhancements, such as increasing bus speed and cache size, have also lost their effectiveness. Thus, the introduction of dual-core processors, which have two processor cores in one chip and share the load, has now turned out to be the most logical step on the complex and thorny path of increasing the performance of modern computers.

        What is a dual-core processor? In principle, a dual-core processor is an SMP system (Symmetric MultiProcessing — symmetric multiprocessing; a term for a system with several equal processors) and is essentially no different from an ordinary two-processor system consisting of two independent processors. In this way, we get all the benefits of dual-processor systems without the need for complex and very expensive dual-processor motherboards.

        Before that, Intel has already made an attempt to parallelize executable instructions — we are talking about HyperThreading technology, which provides the division of resources of one «physical» processor (cache, pipeline, execution units) between two «virtual» processors. The performance gain (in separate, HyperThreading-optimized applications) was about 10-20%. Whereas a full-fledged dual-core processor, which includes two «honest» physical cores, provides an increase in system performance by all 80-90% and even more (naturally, with the full use of the capabilities of both of its cores).

        The main initiator in the promotion of dual-core processors was AMD, which released the first Opteron dual-core server processor in early 2005. As for desktop processors, the initiative was seized by Intel, which at about the same time announced Intel Pentium D and Intel Extreme Edition processors. True, the announcement of a similar line of Athlon64 X2 processors manufactured by AMD was only a few days late.

        Intel

        Dual Core Processors

        The first dual-core Intel Pentium D processors of the 8xx family were based on the Smithfield core, which is nothing more than two Prescott cores combined on a single semiconductor chip. An arbiter is also located there, which monitors the state of the system bus and helps to share access to it between the cores, each of which has its own 1 MB L2 cache. The size of such a crystal, made according to 90nm process technology, reached 206 sq. mm, and the number of transistors is approaching 230 million.

        For advanced users and enthusiasts, Intel offers Pentium Extreme Edition processors, which differ from Pentium D in support of HyperThreading technology (and an unlocked multiplier), due to which they are recognized by the operating system as four logical processors. All other functions and technologies of both processors are completely identical. Among them are support for the 64-bit EM64T (x86-64) instruction set, EIST (Enhanced Intel SpeedStep), C1E (Enhanced Halt State) and TM2 (Thermal Monitor 2) energy saving technologies, as well as the NX-bit information protection function. Thus, the considerable price difference between the Pentium D and Pentium EE processors is largely artificial.

        As for compatibility, Smithfield processors can potentially be installed in any LGA775 motherboard, as long as it meets Intel’s power supply requirements.

        But the first pancake, as usual, came out lumpy — in many applications (most of which are not optimized for multithreading), dual-core Pentium D processors not only did not outperform single-core Prescott running at the same clock frequency, but sometimes even lost to them. Obviously, the problem lies in the interaction of the cores via the Quad Pumped Bus processor bus (during the development of the Prescott core, it was not planned to scale its performance by increasing the number of cores).

        Processors based on the 65-nm Presler core (two separate Cedar Mill cores placed on the same substrate), which appeared at the very beginning of this year, were called upon to eliminate the shortcomings of the first generation of dual-core Intel processors. More «thin» technical process allowed to reduce the area of ​​the cores and their power consumption, as well as increase the clock speeds. Dual-core processors based on the Presler core were named Pentium D with indexes 9xx. If we compare the Pentium D processors of the 800th and 900th series, in addition to a noticeable reduction in power consumption, the new processors received a doubling of the second-level cache (2 MB per core instead of 1 MB) and support for the promising Vanderpool virtualization technology (Intel Virtualization Technology). In addition, the Pentium Extreme Edition 9 processor was released55 with HyperThreading enabled and running at 1066MHz FSB.

        Officially processors based on the Presler core with a bus frequency of 1066 MHz are only compatible with motherboards based on i965 and i975X chipsets, while 800 MHz Pentium Ds will work in most cases on all motherboards that support this bus. But, again, the question arises about the power supply of these processors: the thermal package of Pentium EE and Pentium D, with the exception of the younger model, is 130 W, which is almost a third more than that of Pentium 4. According to Intel’s own statements, stable operation of a dual-core system is possible only when using power supplies with a capacity of at least 400 W.

        The most efficient modern Intel dual-core desktop processors are without a doubt the Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 eXtreme (Conroe core). Their architecture develops the basic principles of the P6 family architecture, however, the number of fundamental innovations is so great that it is time to talk about the new, 8th generation of processor architecture (P8) from Intel. Despite the lower clock frequency, they noticeably outperform the P7 family (NetBurst) processors in terms of performance in the vast majority of applications — primarily due to an increase in the number of operations performed in each clock cycle, as well as by reducing losses due to the large length of the P7 pipeline.

