When more is better-with four processing cores the Intel Core 2 Extreme processor delivers unrivaled¹ performance for the latest, greatest generation of multi-threaded games and multimedia apps.Now with a new version based on Intel's cutting edge 45nm technology utilizing hafnium-infused circuitry to deliver even greater performance and power efficiency. The Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor QX9770 running at 3.2 GHz delivers the best possible experience for today's most demanding users.
12 MB of total L2 cache
1600 MHz front side bus
Intel® Network Processors
Built on a high-performance fully programmable architecture, Intel network processors offer the speed, flexibility, and ease-of-use/reuse you need to accelerate time-to-market, extend time-in-market, and to enable a broad range of services from the customer premises to the core of the network. Network processors optimized for home, small-to-medium enterprise, and networked embedded applications. Flexible wire-speed processing for OC-3 to OC-12 multiservice network applications.
The Intel® IXC1100 control plane processor extends the benefits of Intel XScale® technology, including its rich set of development tools, to meet the processing needs of multi-service switches, VoIP media gateways, wireless infrastructure and other networking equipment.The information on this page is provided for the benefit of customers with existing designs.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
There's no doubt that 2006 was one of the most incredible years in technology in recent memory. There were scandals, impressive landscape-shifting mergers, strange new alliances and many new products and technologies unveiled. One launch that stands out in everyone's mind is Intel's Conroe last summer. We were teased with leaked benchmark results and other information months before the release and once the launch finally hit, we were all relieved to see that it actually lived up to the hype.
After a launch like this, we didn't think that a follow-up would arrive for a while. We were wrong. In the early fall, we first learned about Intel's quad-core CPU, which is essentially two Conroes under the same IHS. I admit, I didn't expect to actually see it so soon, but come November, it was publicly available for anyone to purchase. Intel's at the top of their game, and don't want to step down anytime soon.
When they first launched their QX6700, they held off launching the Q6600 until early January. We don't know the reason for the delay, but now the possibility of having your own quad-core machine without breaking the bank has finally arrived. Let's first get the basics out of the way.
Oh My Quad
The Q6600 is a 2.4GHz chip, like its little brother the E6600. Both CPUs are nearly identical and use the same die(s), except that the Q6600 has two of them. Essentially, everything is doubled. Twice the cores, twice the cache and twice the drool. Like the other Core 2 Duos, Core 2 Quads are based on a 65nm process, although the process requires a slightly higher stock voltage. Since both the Quads are so similar to the Duos, it's no surprise to see that the die size is simply doubled as well, resulting in 2 x 143mm^2.
When compared to the top of the line QX6700 chip, the specs are again identical except for the 2.66GHz clock speed. Other than that, the CPUs are the same, just binned differently. When comparing to the top end Core 2 Duo, the differences are a lot more meaningful. While the QX6700 retails for just under $1,000, so does the X6800. However, when considering the QX6700, you receive a lower clock speed in return for twice the cores. At that point, it's up to you whether you want or need the sheer clock speed or greater benefits for your multi-thread applications.
To help put everything into perspective, here's a simple graph showcasing all of Intel's current Core 2 offerings.
CPU Model
Clock Speed
FSB
L2 Cache
TDP
Cores
Pricing
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 130w 4 $999
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB 75W 2 $999
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 105W 4 $851
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 $530
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 $316
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 $224
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 1.80GHz 800MHz 2MB 65W 2 $163
One interesting point to note is that even though the Q6600 is essentially 2 x E6600, the TDP is not doubled, but rather sits at a comfortable 105W. The higher clocked QX6700 is 130W, however, which is why we don't see a QX6800 instead. A TDP of 130W is high to begin with, but considering the much slower 820 D we reviewed less than a year ago also had a TDP of 130W, power consumption still hasn't entered uncharted territory, and there are thermal solutions available to deal with that kind of heat.
