• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel C2D E6750 and E6850 CPU's hitting the market early

bamacre

bamacre

Lifer
These prices are a little high, most likely due to early release. You know the drill. 😀

Future prices should hit roughly $180 (E6750) and $265 (E6850).

You may want to call and confirm these are in stock.

E6750 (2.67Ghz dual core, 1333mhz fsb)
E6850 (3.00Ghz dual core, 1333mhz fsb)


E6750
http://www.allstarshop.com/sho...ct.asp?ad=fg&pid=18148
http://www.pcsuperstore.com/pr...557E6750.html/froogle/
http://www.xpcgear.com/e6750.html

E6850
http://www.xpcgear.com/e6850.html
http://www.allstarshop.com/sho...ct.asp?ad=fg&pid=18149

You also may want to make sure your 965P or 975X motherboard supports these cpu's. The new Intel chipsets, P35 and X38, should support these natively.

If you have info to add, please do so and help your fellow AT'ers out. 😀
 
I believe its listed for pre-ordering only at this point. I'd hate to pre-order from a smaller shop, only to have them not ship as quickly as the larger ones.
 
Actually, fw has a thread about a Fry's b&m having the E6750 in stock for $210. I still think many posted online are in prep of the shipments and not actually in stock yet (buy.com has had it listed for a while), but it does sound like they are starting to arrive at some retailers now.
 
Originally posted by: kevman
Whats a better choice when the prices level out : q6600 or e6850?
Click to expand...

Imo the 6850 unless you use often a multithreaded program(s) that can utilize the quad core (which most can't). My take on it is that otherwise, if you are doing so much multitasking on your computer that you'll be able to utilize the 4 cores with various programs, you're probably being slowed down anyways by the i/o of the harddrive by all the programs trying to access it at the same time, and you're not gaining much if any at all.

So 2 cores with a better clockspeed is better for most people than 4 cores with a lower clockspeed imo.

Emphasis on 'imo'...I've never had a quad core since I have no use for it and don't find it worth sacrificing the higher speed of an equivalent priced 2 core processor.
 
Originally posted by: jjsole
Originally posted by: kevman
Whats a better choice when the prices level out : q6600 or e6850?
Click to expand...

Imo the 6850 unless you use often a multithreaded program(s) that can utilize the quad core (which most can't). My take on it is that otherwise, if you are doing so much multitasking on your computer that you'll be able to utilize the 4 cores with various programs, you're probably being slowed down anyways by the i/o of the harddrive by all the programs trying to access it at the same time, and you're not gaining much if any at all.

So 2 cores with a better clockspeed is better for most people than 4 cores with a lower clockspeed imo.

Emphasis on 'imo'...I've never had a quad core since I have no use for it and don't find it worth sacrificing the higher speed of an equivalent priced 2 core processor.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this, and I've been tinkering between those two cpu's myself.
 
QUAD vs. DUAL value depends on what you're doing with the PC.
Actually for many applications it's not the HDD I/O that's limiting the speed,
it's the RAM speed.

If your applications do enough 'math' per megabyte of data they process then
the dual or quad core CPUs can be a great enabling value as long as they're
able to keep busy doing calculations on what's already loaded in RAM and
CPU cache, and the RAM's slower speed doesn't starve the CPU of data.

Typically quad core CPUs will be most effective at number crunching applications
where you're doing VERY complex or VERY repetitive calculations on data
where a significant chunk of it fits in CPU L2 cache, and the amount
capable of fitting in RAM is either the whole problem size, or is at least
enough to keep the CPU cores busy calculating at full speed for at least
10 seconds to more like 2-15 minutes.

It's also a benefit if you're doing heavy virtualization or running
server processes with dozens or hundreds of processes or threads
that keep busy doing high speed network traffic.

Typically this will be true of things like data compression, audio / video
compression encoding, image recognition, image filtering, video filtering,
speech recognition, engineering/scientific computational modeling, etc.