        Desktop processors of the Core 2 Duo line are available in several versions:
        — E4xxx series — FSB 800 MHz, 2 MB L2 cache common for both cores;
        — E6xxx series — FSB 1066 MHz, cache size 2 or 4 MB;
        — X6xxx series (eXtreme Edition) — FSB 1066 MHz, cache size 4 MB.

        The letter code «E» indicates the power consumption range from 55 to 75 watts, «X» — above 75 watts. Core 2 eXtreme differs from Core 2 Duo only in increased clock speed.

        All Conroe processors use the well established Quad Pumped Bus and LGA775 socket. Which, however, does not mean compatibility with old motherboards at all. In addition to supporting 1067 MHz, motherboards for new processors must include the new voltage regulation module (VRM 11). These requirements are met mainly by updated versions of motherboards based on Intel 9 chipsets.75 and 965 series, as well as NVIDIA nForce 5xx Intel Edition and ATI Xpress 3200 Intel Edition.

        In the next two years, Intel processors of all classes (mobile, desktop and server) will be based on the Intel Core architecture, and the main development will go towards increasing the number of cores on a chip and improving their external interfaces. In particular, for the desktop PC market, this processor will be Kentsfield — the first quad-core Intel processor for the high-performance desktop PC segment.

        AMD

        dual-core processors

        The AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor line uses two cores (Toledo and Manchester) inside a single die, manufactured using a 90-nm process technology using SOI technology. Each of the Athlon 64 X2 cores has its own set of execution units and a dedicated L2 cache, they have a common memory controller and HyperTransport bus controller. The differences between the cores are in the size of the L2 cache: Toledo has a L2 cache of 1 MB per core, while Manchester has half that size (512 KB each). All processors have 128 KB L1 cache, their maximum heat dissipation does not exceed 110 W. The Toledo core consists of approximately 233.2 million transistors and has an area of ​​approximately 199 sq. mm. The core area of ​​Manchester is noticeably smaller — 147 sq. mm., the number of transistors is 157 million.

        Athlon64 X2 dual-core processors inherit from Athlon64 support for Cool`n`Quiet power-saving technology, a set of 64-bit extensions AMD64, SSE — SSE3, NX-bit information protection function.

        Unlike dual-core Intel processors that work only with DDR2 memory, Athlon64 X2 can work with both DDR400 (Socket 939) memory, providing a maximum bandwidth of 6. 4 GB / s, and DDR2-800 (Socket AM2) , with a peak throughput of 12.8 GB/s.

        Athlon64 X2 processors work without any problems on all fairly modern motherboards — unlike Intel Pentium D, they do not impose any specific requirements on the design of the motherboard power module.

        Until very recently, AMD Athlon64 X2 was considered the most productive among desktop processors, but with the release of Intel Core 2 Duo, the situation has changed radically — the latter have become the undisputed leaders, especially in gaming and multimedia applications. In addition, the new Intel processors have lower power consumption and much more efficient power management mechanisms.

        This state of affairs did not suit AMD, and as a response, it announced the release in mid-2007 of a new 4-core processor with an improved microarchitecture, known as the K8L. All of its cores will have separate 512 KB L2 caches and one 2 MB shared L3 cache (L3 cache may be increased in later versions of the processor). The promising AMD K8L architecture will be discussed in more detail in one of the next issues of our magazine.

        One core or two?

        Even a cursory glance at the current state of the desktop processor market indicates that the era of single-core processors is gradually becoming a thing of the past — both of the world’s leading manufacturers have switched to producing mainly multi-core processors. However, the software, as it happened more than once before, still lags behind the level of hardware development. Indeed, in order to fully utilize the capabilities of several processor cores, the software must be able to «break» into several parallel threads processed simultaneously. Only with this approach does it become possible to distribute the load across all available computing cores, reducing the computation time more than could be done by increasing the clock frequency. Whereas the vast majority of modern programs are not able to use all the features provided by dual-core or, moreover, multi-core processors.

        What types of user applications can be most effectively parallelized, that is, without much reworking of the program code, they allow you to select several tasks (program threads) that can be executed in parallel and, thus, load several processor cores at once? After all, only such applications provide any noticeable increase in performance from the introduction of multi-core processors.

        The greatest benefit from multiprocessing is received by applications that initially allow natural parallelization of calculations with data sharing, for example, packages of realistic computer rendering — 3DMax and the like. You can also expect a good performance boost from multiprocessing in applications for encoding multimedia files (audio and video) from one format to another. In addition, the tasks of editing two-dimensional images lend themselves well to parallelization in graphic editors like the popular Photoshop «a.

        No wonder applications of all the above categories are widely used in tests when they want to show the benefits of Hyper-Threading virtual multiprocessing. And there is nothing to say about real multiprocessing.