Below, you can see a highly detailed illustration of the quad-core's innards. In case you thought that two dies would be a tight squeeze, think again! Despite having four cores, there's still a reasonable amount of breathing room in there. For a more realistic view of the chip with the HS off, you can check out the picture provided by Intel
After a launch like this, we didn't think that a follow-up would arrive for a while. We were wrong. In the early fall, we first learned about Intel's quad-core CPU, which is essentially two Conroes under the same IHS. I admit, I didn't expect to actually see it so soon, but come November, it was publicly available for anyone to purchase. Intel's at the top of their game, and don't want to step down anytime soon.
When they first launched their QX6700, they held off launching the Q6600 until early January. We don't know the reason for the delay, but now the possibility of having your own quad-core machine without breaking the bank has finally arrived. Let's first get the basics out of the way.
Oh My Quad
The Q6600 is a 2.4GHz chip, like its little brother the E6600. Both CPUs are nearly identical and use the same die(s), except that the Q6600 has two of them. Essentially, everything is doubled. Twice the cores, twice the cache and twice the drool. Like the other Core 2 Duos, Core 2 Quads are based on a 65nm process, although the process requires a slightly higher stock voltage. Since both the Quads are so similar to the Duos, it's no surprise to see that the die size is simply doubled as well, resulting in 2 x 143mm^2.
When compared to the top of the line QX6700 chip, the specs are again identical except for the 2.66GHz clock speed. Other than that, the CPUs are the same, just binned differently. When comparing to the top end Core 2 Duo, the differences are a lot more meaningful. While the QX6700 retails for just under $1,000, so does the X6800. However, when considering the QX6700, you receive a lower clock speed in return for twice the cores. At that point, it's up to you whether you want or need the sheer clock speed or greater benefits for your multi-thread applications.
To help put everything into perspective, here's a simple graph showcasing all of Intel's current Core 2 offerings.
CPU Model
Clock Speed
FSB
L2 Cache
TDP
Cores
Pricing
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 130w 4 $999
Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 2.93GHz 1066MHz 4MB 75W 2 $999
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB x 2 105W 4 $851
Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 $530
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.40GHz 1066MHz 4MB 65W 2 $316
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 $224
Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 1.86GHz 1066MHz 2MB 65W 2 $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 1.80GHz 800MHz 2MB 65W 2 $163
One interesting point to note is that even though the Q6600 is essentially 2 x E6600, the TDP is not doubled, but rather sits at a comfortable 105W. The higher clocked QX6700 is 130W, however, which is why we don't see a QX6800 instead. A TDP of 130W is high to begin with, but considering the much slower 820 D we reviewed less than a year ago also had a TDP of 130W, power consumption still hasn't entered uncharted territory, and there are thermal solutions available to deal with that kind of heat.
Below, you can see a highly detailed illustration of the quad-core's innards. In case you thought that two dies would be a tight squeeze, think again! Despite having four cores, there's still a reasonable amount of breathing room in there. For a more realistic view of the chip with the HS off, you can check out the picture provided by Intel
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400 3.0GHz - Wolfdale Arrives
In the summer of 2006, Intel released their 65nm Conroe-based processors, and to say they won the hearts of many would be an understatement. It was one product-launch that Intel didn't want to hit lightly, especially since AMD were actively taking from their customer base - on the enthusiast side, most notably. When said and done, Intel did accomplish what they planned to do. They put the industry through a blender and showed us how to be excited about processors again.
Although frequencies with Conroe were not as high as what we were used to seeing from Intel, the folks in Santa Clara proved that a high frequency didn't mean much if the processor itself was inefficient. Indeed, a 2.4GHz Conroe Dual-Core proved just how much better an efficient processor could be, and it quickly became the most common processor choice for the enthusiast.
The following summer, follow-up processors were released, including the E6750 Dual-Core which we evaluated at the time. Besides speed bumps, those processors didn't bring much to the table in way of new features, except for native 1333FSB support. Instead, the processor we are taking a look at today is one of the few new models that effectively replace the Conroe-based chips that we came to love so dearly in summer of '06.