At ~ 2 GHz you're doing about 2 to 8 billion calculations per second per core,
so if you can use more than 4 billon calculations per second
on a problem that can be calculated in pieces, quad core may help.
If you're not doing calculations that max out your CPU core(s) for
at least an hour at a time per day, then increasing your CPU cores
won't save you that much time.

If you can do 8-30 billion calculations per second with a quad core CPU and
yet you need less than 3GBy (write) to 6GBy (read) per second of
main RAM memory access then you're able to use quad core without being limited
by your RAM speed. Otherwise, you need more PCs running in parallel since
you're limited by your RAM speed and can't feed the CPU enough data from RAM
to keep your cores busy.

If you can calculate for well over 2 minutes with the amount of data that fits in
your RAM before you need to load / save it all again from RAM
(more like 15 minutes if you have a lot of RAM in use), then you're probably not
limited by your hard disc speed even for slow discs. Otherwise, you're probably
doing hard disc I/O of more than 5-10 MBy/second on a sustained basis, and
your drives may not be able to transfer data to/from RAM fast enough to keep
the RAM and CPU fed fast enough; use a RAID or something to get more I/O
to your RAM and CPU or you're wasting money on adding more CPU cores.

For something like Folding@HOME, SETI@HOME, etc. you could have as many
CPU cores and as much RAM as you could possibly buy and still it'd be kept fully
busy 24x7x365 calculating even with the amount of data you could download/upload
on a good broadband internet connection.

Encoding a ~ 30 minute high definition video to DIVX, for instance, probably
takes something close to 1 hour on a moderately fast single core CPU; it's the
kind of thing that'd run literally 4x as fast on a quad core CPU.

 
even common tasks such as ripping DVD's and encoding videos benefit from multi-core cpu's. Some popular, upcoming games perform better w/ quads. Plus the current Intel quads are based on fsb 1033 (as opposed to 6750/6850's 1333) and can be easily o/c'd to 3 ghz without much tinkering, if you don't mind o/c'ing. I would go for Q6600.
 
Just talked to someone at AllStarShop - they've got them in stock. According to the guy I talked to, they have plenty. They're in South Orange County, CA and you can do a local pick up. Will probably order from them.
 
Originally posted by: jlin101
even common tasks such as ripping DVD's and encoding videos benefit from multi-core cpu's. Some popular, upcoming games perform better w/ quads. Plus the current Intel quads are based on fsb 1033 (as opposed to 6750/6850's 1333) and can be easily o/c'd to 3 ghz without much tinkering, if you don't mind o/c'ing. I would go for Q6600.
Click to expand...

So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
 
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
Originally posted by: jlin101
even common tasks such as ripping DVD's and encoding videos benefit from multi-core cpu's. Some popular, upcoming games perform better w/ quads. Plus the current Intel quads are based on fsb 1033 (as opposed to 6750/6850's 1333) and can be easily o/c'd to 3 ghz without much tinkering, if you don't mind o/c'ing. I would go for Q6600.
Click to expand...

So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
Click to expand...

The difference between 1066 and 1333 is very negligible. That said, I am stilling getting a 6750.
 
Also it might be worth mentioning that a quad core would likely be better in the long-term. Some people upgrade every 6 months or so in order to stay with the newest technology available. For them, the fastest dual-core available makes since at this point in time. Others upgrade ~1 year, ~2 years, or ~3 years+. I would advise getting a quad core cpu to anybody who is certain that this will be kept for 3 years or more. It's likely that 3 years hence, a great deal of the software out there will be able to utilize several cores at one time. That means that the consumer could pay for quad core now and get increasing returns as time goes by. With a dual-core, you will also get increasing returns, but it will hit a wall sooner than 4 cores obviously. Just my 2 cents.
 
Originally posted by: Dacalo
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
Originally posted by: jlin101
even common tasks such as ripping DVD's and encoding videos benefit from multi-core cpu's. Some popular, upcoming games perform better w/ quads. Plus the current Intel quads are based on fsb 1033 (as opposed to 6750/6850's 1333) and can be easily o/c'd to 3 ghz without much tinkering, if you don't mind o/c'ing. I would go for Q6600.
Click to expand...