        But in today’s 3D gaming applications, you shouldn’t expect any serious performance boost from multiple processors. Why? Because a typical computer game is not so easy to parallelize into two or more processes. Therefore, the second logical processor, at best, will be engaged in the execution of only auxiliary tasks, which will give almost no performance gain. And developing a multi-threaded version of a game from the very beginning is quite complex and requires a lot of work — sometimes much more than for creating a single-threaded version. These labor costs, by the way, may still not pay off from an economic point of view. After all, manufacturers of computer games traditionally focus on the most massive part of users and begin to use new features of computer hardware only if it is widely used. This is clearly seen in the use of video card capabilities by game developers. For example, after the appearance of new video chips supporting shader technologies, game developers ignored them for a long time, focusing on the capabilities of truncated mass solutions. So even advanced players who bought the most sophisticated video cards of those years did not wait for normal games that use all their capabilities. Approximately similar situation with dual-core processors is observed today. Today there are not so many games that really use even HyperThreading technology, despite the fact that mass processors with its support have been produced for many years now.

        In office applications the situation is not so unambiguous. First of all, programs of this class rarely work alone — the situation is much more common when several office applications running in parallel are running on the computer. For example, the user is working with a text editor, while a web site is loading into the browser, and a virus scan is being performed in the background. Obviously, multiple running applications allow you to easily use multiple processors and get a performance boost. Moreover, all versions of Windows XP, including Home Edition (which was initially denied support for multi-core processors), are now able to take advantage of dual-core processors by distributing program threads between them. This ensures high efficiency in the execution of numerous background programs.

        Thus, one can expect some effect even from non-optimized office applications if they are run in parallel, but it is difficult to understand whether such a performance increase is worth a significant increase in the cost of a dual-core processor. In addition, a certain disadvantage of dual-core processors (especially with Intel Pentium D processors) is that applications whose performance is limited not by the processing power of the processor itself, but by the speed of memory access, may not benefit as much from having multiple cores.

        Conclusion

        Undoubtedly, the future belongs to multi-core processors, but today, when most of the existing software is not optimized for new processors, their advantages are not as obvious as manufacturers try to show in their promotional materials. Yes, a little later, when there will be a sharp increase in the number of applications that support multi-core processors (first of all, this concerns 3D games, in which new-generation CPUs will help significantly offload the graphics system), it will be advisable to purchase them, but now . .. It has long been known that buying processors «for growth» is far from the most effective investment.

        On the other hand, progress is rapid, and for a normal person, the annual change of computer is perhaps too much. Thus, all owners of fairly modern systems based on single-core processors should not worry too much in the near future — your systems will still be «at the level» for some time, while we would still recommend that those who are going to purchase a new computer focus on relatively inexpensive low-end models of dual-core processors.

        …during development, the number of cores will be
        become more and more.

        ( Developers
        Intel
        )

        more core
        , and even core
        , and more
        many, many core
        !..

        … Until quite recently, we did not hear or know about
        multi-core
        processors, and today they are aggressively crowding out single-core ones.
        The boom of multi-core processors has begun, which so far — slightly! — restrain them
        relatively high prices. But no one doubts that the future is for
        multi-core processors!

        What is a processor core

        At the heart of a modern central microprocessor
        ( CPU
        — abbr. from English. central processing unit
        — central
        computing device) is the core ( core
        ) — silicon crystal
        an area of ​​approximately one square centimeter, on which, by means of
        microscopic logic elements circuit diagram implemented
        processor, the so-called architecture
        ( chip architecture)
        ).

        The core is connected to the rest of the chip (called
        «package», CPU Package
        ) in flip-chip technology ( flip-chip
        ,
        flip-chip bonding
        — inverted core, inverted
        crystal). This technology is so named because the outward-facing
        — visible — part of the nucleus is actually its «bottom» — to ensure
        direct contact with the cooler heatsink for better heat dissipation. From the reverse
        (invisible) side is the «interface» itself — the connection of the crystal and packaging.
        The connection of the processor core with the package is made with the help of pins (
        Bumps
        ).

        The core is located on a textolite base, according to
        which the contact tracks pass to the «legs» (contact pads), filled
        thermal interface and closed with a protective metal cover.

        The first (of course, single-core!) microprocessor
        Intel 4004
        was introduced on November 15, 1971 by Intel Corporation. It contained 2300 transistors,
        worked at a clock frequency of 108 kHz and cost $300.

        Requirements for computing power of the central
        microprocessor constantly grew and continue to grow. But if earlier
        processor manufacturers had to constantly adapt to current
        urgent (ever-growing!) user requests
        , then now the chipmakers go with
        bo-o-o-big lead!