I won't delve deep into how 45nm improves on 65nm, as I explained all of that in our QX9650 review, but I will touch on things briefly. One large benefit that comes with all die shrinks is better power efficiency and lower temperatures. Chips have the capability to run just as fast, if not faster, than their predecessors, all while running cooler and drawing less power. It's a win/win situation.
But with 45nm, Intel introduced more than just a die shrink. The biggest feature that most people will be interested in is the SSE4 instruction set. It affects media-buffs only - those who encode videos - but the performance gains are so evident, that developers of such applications are bound to begin supporting it sooner than later. The speed increases could be as large as 2x, even though it's difficult to believe.
Other improvements include increased L2 cache, half-multipliers (eg, 9.5x), a faster front-side-bus, improved Super Shuffle Engine, Smart Cache (to improve how split loads are accessed and stored) and so many transistors on a single die, it can give people headaches to think about it!
The obvious downside of the QX9650 launch in November was the fact that no other processors complimented it. Therefore, it was QX9650 or bust - until now that is. During CES earlier this month, Intel officially announced their 45nm launch plans, which include the desktop side, server and also mobile. We found out at that time that the Quad-Core models (Q9300 - Q9550) were pushed back to sometime in Q1. Although a solid date was never settled on, original road maps showed January as the scheduled launch. However, the rumor is that due to poor performing Phenom Quad-Core sales, Intel decided to hold off on the launch to help push remaining 65nm models to consumers first.
So how does the road map stand now that some time has past? Although Intel announced near-immediate availability of all 45nm desktop Dual-Cores at CES, only the E8400 has shown up on e-tailers. One popular e-tailer has the other models listed for availability in April. How true that is, I'm unsure, but it's strange given the fact that they were supposed to be available by now.
Processor Name
Cores
Clock
Cache
FSB
TDP
1Ku Price
Available
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
150W
$1,499
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
136W
$1,399
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
4
3.0GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
130W
$999
Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
4
2.86GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$530
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
4
2.66GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$316
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
4
2.5GHz
2 x 3MB
1333MHz
95W
$266
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
2
3.16GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$266
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
2
3.00GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$183
Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
The biggest downside to the road map is that the Q9xxx are not available. Once they are, they are no doubt going to sell like hotcakes, given the improvements over the previous generation and the fact that the prices do not increase. The upside, though, is that even though the E8400 is the lone desktop Dual-Core to be available right now, we can be happy that it is the model most people would be after.
What makes the E8400 such a great choice is the fact that it's affordable, at $220USD on average, and has a nice clock speed. Let's face it... where overclocking is not concerned, having a 3.0GHz CPU looks better to the ego than say, 2.66GHz. It's all about the smooth frequencies, baby.
Although frequencies with Conroe were not as high as what we were used to seeing from Intel, the folks in Santa Clara proved that a high frequency didn't mean much if the processor itself was inefficient. Indeed, a 2.4GHz Conroe Dual-Core proved just how much better an efficient processor could be, and it quickly became the most common processor choice for the enthusiast.
The following summer, follow-up processors were released, including the E6750 Dual-Core which we evaluated at the time. Besides speed bumps, those processors didn't bring much to the table in way of new features, except for native 1333FSB support. Instead, the processor we are taking a look at today is one of the few new models that effectively replace the Conroe-based chips that we came to love so dearly in summer of '06.
I won't delve deep into how 45nm improves on 65nm, as I explained all of that in our QX9650 review, but I will touch on things briefly. One large benefit that comes with all die shrinks is better power efficiency and lower temperatures. Chips have the capability to run just as fast, if not faster, than their predecessors, all while running cooler and drawing less power. It's a win/win situation.