So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
Click to expand...

The difference between 1066 and 1333 is very negligible. That said, I am stilling getting a 6750.
Click to expand...

The E6750 is a great deal for the money, no doubt about it. Same price as an E6300 or E6320, and a big jump in stock clockspeed.
 
Originally posted by: Dacalo
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
Originally posted by: jlin101
even common tasks such as ripping DVD's and encoding videos benefit from multi-core cpu's. Some popular, upcoming games perform better w/ quads. Plus the current Intel quads are based on fsb 1033 (as opposed to 6750/6850's 1333) and can be easily o/c'd to 3 ghz without much tinkering, if you don't mind o/c'ing. I would go for Q6600.
Click to expand...

So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
Click to expand...

The difference between 1066 and 1333 is very negligible. That said, I am stilling getting a 6750.
Click to expand...

Negligible at stock speeds, but the 1333's have shown to be very impressive overclockers compared to the 1066 fsb processors.
 
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
Click to expand...
No, higher FSB is better. What I was inferring is that you can easily o/c a Q6600 (2.4ghz/FSB1066) to 3ghz simply by raising the FSB to 1333; whereas it would be more difficult to raise the FSB on a E6750 which already has an FSB of 1333. That's why some people prefere E4300 (FSB800) over E6300(FSB1066) for o/c'ing.
 
Originally posted by: jlin101
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
Click to expand...
No, higher FSB is better. What I was inferring is that you can easily o/c a Q6600 (2.4ghz/FSB1066) to 3ghz simply by raising the FSB to 1333; whereas it would be more difficult to raise the FSB on a E6750 which already has an FSB of 1333. That's why some people prefere E4300 (FSB800) over E6300(FSB1066) for o/c'ing.
Click to expand...

That makes sense, yes, but jjsole seems to know something we don't. 😀
 
I remember people saying my dual core 4800 would be the better buy when it first came out but the fact remains most software doesn't utilize muli-cores. In the future, Sure but when? Most video cards will scale better with a higher clock speed versus 4 cores instead of 2. The E6850 IMHO will be a better CPU for most gamers, In this case software is WAY BEHIND hardware. Quad core will be good for certain applications but everyone will have to decide which one will benefit them the most! Like you said just my 2 cents.



Originally posted by: Wedge1
Also it might be worth mentioning that a quad core would likely be better in the long-term. Some people upgrade every 6 months or so in order to stay with the newest technology available. For them, the fastest dual-core available makes since at this point in time. Others upgrade ~1 year, ~2 years, or ~3 years+. I would advise getting a quad core cpu to anybody who is certain that this will be kept for 3 years or more. It's likely that 3 years hence, a great deal of the software out there will be able to utilize several cores at one time. That means that the consumer could pay for quad core now and get increasing returns as time goes by. With a dual-core, you will also get increasing returns, but it will hit a wall sooner than 4 cores obviously. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

 
Has anybody been able to get a rev 'G' new stepping Q6600 from retail distribution
of the stores that are selling things from fresh stock yet?

 
Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Has anybody been able to get a rev 'G' new stepping Q6600 from retail distribution
of the stores that are selling things from fresh stock yet?
Click to expand...

what's the advantage of rev G?
 
Originally posted by: jlin101
Originally posted by: QuixoticOne
Has anybody been able to get a rev 'G' new stepping Q6600 from retail distribution
of the stores that are selling things from fresh stock yet?
Click to expand...

what's the advantage of rev G?
Click to expand...
From what I heard on XS, lower thermals and greater OC potential (in comparison to the Bx steppings).
 
Originally posted by: jlin101
Originally posted by: JasonCoder
So wait, less FSB is bad, yes?
Click to expand...
No, higher FSB is better. What I was inferring is that you can easily o/c a Q6600 (2.4ghz/FSB1066) to 3ghz simply by raising the FSB to 1333; whereas it would be more difficult to raise the FSB on a E6750 which already has an FSB of 1333. That's why some people prefere E4300 (FSB800) over E6300(FSB1066) for o/c'ing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top