        Long time performance improvement
        traditional single-core processors mainly occurred due to
        sequential increase in clock frequency (about 80% performance
        processor was determined by the clock frequency) with a simultaneous increase
        the number of transistors on a single chip. However, a further increase in the clock
        frequencies (at a clock frequency of more than 3.8 GHz, the chips simply overheat!)
        rests against a number of fundamental physical barriers (since the technological
        process has come very close to the size of an atom: today processors
        are produced using 45-nm technology, and the size of the silicon atom is approximately 0.543
        nm):

        First, with decreasing crystal size and with
        increasing the clock frequency increases the leakage current of transistors. This leads to
        increase in power consumption and increase in heat emission;

        Second, the advantages of a higher clock
        frequencies are partially canceled out due to delays in memory access, since
        memory access time does not match increasing clock speeds;

        Third, for some applications, traditional
        sequential architectures become inefficient as the clock increases
        frequencies due to the so-called «von Neumann bottleneck» — the limitation
        performance as a result of a sequential flow of computation. Wherein
        increasing resistive-capacitive signal transmission delays, which is
        additional bottleneck associated with increasing the clock frequency.

        The use of multiprocessor systems is also not
        has become widespread, as it requires complex and expensive
        multiprocessor motherboards. Therefore, it was decided to pursue further
        improving the performance of microprocessors by other means. by the most
        the concept of multithreading was recognized as an effective direction
        ,
        originated in the world of supercomputing is the simultaneous parallel processing
        multiple command streams.

        So in the bowels of the company Intel
        born
        Hyper Threading Technology
        ( HTT
        ) — super-threading technology
        data, which allows the processor to execute in a single-core processor
        up to four program threads in parallel. Hyper-threading

        significantly improves the performance of resource-intensive applications (for example,
        related to audio and video editing, 3D
        — simulation), as well as the operation of the OS
        in multitasking mode.

        Processor Pentium 4
        with included
        Hyper-threading
        has one physical
        a core that is split into two
        logical
        , so the operating system defines it as two different
        processor (instead of one).

        Hyper-threading
        actually became a springboard
        to the creation of processors with two physical cores on one chip. AT
        In a 2-core chip, two cores (two processors!) work in parallel, which, when
        lower clock frequency provide b about
        more performance,
        since two independent threads are running in parallel (simultaneously!)
        instructions.

        The ability of the processor to execute simultaneously
        multiple program threads is called thread-level parallelism

        ( TLP
        thread-level parallelism
        ). Need for TLP

        depends on the specific situation (in some cases it is simply useless!).

        Basic creation problems
        processors

        Each processor core must be independent, –
        with independent power consumption and controlled power;

        The software market must be
        provided with programs that can effectively break the command branching algorithm
        to even (for processors with an even number of cores) or odd (for processors with
        processors with an odd number of cores) the number of threads;

        . ..

        According to the press service of AMD
        , for today
        the market for 4-core processors is no more than 2% of the total. Obviously,
        that for a modern buyer, the acquisition of a 4-core processor for home
        needs almost does not make sense for many reasons. First, for today
        there are practically no programs that can effectively use the advantages of 4
        simultaneously running threads; secondly, manufacturers
        position
        4-core processors like high-end
        — solutions by adding to the snap
        the most
        modern video cards and voluminous hard drives — and this is ultimately more
        further increases the cost of already expensive

        Developers Intel
        say: «…in progress
        development, the number of cores will become more and more … «.

        What awaits us in the future

        At Intel Corporation
        is no longer talking about «Multi-core»
        ( Multi-Core
        ) processors, as is done for 2-, 4-, 8-, 16-
        or even 32-core solutions, but about «Multi-core» ( Many Core
        ),
        implying a completely new architectural microstructure of the chip, comparable (but
        not similar) with Cell processor architecture
        .

        Structure of such Many-Core
        -chip
        involves working with the same set of instructions, but with the help of a powerful
        central core or several powerful CPUs
        «surrounded» by many
        auxiliary cores, which will help to more efficiently process complex
        multimedia applications in multi-threaded mode. In addition to the cores of the «common
        destination», processors Intel
        will also have specialized
        cores to perform various classes of tasks — such as graphics, algorithms
        speech recognition, processing of communication protocols.

        Justin Rattner introduced this architecture
        ( Justin R. Rattner
        ), Head of Sector Corporate Technology Group
        Intel
        , at a press conference in Tokyo. According to him, such auxiliary
        cores in a new multi-core processor may be several dozen. AT
        in contrast to the focus on large, energy-intensive computing cores with a large
        heat dissipation, multi-core crystals Intel
        will only activate those
        cores that are needed to complete the current task, while the remaining cores
        will be disabled. This will allow the crystal to consume exactly as much electricity as
        how much is needed at the moment.