But with 45nm, Intel introduced more than just a die shrink. The biggest feature that most people will be interested in is the SSE4 instruction set. It affects media-buffs only - those who encode videos - but the performance gains are so evident, that developers of such applications are bound to begin supporting it sooner than later. The speed increases could be as large as 2x, even though it's difficult to believe.
Other improvements include increased L2 cache, half-multipliers (eg, 9.5x), a faster front-side-bus, improved Super Shuffle Engine, Smart Cache (to improve how split loads are accessed and stored) and so many transistors on a single die, it can give people headaches to think about it!
The obvious downside of the QX9650 launch in November was the fact that no other processors complimented it. Therefore, it was QX9650 or bust - until now that is. During CES earlier this month, Intel officially announced their 45nm launch plans, which include the desktop side, server and also mobile. We found out at that time that the Quad-Core models (Q9300 - Q9550) were pushed back to sometime in Q1. Although a solid date was never settled on, original road maps showed January as the scheduled launch. However, the rumor is that due to poor performing Phenom Quad-Core sales, Intel decided to hold off on the launch to help push remaining 65nm models to consumers first.
So how does the road map stand now that some time has past? Although Intel announced near-immediate availability of all 45nm desktop Dual-Cores at CES, only the E8400 has shown up on e-tailers. One popular e-tailer has the other models listed for availability in April. How true that is, I'm unsure, but it's strange given the fact that they were supposed to be available by now.
Processor Name
Cores
Clock
Cache
FSB
TDP
1Ku Price
Available
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
150W
$1,499
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770
4
3.20GHz
2 x 6MB
1600MHz
136W
$1,399
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9650
4
3.0GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
130W
$999
Now
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550
4
2.86GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$530
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9450
4
2.66GHz
2 x 6MB
1333MHz
95W
$316
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300
4
2.5GHz
2 x 3MB
1333MHz
95W
$266
Q1 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500
2
3.16GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$266
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8400
2
3.00GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$183
Now
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
Intel Core 2 Duo E8190
2
2.66GHz
6MB
1333MHz
65W
$163
Jan 2008
The biggest downside to the road map is that the Q9xxx are not available. Once they are, they are no doubt going to sell like hotcakes, given the improvements over the previous generation and the fact that the prices do not increase. The upside, though, is that even though the E8400 is the lone desktop Dual-Core to be available right now, we can be happy that it is the model most people would be after.
What makes the E8400 such a great choice is the fact that it's affordable, at $220USD on average, and has a nice clock speed. Let's face it... where overclocking is not concerned, having a 3.0GHz CPU looks better to the ego than say, 2.66GHz. It's all about the smooth frequencies, baby.
intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Preview
it hasn't been a full year since we saw Intel launch their Core 2 Duo processors, but we will soon be seeing a line-up refresh. This is one product that really needs no introduction, but seeing as this is a refresh, refreshing everyones minds seems appropriate. Intel launched the Core 2 Duo to much fanfare last July. Months prior to this, enthusiasts were drooling over leaks of performance reports, which fortunately, turned out to be right on the money.
The entire Conroe line-up is built on a 65nm process, with the mainstream products offering 4MB of L2 cache. Improved over the previous Pentium 4/Pentium D line-up was better power efficiency resulting in a lower TDP and better overall temperatures. This is appreciated, as two cores under the same IHS can potentially create an unwanted room heater.
All but the lowest end Core 2 Duos take advantage of a 1066FSB. This is where this refreshed line-up comes into play, as it ushers in 1333FSB computing. This noticeable speed bump is all done while retaining the same TDP.
All Conroe 1333FSB processors are identified by by a 50 at the end of the product name, hence E6750, which is effectively taking over the spot of the E6700. Nothing has changed except for the FSB and speeds, except the ratio of course, which had to be altered in order to compliment the upgraded frequency.
One thing that should be cleared up is that most overclocking enthusiasts have already accomplished the same speeds we are seeing today, with most being exceeded. In fact, there is nothing stopping anyone from popping in an E6600 and overclocking using a 333FSB and 8 multiplier. That would effectively give you the exact same speed as the E6750 we are taking a look at today.
