Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Sample Preview

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the core-tastic dept.

MojoKid writes "Intel took the wraps off a new Core 2 Duo desktop chip today, dubbed the E6750. Though this chip shares the same basic clock speed as the Core 2 Duo E6700 at 2.66GHz, this new processor also runs on a faster 1,333MHz Front Side Bus. The new chip's additional bus bandwidth affords it up to a 5% performance advantage over standard 1066MHz FSB-based Core 2 chips. However, what's perhaps more promising is this new chip's overclocking head-room of up to 3.92GH and beyond on standard air cooling."

10 of 146 comments (clear)

  1. All on one page by edgr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The link to the article all on one page is http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?artic leid=989

  2. Good marketing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why not just sell them rated at a higher clock speed? It would be funny to think they made a fast chip and purposefully rated it at a lower speed to grab some of the extra hobbiest market while simultaneously cutting down on support calls from overclockers who cause system instability by making the overclockers think they are overclocking. :)

    1. Re:Good marketing? by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, it's all market related... but not how you think.

      There is no such thing as a xyz GHz chip. They are all the same (except for caches on chip and so, but let's neglect that) The chips are all made from the same wafers and then are tested: those that are tested at high speeds and work, get sold als "high speed chips", the chips that fail are tested at lower speed and then, if they work, sold for that speed.

      Now, that's fine in theory, the problem is that when the yields of high speed chips are very high. At that point Intel has a problem: their high-premium chips are plentiful and hence they should sell them at lower cost. Especially that they don't have lower speed chips that are for the middle and low-segment market. But wait! Why not just sell the chips that work at high speeds, but tell the customer that they are slower speed chips. The (average) customer will not test if it runs higher speeds, and frankly, it is not in their interest to do because they would lose warranty.

      That's what really happens...

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  3. Reviews of samples should stop talking about... by heyguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    overclockability. I believe those chips sent out for review are cherry picked by intel. Most of the reviews for the Core 2 Duo chips last year said the lower end chips could easily be overclocked to 3.5ghz+. That ended up not being the norm. I think something around 3ghz is pretty standard.

  4. Megahertz myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought we had finally put the "megahertz myth" behind us. But no, here we are again cheering on Intel for producing chips with their many megahertzes and gigahertzes.

    We should lean on them to use a more sensible naming convention. AMD has led the way in this area. Consumers are much better served with descriptive product names such as, for example, "Turion 64 X2 TL56", rather than some arbitrary clock speed designations.

    1. Re:Megahertz myth by jawtheshark · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Descriptive product names? You know what "Turion 64 X2 TL56" means? I don't.... That said, I don't know what "Core 2 Duo E6600" means either. Is a "Turion TL60" better than a "Turion TL56"? Or a "Core 2 Duo E6800" better than a "Core 2 Duo E6600"? Heck, it's like with graphic cards: you cannot say squat based on the names of graphics cards. It's all dust and mirrors.

      For the bad car analogy: is a BMW 318 better than a BMW 320? You're gonna say the BMW 320 is better, evidently! I might argue that the BMW 318 I was talking about is full option and that the BMW 320 doesn't even have power windows.

      Yeah, yeah, I know you're kidding... but really: the chip names of all manufacturers are pretty much a joke.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    2. Re:Megahertz myth by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Funny

      >56 - Dunno.
      That's the percentage of performance compared to the Intel equivelent i.e the Turion is 56% the speed of an Intel equivelent.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  5. What I would like to see in hardware reviews by LarsWestergren · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do people still overclock? It is such a focus on this in online hardware reviews, but none of the people I know still do it, even the gamers. Power consumption, heat and noise is much more important to them. Low sample number to draw any significant conclusions from, I know, but still... Perhaps the market has moved on a bit?

    Also, whenever they do speed comparisons, I wish they would add in models from one and two years ago. I really don't care if a chip is 0,05% faster than its similarly priced competition, I want to know if it is a good time to upgrade my old computer.

    --

    Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die

    1. Re:What I would like to see in hardware reviews by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Interesting


      Do people still overclock? It is such a focus on this in online hardware reviews, but none of the people I know still do it, even the gamers. Power consumption, heat and noise is much more important to them. Low sample number to draw any significant conclusions from, I know, but still... Perhaps the market has moved on a bit?


      You're right, the hardware reviewers are getting out of date with their metrics.

      Overclocking a modern CPU gets you mostly nothing nowadays. Gamers can still be found overclocking their *graphics cards*, but overclocking their Core 2 Duo's wouldn't really change anything for them (and I'm sure we'll reach a point where messing with your graphics card will be just as unnecessary as it is today with CPU-s, just this industry is younger than generic cpu).

      I mean, on laptops one of the features is dynamically underclocking the CPU for less power usage. It's the kind of market we're in.

      Multi-cores are lucrative area for servers, where no CPU amount is enough, and less so for desktops.

      No wonder the companies are concentrating on features such as power usage: there's basically nothing else they can impress us with (and low power usage allows smaller more mobile devices with longer battery life etc.).

  6. Re:Overclocking... by commlinx · · Score: 4, Informative

    Exactly, and why the chip is sold as 2.66GHz not the 3.92GHz that the marketing department would prefer. Semiconductor manufacturers do a stellar job of testing and specifying things over the complete operating range of the device. Ignoring obvious differences in things like ambient temperature and power supply fluctuations when you overclock a device you risk a number of factors for reliability. Any temperature measurement is always taken at a single point and if another point on the surface of the silicon is hotter, for example because your application of heatsink compound was not so great or it contains higher speed switching and more dense circuitry in that area you always run the risk of frying things. Not to mention there is a difference between running a game that might place peak demands on the CPU and allow it to cool versus compute-intensive applications where you might want to drive all cores at 100% over a long period. And they might be using a different section of the processor, and your CPU might be from a different batch, and...