        In July 2008, Intel Corporation
        reported
        which considers the possibility of integrating several dozens and
        even thousands of computing cores. Lead Engineer of the company Envar Galum ( Anwar
        Ghuloum
        ) wrote on his blog: “Ultimately, I recommend
        take my next piece of advice…developers should start now
        think about tens, hundreds and thousands of cores.” According to him, currently
        Intel
        is exploring technologies that could scale computing “to
        the number of cores that we do not sell yet.”

        According to Galum, ultimately success
        multi-core systems will depend on developers, who will probably have to
        change programming languages ​​and rewrite all existing libraries.

        The race for additional performance in the processor market can only be won by those manufacturers that, based on current production technologies, can provide a reasonable balance between clock speed and the number of computing cores. Thanks to the transition to 90- and 65-nm process technology, it became possible to create processors with a large number of cores. To a large extent, this was due to new options for adjusting heat dissipation, and the size of the cores, which is why today we are seeing the emergence of an increasing number of quad-core processors. But what about software? How well does it scale from one to two or four cores?

        In an ideal world, thread-optimized programs would allow the operating system to distribute multiple threads across the available processing cores, whether single or multi-core, single-core or multi-core. Adding new cores allows for a bigger performance boost than any clock speed boost. This actually makes sense: more workers will almost always complete a task faster than fewer, faster workers.

        But does it make sense to equip processors with four or even more cores? Is there enough work to load four or more cores? Keep in mind that it is very difficult to distribute work between cores so that physical interfaces such as HyperTransport (AMD) or Front Side Bus (Intel) do not become a bottleneck. There is a third option: the mechanism that distributes the load between the cores, namely the OS manager, can also become a bottleneck.

        AMD’s single-core to dual-core transition went almost flawlessly as the company didn’t push the thermal envelope to extreme levels like Intel’s Pentium 4 processors did. So the Athlon 64 X2 processors were expensive, but quite reasonable, and the Pentium D 800 line became famous. your hot work. But Intel’s 65nm processors, and especially the Core 2 line, have changed the picture. Intel was able to combine two Core 2 Duo processors in one package, unlike AMD, which resulted in the current Core 2 Quad. AMD promises to release its own quad-core Phenom X4 processors before the end of this year.

        In our article, we will consider the configuration of Core 2 Duo on four cores, two cores and one core. And let’s see how well the performance scales. Is it worth switching to four cores today?

        One core

        The term «single core» refers to a processor that has one processing core. This includes almost all processors from the inception of the 8086 architecture up to the Athlon 64 and Intel Pentium 4. Until the manufacturing process became thin enough to create two processing cores on a single chip, the transition to a smaller process technology was used to reduce operating voltage, increase clock speeds, or add function blocks and cache memory.

        Running a single-core processor at high clock speeds can provide better performance for a single application, but such a processor can only execute one program (thread) at a time. Intel has implemented the concept of Hyper-Threading, which emulates the presence of multiple cores for the operating system. HT technology made it possible to better load the long pipelines of the Pentium 4 and Pentium D processors. Of course, the performance gain was not great, but the system responsiveness was definitely better. And in a multitasking environment, this can be even more important, since you will be able to do some work while your computer is working on a specific task.

        Because dual-core processors are so cheap these days, we don’t recommend single-core processors unless you want to save every penny.


        The Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor was the fastest processor in the Intel Core 2 line at the time of release, operating at 2.93 GHz. Today, dual-core processors have reached 3.0 GHz, albeit at a higher FSB1333 bus frequency.

        Switching to two processor cores means twice the processing power, but only on applications optimized for multithreading. Usually such applications include professional programs that need high processing power. But a dual-core processor still makes sense, even if you only use your computer for email, web browsing, and office paperwork. On the one hand, modern models of dual-core processors do not consume much more energy than single-core models. On the other hand, the second processing core not only adds performance, but also improves system responsiveness.

        Have you ever waited for WinRAR or WinZIP to finish compressing files? On a single-core machine, you are unlikely to be able to quickly switch between windows. Even DVD playback can stress a single core as much as a daunting task. The dual-core processor makes it easier to handle running multiple applications at the same time.

        AMD dual-core processors contain two full cores with cache memory, an integrated memory controller, and a cross-connect that provides memory and HyperTransport sharing. Intel took a path similar to the first Pentium D, installing two Pentium 4 cores in the physical processor. Since the memory controller is part of the chipset, the system bus has to be used both for communication between the cores and for memory access, which imposes certain performance restrictions. The Core 2 Duo processor features more advanced cores that deliver better performance per clock and better performance per watt. The two cores use a common L2 cache, which allows you to exchange data without using the system bus.

        The Core 2 Quad Q6700 runs at 2.66 GHz using two Core 2 Duo cores internally.