You might be wondering where the benefit is, with this official speed bump. Primarily it will benefit those non-overclockers most. There is no comparison to equal processor speed at 1066FSB and 1333FSB. That added FSB frequency should make a much more noticeable performance difference than the CPU frequency boost itself.
The entire Conroe line-up is built on a 65nm process, with the mainstream products offering 4MB of L2 cache. Improved over the previous Pentium 4/Pentium D line-up was better power efficiency resulting in a lower TDP and better overall temperatures. This is appreciated, as two cores under the same IHS can potentially create an unwanted room heater.
All but the lowest end Core 2 Duos take advantage of a 1066FSB. This is where this refreshed line-up comes into play, as it ushers in 1333FSB computing. This noticeable speed bump is all done while retaining the same TDP.
All Conroe 1333FSB processors are identified by by a 50 at the end of the product name, hence E6750, which is effectively taking over the spot of the E6700. Nothing has changed except for the FSB and speeds, except the ratio of course, which had to be altered in order to compliment the upgraded frequency.
One thing that should be cleared up is that most overclocking enthusiasts have already accomplished the same speeds we are seeing today, with most being exceeded. In fact, there is nothing stopping anyone from popping in an E6600 and overclocking using a 333FSB and 8 multiplier. That would effectively give you the exact same speed as the E6750 we are taking a look at today.
You might be wondering where the benefit is, with this official speed bump. Primarily it will benefit those non-overclockers most. There is no comparison to equal processor speed at 1066FSB and 1333FSB. That added FSB frequency should make a much more noticeable performance difference than the CPU frequency boost itself.
Intel® Core™2 Duo Desktop Processor
— For the Intel® Core™2 Duo Desktop Processor E6000Δ and E4000Δ sequences, Intel® Pentium® Dual-Core Processor E2000Δ sequence and Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 6x1Δ sequence at 65 W
Depending on the type of system and the chassis characteristics, new system and component designs may be required to provide adequate cooling for the processor. The goal of this document is to provide an understanding of these thermal characteristics and discuss guidelines for meeting the thermal requirements imposed on single processor systems using the Intel® Core™2 Duo desktop processor E6000/E4000Δ sequences, Intel® Pentium® Dual Core Processor E2000Δ sequence, and Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 6x1Δ Sequence.
The concepts given in this document are applicable to any system form factor. Specific examples used will be the Intel enabled reference solution for ATX/uATX systems. See the applicable BTX form factor reference documents to design a thermal solution for that form factor.
64-bit computing on Intel architecture requires a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, operating system, device drivers and applications enabled for Intel® 64 architecture. Processors will not operate (including 32-bit operation) without an Intel® 64 architecture-enabled BIOS. Performance will vary depending on your hardware and software configurations. Consult with your system vendor for more information.
Δ Intel® processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See www.intel.com/products/processor_number/ for details.
‡ Not all specified units of this processor support Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology. See the Processor Spec Finder at processorfinder.intel.com or contact your Intel representative for more information.
± Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT), Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (Intel® TXT), and Intel® 64 architecture require a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, enabling software and/or operating system, device drivers and applications designed for these features. Performance will vary depending on your configuration. Contact your vendor for more information.
° Enabling Execute Disable Bit functionality requires a PC with a processor with Execute Disable Bit capability and a supporting operating system. Check with your PC manufacturer on whether your system delivers Execute Disable Bit functionality.
Depending on the type of system and the chassis characteristics, new system and component designs may be required to provide adequate cooling for the processor. The goal of this document is to provide an understanding of these thermal characteristics and discuss guidelines for meeting the thermal requirements imposed on single processor systems using the Intel® Core™2 Duo desktop processor E6000/E4000Δ sequences, Intel® Pentium® Dual Core Processor E2000Δ sequence, and Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 6x1Δ Sequence.
