Has it really been only just over a year?
Thirteen months ago, we wrote our first review of Intel's Core 2 Extreme X6800 processor. Since then, Intel has been a juggernaut, shipping new CPU models based on the Core 2 architecture, including the first quad-core desktop CPU, built by embedding two Core 2 dies on a single package and sharing the front side bus, as well as mobile and server CPUs based on Core 2.
Last month, Intel began shipping newer processors, built around the new G stepping, and increasing the front side bus speed to an effective 1333MHz. At that time, we took a look at the mainstream Core 2 E6750 and the new member of the Core 2 Extreme line, the QX6850.
Today, though, we look at the CPU that's really the current sweet spot in terms of price/performance ratios: the Core 2 E6850. Clocking in at 3.0GHz, this sub-$300 CPU runs at a marginally higher clock speed than the original Core 2 Extreme X6800, but is priced nearly 75% lower. Just as importantly, the E6850 is rated at a TDP (thermal design power) of 65W. We decided to pop in an E6850 in our standard test platform, built around an Intel P35-based motherboard, and put the CPU through its paces. We compare the results against a Core 2 E6750 and AMD's fastest mainstream desktop CPU, the Athlon 64 X2 6000+.
A Note about Motherboards
If you want to run one of Intel's new CPUs, you may need a new motherboard. Intel began shipping boards based on their new P35 and G33 chipsets back in June, which support the faster 1333MHz front side bus.
Test Systems and Benchmarks
We installed a Core 2 E6850 into a system consisting of an MSI P35 Platinum motherboard, using DDR2-800 memory.
POSTS:
Why buy this 2 core chip when i could buy a Q6600 and overclock it using the stock fan to over 3 GHz, and get 4 cores for the same price. I dont see how this is a sweet spot when almost ALL the Core 2 processors with a decent motherboard will run stably at over 2.8 GHz - ive built about ten such systems in the past 9 mths and they all run stable with the intel box fans at over 2.8 GHz. And dont give me that "for those who dont overclock" as the latter will probably be buying a dell and reading PC Magazine. In my opinion "those who dont overclock" a Core 2 duo chip is really an education issue. If you go to newegg and read the thousands of customer reviews on Core 2 Duo Chips 95% of them are talking about overclocking - so how is this chip a "9" and the sweetspot and you dont even mention the word overclock in your article
Question: Which revision of the MSI board did you use?
Comment: The price/performance is a tough argument for me. We are talking about a 40%+ increase in price over the E6750 with only about an average performance increase of around 10%. On the other hand, it's likely to add only around 10% or less to the overall cost of the system. Still, tough for me to say it hits the price/performance sweet spot. I would still give that to the E6750.
Suggestion: I would have loved to have seen the Q6600 thrown into the mix. Wilmark makes a good point about the potential benefits of quadcore. It would be nice to see the current performance gap between the E6850 and Q6600.
While it's true the E6850 and Q6600 are about the same price, you're missing a key point (which Loyd clearly mentions) ==> the thermal design power of an E6850 is only 65w ... so it will run VERY cool relative to a Q6600 (with a TDP of 105w). And there are still some of us who elect to run systems at their designed specs rather than overclock them Smile I have two fundamental requirements for systems I build: (1) QUIET, and (2) STABLE. An E6850-based system with an Intel chipset and a good 3rd party heatsink/fan combo (Zalman 9500) easily meets both of these criteria. A Q6600 solution will also ... which I would use depends very much on what use the system is for. At the moment I'm building two new systems => one in an HTPC case (for which I'll use the E6850 since the cooling in a crowded case like that is a factor) and one for my study (for which I'll use the Q6600 ... since the Antec P182 case I'm using has much better airflow). Bottom line: I'd say BOTH the E6850 and Q6600 are at "sweet spots) in price/performance ... it simply depends on the projected use of the system.