        If today there are many reasons to switch to dual-core processors, then four cores do not look so convincing yet. One of the reasons is the limited optimization of programs for multiple threads, but there are also certain problems in the architecture. Although AMD today criticizes Intel for packing two dual-core dies in one processor, considering it not a «true» quad-core CPU, Intel’s approach works well because the processors do deliver quad-core performance. From a production standpoint, it’s easier to get a high die yield and produce more products with smaller cores that can then be put together for a new, more powerful product in a new process. As for performance, there are «bottlenecks» — two dies communicate with each other via the system bus, so it is very difficult to manage multiple cores distributed over several dies. Although the presence of multiple crystals allows for better energy savings and adjusting the frequencies of individual cores to the needs of the application.

        True quad-core processors use four cores, which, along with cache memory, reside on a single die. The presence of a common unified cache is important here. AMD will implement this approach by equipping 512KB of L2 cache per core and adding L3 cache for all cores. AMD’s advantage is that it will be possible to turn off individual cores and boost others to get better single-threaded performance. Intel will follow the same path, but not before introducing the Nehalem architecture in 2008.

        System information utilities such as CPU-Z show the number of cores and cache sizes, but not the processor layout. You won’t recognize that the Core 2 Quad (or the quad-core Extreme Edition shown in the screenshot) has two cores.

        One
        from the stages of improving the architecture
        von Neumann is parallelization
        threads ( Thread

        level

        Parallelism
        ,
        TLP
        ).
        Distinguish simultaneous
        multithreading

        ( Simultaneous

        Multithreading
        ,
        SMT
        ) and
        multithreading
        at the crystal level

        ( Chip

        level

        Multithreading
        ,
        CMT
        ). These two
        approaches are fundamentally different
        idea of ​​what a flow is.
        Representative of SMT

        is the so-called technology HTT

        ( Hyper

        Threading

        Technology
        ).

        First
        representatives of the CMP architecture

        steel processors designed for
        use in servers. It was simple
        tandem, in such devices on one substrate
        housed two, in fact, independent
        kernels (Fig. 8,). By developing this scheme first
        became a structure with a shared cache memory
        rice. 9 and then structure with multithreading
        in every core.

        Benefits
        multi-core processors are
        next.

          Simplicity (of course
          relative) design and
          production. Having developed one effective
          core, it can be replicated in a crystal,
          complementing the architecture with the necessary system
          components.

          Significantly reduced
          Energy consumption. If, for example, on
          crystal to place two cores and force
          them to run at a clock frequency,
          providing performance
          equal performance, single core
          «brother», and then compare the power consumption
          both, it will be found that the power consumption
          decreases several times, because
          it grows almost proportionately
          the square of the frequency.

        In general, if
        take a close look at Figure 8 and
        9, you can see that the fundamental
        difference between, say, 2 processor
        system and computer on a 2-core processor
        no. The problems are the same. And one of
        first — the corresponding operating
        system.

        Ways of organizing the work of processors

        The main stimulus
        development of computer architecture is
        productivity increase. One of
        ways to improve productivity
        computers — specialization (both separate
        computer elements, and the creation
        specialized computing
        systems).

        Specialization
        processors began in the 60s, when
        the central processing unit of a mainframe computer was
        freed from routine
        input-output operations.
        This function has been passed to the processor
        I/O that communicates with
        peripherals.

        Another way
        performance improvements — waste
        from sequential architecture background
        Neumann, orientation to parallelism. M.
        Flynn drew attention to what exists
        there are only two reasons for
        computational parallelism — independence
        streams of commands coexisting
        in the system, and data incoherence,
        processed in one thread of commands.
        If the first cause of parallelism
        computing process is enough
        known (this is simple multiprocessing),
        then we will stop on data parallelism
        in more detail, since most
        cases it exists hidden from
        programmers and is used by a limited
        circle of professionals.

        The simplest example
        data parallelism is
        sequence of two commands:
        A=B+C; D=E*F;

        If strictly
        follow the von Neumann principle, then
        the second operation can be started on
        execution only after completion
        first operation. However, it is obvious that
        the order in which these commands are executed is not
        no value — operands A, B and C
        the first team is not related to
        operands D, E and F of the second instruction. Others
        In other words, both operations are
        parallel precisely because the operands
        these commands are not related.
        Many examples can be given
        sequences of three or more
        commands with unrelated data that
        will lead to an unequivocal conclusion:
        almost every program contains
        groups of operations on parallel
        data.

        Other
        kind of data parallelism, usually
        occurs in cyclic programs
        processing of data arrays. For example,
        when adding elements of two arrays
        one command can handle a large
        an array (multiple stream) of data.
        Such commands are called vector,
        and the processor that implements this mode is
        vector. You can give this definition:
        «Vector
        CPU
        — a processor that provides parallel
        performing an operation on arrays
        data (vectors). It is characterized
        special architecture built
        on a group of parallel workers
        processing elements, and is designed
        for image processing, matrices and
        arrays of data.