The concepts given in this document are applicable to any system form factor. Specific examples used will be the Intel enabled reference solution for ATX/uATX systems. See the applicable BTX form factor reference documents to design a thermal solution for that form factor.
64-bit computing on Intel architecture requires a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, operating system, device drivers and applications enabled for Intel® 64 architecture. Processors will not operate (including 32-bit operation) without an Intel® 64 architecture-enabled BIOS. Performance will vary depending on your hardware and software configurations. Consult with your system vendor for more information.
Δ Intel® processor numbers are not a measure of performance. Processor numbers differentiate features within each processor family, not across different processor families. See www.intel.com/products/processor_number/ for details.
‡ Not all specified units of this processor support Enhanced Intel SpeedStep® Technology. See the Processor Spec Finder at processorfinder.intel.com or contact your Intel representative for more information.
± Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT), Intel® Trusted Execution Technology (Intel® TXT), and Intel® 64 architecture require a computer system with a processor, chipset, BIOS, enabling software and/or operating system, device drivers and applications designed for these features. Performance will vary depending on your configuration. Contact your vendor for more information.
° Enabling Execute Disable Bit functionality requires a PC with a processor with Execute Disable Bit capability and a supporting operating system. Check with your PC manufacturer on whether your system delivers Execute Disable Bit functionality.
Intel Latest Technology
In the 'Tick, Tock' model, Tock means a new CPU architecture every two years followed by the Tick which means die-shrinkWhile the world is still talking about Intel's shift from 45nm to 32nm, Intel has gone one step ahead and added a 22nm 8-core processor micro-architecture to their design roadmap.At the Intel Developer Forums, Intel talked about their 'Tick, Tock' model of chip development, transition from 45nm to 32nm and also briefed about the 22nm chip design plans. This update comes in the wake of Intel's talks with regional R&D engineers, who shared the project status for next 5 years. A French site called CanardPlus managed to grab the slide from Intel Developer Forum.In the 'Tick, Tock' model, Tock means a new CPU architecture every two years followed by the Tick which means die-shrink. Intel has announced the 45nm Nehalem's successor called Westmere (previously Nehalem-c) on 32nm die-shrink due for release in 2009. Westmere's special feature is the 8-core CPU design where each core will have its own 512 KB L2 cache, and general divided 16 MB cache at the third level.During 2011-12, Intel plans to release 'Ivy Bridge' as the first 22nm chip in 2011, and then follow it up with the 22nm micro-architecture, code named Haswell, that will carry 8-cores in 2012. The Ivy Bridge will be released after 'Sandy Bridge' (previously named Gesher) from the 32nm micro-architecture in 2010.Source: Techtree.com
Intel Amd Servers
Intel vs AMD servers. Which processor is best for a web hosting server?
If you go to any dedicated server provider, you will see server offers for both AMD and Intel processor based servers. So which one is better for your website or web hosting company? This question is hard to answer because it is dependent on a lot of variables; but I will try my best to give a decisive answer.
AMD and Intel have always been in close competition over the last decade. Whenever Intel was winning, AMD would catch up and overtake Intel. After awhile Intel would catch back up with AMD and overtake them. A competitive market at it’s finest! Anyway, back in 2002-2006 if you would have asked me which I thought was better, I would have said AMD. However, since Intel released its Core2 based processors, I will have to go with Intel for the time being. That is for now…it’s only a matter of time before AMD releases its next generation processor to take back its claim.
Over the years I have purchased dozens of servers in all kinds of configurations – dual core AMD, single core AMD, dual core dual proc AMD, single core Intel, dual core Intel, etc. Even though I give raw server processing ability and power to Intel, AMD still has some advantages.
AMD: better Low – Medium end servers – Best bang for the buck
If you have outgrown your shared web hosting plan or your VPS plan, it is time to upgrade to a dedicated server. The only problem is that there is a big price jump between VPS and a dedicated server. For that reason, I suggest that you start out on a Single Processor AMD server. The price for AMD based equipment tends to be lower which in turn lowers the monthly cost of the server. A comparable low end Intel machine usually costs $30-50/m more than your low end AMD server. AMD also has advantages on certain process types. For instance, AMD can run Java based applications better than the comparable Intel server.