As for the arguement that the E6750 is more of a "sweet spot" ... clearly that's a matter of opinion => and just how price-sensitive you are. If the $75 or so savings is important to you, then by all means use an E6750 ... but for the small price differential many of us would prefer to get the E6850. The performance of either is not likely to disappoint Big Smile
Hello again Loyd. You know how to get us to chatter about your CPU reviews.
I am still waiting and eager to see you put an overclocked E4400 or E4500 into the comparison. Flight simulator supports up to four cores and therefore the Q6600 overclocked will yield better performance than the E6850, although most games will benefit from the latter CPU if overclocking is not in the mix.
Any good P35 motherboard that cost over $115 can yield over 3GHz from the E4xxx CPUs. Using stock Intel cooling, with the FSB set at only 300MHz an E4500 will be at 3.3GHz, compare that to the non-overclocked E6850 and let us know which is the winner, in performance and cost.
Clearly there are some trade offs between the Q6600 and E6850. I would never suggest overclocking as a primary method of comparison (that comment came for Wilmark). What I think would be interesting is to see an analysis of the tradeoffs. Clearly the E6850 is a more energy efficient processor, and it should have an overall performance advantage in single benchmarks. However, since most of us are running multiple apps, the question is: How much multitasking does it take before the Q6600's 4 cores pass the E6850's 2 cores in performance?
Now that there is a quad-core CPU at such a reasonable price, I would love to see at what point it's multi-core design offers a practical advantage over a comparably priced dual-core CPU.
Perhaps you've already seen this, but if not it comes pretty close to what you are asking for:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/20/overclocking_marathon_day_4/
As for the overclocking, if you're going to compare, I think you have to compare overclocked to overclocked. Otherwise, you're really just saying: "I'm going to buy the cheaper CPU and want to know if OC'ing gets me the same performance as the stock speed of the higher priced CPU. BTW, I've seen the E6750 top 4GH on air cooling, although not stock cooling.
mostlyprudent:
Perhaps you've already seen this, but if not it comes pretty close to what you are asking for:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/20/overclocking_marathon_day_4/
As for the overclocking, if you're going to compare, I think you have to compare overclocked to overclocked. Otherwise, you're really just saying: "I'm going to buy the cheaper CPU and want to know if OC'ing gets me the same performance as the stock speed of the higher priced CPU. BTW, I've seen the E6750 top 4GH on air cooling, although not stock cooling.
Thank you for the link, I had not read that one from Tom's Hardware.
I agree with your overclocked to overclocked suggestion, and that is one of the problems with the article from Tom's Hardware, they did not include a comparison that included the same hardware, with just swapping out the CPUs.
As in this thread, when I write to Loyd, I already know the answers to any questions or suggestions, I make them for the benefit of the readers of this forum. While Core 2 Duo CPUs have been pushed to over 5GHz it takes special cooling and extra cost, which negates the reason that people purchase inexpensive CPUs. Also, most people are unaware of overclocking or how to do it, therefore those people will purchase components or computers based upon stock CPU speed and a price they can afford. Often overclocking is done for cost reasons, to save money and have a more powerful computer.
As to overclocking my own CPU, I want my computer to be able to last for years, so I only use very slight or no voltage increases [for the CPU only, none for RAM, chipset, and etc.], and I use Intel's supplied cooling if appropriate. Also, the FSB is important as this impacts more than the CPU. In my above example, an E4500 at a FSB of 300 would yield 1200MHz quad pumped. The E6850 or E6750 is already quad pumped at 1333MHz, which can limit further overclocking especially price/performance overclocking, which many overclockers use as a reason to overclock. So, a P35 motherboard will be very happy running an E4xxx CPU at a 50% overclock while using inexpensive DDR2 800 RAM and stock Intel cooling.
Most people overclock to either make their $115 Core 2 Duo yield more performance than a $1000 CPU, while a few [including some companies] use a $1000 CPU overclocked to yield performance yet unseen from non-overclocked CPUs.
Thank you for your input, your points are valid.