        Exists
        a few quite close in meaning
        classifications of software parallelism,
        of which the most recognized is
        classification
        on
        six levels
        (Fig.10).
        The top three levels of parallelism are
        large program objects — independent
        tasks, programs and program procedures.
        Unrelated Statements, Loops, and Operations
        form the lower levels of parallelism.
        If we combine this ranking with
        M. Flyn’s categories «parallel
        command streams» and «parallel streams
        data», it is clear that the parallelism
        the top level is mainly achieved
        due to many independent flows
        commands, and lower-level parallelism
        owes its existence to
        way unrelated data streams.

        Conveyor
        processing and conveyor structures

        One
        one of the effective ways to increase
        computer performance is
        pipelining. On fig. 11 a)

        shows processing in single
        universal block, and in Fig. 11 b)
        and c)

        — in the conveyor. The Idea of ​​Pipelining
        is to split the function
        implemented by a universal functional
        block (FB), between several,
        specialized. All functional
        conveyor blocks must work with
        the same speed (at least on average).
        In practice, the latter can be achieved
        rare and, as a result, performance
        conveyor is reduced because the period
        receipt of input data is determined
        maximum processing time in
        each functional block. For
        operating time fluctuation compensation
        The FBs in between include buffer registers.
        A more general approach is
        inclusion of buffer memories
        FIFO devices
        (Fig. 11 to
        ).
        One more thing should be noted
        difference between drawings b)

        and c)
        .
        In structure c)

        there is no SI synchronization line.
        This does not mean that it cannot be
        similar structure, just exists
        two types of conveyors: synchronous

        with common clock line and asynchronous
        ,
        without one. The first ones are also called with
        team management
        ,
        and the second — s
        data management
        .
        An example of asynchronous pipelines is
        serve as systolic arrays.

        Conveyor
        is not always linear
        block chain. Sometimes it turns out
        profitable, functional blocks will connect
        not consecutively, but
        more complex scheme according to
        processing logic,
        this one blocks
        in the chain can be skipped, while others
        — form cyclic structures.
        Non-linear pipeline structure,
        able to calculate two functions X and Y,
        and a diagram in which the functions X and Y
        one or another functional
        blocks is shown in fig. 12

        Search module not installed.

        High tech online publication

        AMD and Intel compete in courts and labs

        The relationship between the two processor giants among journalists is called the history of endless litigation. Mutual claims from Intel and AMD arise with the same stability with which the sun rises and the seasons change. 2006 and early 2007 were no exception. The lawsuits continue with the same intensity, the lawyers of both sides break their spears, the paperwork grows and expands, already numbering many volumes, and bitter rivals find more and more reasons to file suits against each other. No less tough struggle unfolded on the technological front. Both companies understand that courts are courts, but the future belongs to those who will offer manufacturers a fundamentally new platform solution.

        Many experts noted in mid-2006 that with the advent of AMD Opteron, AMD secured a significant performance advantage among dual-processor systems. The solutions proposed by Intel at that time were considered by many to be far from perfect. Raised questions and heat dissipation of processors, and their clock frequency, and the number of cores under one case. For example, the Intel QX6700 processor combined two Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 dual-core set-top boxes on the Intel front-side bus (1066 MHz FSB).

        In the middle of 2006, AMD showed a steady lead over the competitor, constantly increasing the list of its customers. Even Intel’s traditional exclusive partner, Dell, after much deliberation, announced a «betrayal.» Experts predicted further strengthening of AMD’s position, predicted sales growth and excellent financial performance. However, the end of 2006 and the beginning of 2007 brought a number of surprises, as a result of which the situation in the alignment of forces changed again. In any case, technologically AMD is definitely not ahead of its main competitor. This statement is true both for the performance of processors and for the technology of their production.

        For example, Intel currently manufactures 45nm processors, while AMD has only recently switched to 65nm and does not plan to launch 45nm processors until mid-2008. However, AMD does not consider the production gap critical. According to repeated statements by management, the company adheres to its own development strategy: to concentrate efforts not on microprocessor production technology, which is still more advanced by Intel, but on innovation.