Intel – High End Servers – Raw Power house
Out of all the high end web hosting servers that I have purchased, my dual proc dual core Xeon servers have always outperformed my high end AMD Opteron servers. When it comes to raw power and data/number crunching, Intel takes the cake. Compared to Opteron processors, Xeon processors have a much larger processor cache. This higher CPU bandwidth allows the machine to process more at a quicker rate than the comparable AMD. For this reason, Intel can run MySQL, Email, PHP, and other services faster than the AMD. Since these services are usually the center of most hosting businesses, I think Intel makes the better web hosting server. I also think that Intel servers are slightly more reliable than AMD because the other hardware in the server is usually perfected for Intel based processors. AMD is a smaller company so other hardware vendors spend more work and effort perfecting their hardware for Intel based machines.
If you go to any dedicated server provider, you will see server offers for both AMD and Intel processor based servers. So which one is better for your website or web hosting company? This question is hard to answer because it is dependent on a lot of variables; but I will try my best to give a decisive answer.
AMD and Intel have always been in close competition over the last decade. Whenever Intel was winning, AMD would catch up and overtake Intel. After awhile Intel would catch back up with AMD and overtake them. A competitive market at it’s finest! Anyway, back in 2002-2006 if you would have asked me which I thought was better, I would have said AMD. However, since Intel released its Core2 based processors, I will have to go with Intel for the time being. That is for now…it’s only a matter of time before AMD releases its next generation processor to take back its claim.
Over the years I have purchased dozens of servers in all kinds of configurations – dual core AMD, single core AMD, dual core dual proc AMD, single core Intel, dual core Intel, etc. Even though I give raw server processing ability and power to Intel, AMD still has some advantages.
AMD: better Low – Medium end servers – Best bang for the buck
If you have outgrown your shared web hosting plan or your VPS plan, it is time to upgrade to a dedicated server. The only problem is that there is a big price jump between VPS and a dedicated server. For that reason, I suggest that you start out on a Single Processor AMD server. The price for AMD based equipment tends to be lower which in turn lowers the monthly cost of the server. A comparable low end Intel machine usually costs $30-50/m more than your low end AMD server. AMD also has advantages on certain process types. For instance, AMD can run Java based applications better than the comparable Intel server.
Intel – High End Servers – Raw Power house
Out of all the high end web hosting servers that I have purchased, my dual proc dual core Xeon servers have always outperformed my high end AMD Opteron servers. When it comes to raw power and data/number crunching, Intel takes the cake. Compared to Opteron processors, Xeon processors have a much larger processor cache. This higher CPU bandwidth allows the machine to process more at a quicker rate than the comparable AMD. For this reason, Intel can run MySQL, Email, PHP, and other services faster than the AMD. Since these services are usually the center of most hosting businesses, I think Intel makes the better web hosting server. I also think that Intel servers are slightly more reliable than AMD because the other hardware in the server is usually perfected for Intel based processors. AMD is a smaller company so other hardware vendors spend more work and effort perfecting their hardware for Intel based machines.
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor E4600
Difference Between Intel core 2 duo vs Intel dual core vs Intel Pentium D
Many people are confused what exactly the difference between Intel Core 2 Duo Processors and Between Intel Pentium D or Intel Dual Core processors….
I would try to explain from a END user point a view rather not going in to details architecture over view…
The Simple facts are,
All Core 2 Duo Processors are Dual Core Processors..
All Pentium D Processors are Dual Core Processors..