        In terms of innovation, Intel is moving forward quite actively, no matter what its main competitor says. In 2006, the company introduced many new chips to the server hardware market — in particular, the Extreme series, which was distinguished by significantly higher performance compared to conventional processors. The lineup of the series was updated rapidly, making processors more and more perfect and forcing AMD management to experience more and more concerns. Following the Pentium Extreme Edition 955 came the Pentium Extreme Edition 965, then the Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (Conroe), and then the first Intel Core 2 Extreme Quad-Core QX6700 (Kentsfield). Until recently, this processor remained a technological flagship, and the main bet was placed on it. Finally, just recently, Intel released a quad-core processor Core 2 Extreme QX6800. The processor operates at a clock frequency of 2.93 GHz with a bus frequency of 1066 MHz and is equipped with eight megabytes of L2 cache. Like its predecessor Core 2 Extreme QX6700, the processor is based on 65-nanometer technology. Intel’s quad-core processors deliver record-breaking performance, up to 50% faster than cutting-edge dual-core Intel Xeon processors at the same power level, and up to 150% faster than competing systems, according to Intel.

        Through the transition to a new manufacturing technology, Intel plans in the third quarter of 2007 to implement a significant price reduction for the entire line of processors.

        Price cuts for Intel processors are likely to be another blow for AMD. Many experts point out that the company’s financial performance is by no means brilliant. AMD has become a victim of its own economic strategy, imposed on a competitor. It was not possible to “kill” Intel with low prices, but AMD’s losses in the fourth quarter of 2006 amounted to $547 million, and in the first quarter of 2007 — $611 million.

        Global processor market, Q2 2007

        Source: iSuppli, 2007

        Barcelona help cover losses?

        AMD is taking decisive steps to close the gap and cover financial losses. The company pins great hopes on the new AMD Barcelona quad-core processors. Servers based on the Barcelona engineering prototype were demonstrated at Taiwan’s Computex 2007. At the same time, all demonstration systems were deprived of a keyboard and mouse to avoid information leakage — Intel agents see AMD everywhere. And not without reason — after all, the war is on all fronts. The configuration of the new servers based on the Barcelona platform remains a secret behind seven seals. So in the Second World War, encryption machines were guarded from the enemy. Probably, it is the thick veil of secrecy that causes rumors that cannot please the AMD management. Rumors, none other than inspired by the age-old competitor, leaked onto the market. In particular, a number of analytical groups, among which the most famous is Citigroup, recently published a report in which it became known that the new AMD quad-core server processor, codenamed Barcelona, ​​will not be released in July, as originally planned, but only in October. However, AMD claimed that the processor, manufactured using 65-nanometer technology, will go into mass production in the summer. The chips will work at clock frequencies from 1.9GHz up to 2.6 GHz. At the same time, at the initial stage, models with frequencies up to 2.3 GHz will go on sale, and AMD intends to introduce more productive chips later. According to a pre-release, Barcelona processors can achieve a 50-80% improvement in performance per watt of power compared to current Opteron chips. The Opteron and Barcelona processors are designed to fit in the same socket, and to use the new quad-core chips in today’s servers, you only need to update the basic input/output system (BIOS).

        Rumors about the mysterious Penryn

        processor

        Generation of 45nm processors from Intel will appear not earlier than the second half of 2007. Intel said that Penryn chips, made using the new technology, AMD Barcelona’s main competitor, will be released as planned. Rumors about the transfer of Penryn in the news have not yet been observed. But there is no doubt that they will certainly be. In love and war, as you know, all means are good. AMD will not miss such a great opportunity to prick a hated competitor.

        According to the latest data, the production sites for the production of new chips are actually ready to start work. Intel’s 45nm process is currently being implemented in Hillsboro, Oregon at the D1D factory. The company’s immediate plans include the launch of a 45 nm process technology at the new Fab 32 factory in Ocotillo, Arizona (starting mass production in 2007) and the Fab 28 factory in Israel (starting mass production in the first half of 2008).

        The 45nm Penryn family of chips will form the basis for the new Core 2-core Wolfdale and 4-core Yorkfield chips that will replace today’s 65nm Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors. The processors of the Penryn family will form the basis of the new generation of the Intel Centrino mobile platform, codenamed Montevina. The new mobile platform Montevina, scheduled for release in the first half of 2008, will replace the Santa Rosa version.

        The operating frequencies of the processors will exceed the bar of 3 GHz, which was demonstrated at the ongoing IDF conference in Beijing. The samples shown here were clocked at 3.33 GHz with a 1333 MHz FSB. At the same time, each core had 3 MB of cache memory.

        According to preliminary information, like AMD Barcelona, ​​the Penryn family of chips will initially be presented in the usual Socket 775 form, and, quite possibly, a BIOS flashing will be enough to use existing boards, but the manufacturer has not yet received exact data on this from the manufacturer. Everything is still at the level of rumors.

        Obviously, in the very near future we will be bombarded with a whole avalanche of revelations about new Intel and AMD processors, as it always happens before a «loud premiere». Analysts predict an escalation of «warfare» between the processor giants in late 2007 — early 2008. At the moment, the balance of power is equal. Both companies are focused on winning and are confident in the superiority of their own solutions.

        2022 © All rights reserved