All Intel Dual Core Processors are Dual Core Processors…
Pentium D is nothing but 2 Prescott Processors side by side… runs very hot, not a good OverClocker…
Intel Core 2 Duo processors are next gen processors from Intel on 65 nm platform… developed from Ground up with new Architecture called Core… so they are whole new Processors just Jump like Pentium 2 to Pentium 3 or Pentium 4… Expect one Core 2 Duo Lowest End Processors like E4400/E4300 taking up and beating Intel Pentium D 3.8 GHz ones with ease … runs damn cool and super over clocker…
Intel Dual Core Processors are just launched striped down version of Core 2 Duos.. there are 2 in Market for Desktop range, E2140 runs at 1.6 GHz with 1 MB L2 and 800 MHz FSB and E2160 with 1.8 GHz with same specs of E2140…. these are not Pentium D rather they are same batch like Core 2 Duo based on the new Core Technology…. they perform same like Core 2 Duos but they were launched with a very low price to counter the market of super low cost but high performer AMD X2 range line up to AMD X2 4000
Many people are confused what exactly the difference between Intel Core 2 Duo Processors and Between Intel Pentium D or Intel Dual Core processors….
I would try to explain from a END user point a view rather not going in to details architecture over view…
The Simple facts are,
All Core 2 Duo Processors are Dual Core Processors..
All Pentium D Processors are Dual Core Processors..
All Intel Dual Core Processors are Dual Core Processors…
Pentium D is nothing but 2 Prescott Processors side by side… runs very hot, not a good OverClocker…
Intel Core 2 Duo processors are next gen processors from Intel on 65 nm platform… developed from Ground up with new Architecture called Core… so they are whole new Processors just Jump like Pentium 2 to Pentium 3 or Pentium 4… Expect one Core 2 Duo Lowest End Processors like E4400/E4300 taking up and beating Intel Pentium D 3.8 GHz ones with ease … runs damn cool and super over clocker…
Intel Dual Core Processors are just launched striped down version of Core 2 Duos.. there are 2 in Market for Desktop range, E2140 runs at 1.6 GHz with 1 MB L2 and 800 MHz FSB and E2160 with 1.8 GHz with same specs of E2140…. these are not Pentium D rather they are same batch like Core 2 Duo based on the new Core Technology…. they perform same like Core 2 Duos but they were launched with a very low price to counter the market of super low cost but high performer AMD X2 range line up to AMD X2 4000
Intel Core 2 Duo Processors
How to Over Clock / Basic Over Clocking Guide for Core 2 Duo
What will you need ??
1. Hardware setup
2. Softwares for the process
Hardware Setup
This guide will cover mainlly Intel Processors… Basically Intel Core based ones, such as,
Processors
E2140
E2160
E4300
E4400
E4500
E6300
E6320
E6400
E6420
E6550
E6600
E6700
E6750
E6850
Q6600
Q6700
X7900
X7800
X6800
QX6700
QX6800
QX6850
Motherboards
For any Overclocking one thing is must, ur Hardware supporting Overclocking, mean u have a C2D but one Intel 946 / 965 based board, will mean no OC… as those boards doesnt allow OC…
Good Well Ventilated Cabbinet is needed as will generate a lot of heat for sure..so, large cabbi with few FANs so, for OCing high u will need to have cabinet modifications….
Better RAM, those Value rams of 667 or 800 is good for Ligh or mid range OC but will need better RAMs for sure…
Last of all, the most important, The motherboard…. one ASUS P5B-MX motherboard with 946 chipset will not going to oc the procy better, where as P5B DLx with P965 or P5N-E SLi with Nvidia 650 chipset or XFX 650i or higher ones like P35 Chipset based ones like ASUS P5K series and nForce 680i ones like P5N32-E SLi or XFX 680i, will overclock far more efficiantly than those 946 based or VIA based ones….
Before we start, lets learn What exactly is Over Clocking ??
What Softwares One would need ???
Really dont have much idea about Linux softwares, so i would expect all running Windows will suggest few which u will need in Windows…
Lots of Software to monitor the Heat lavel !! As every one says Its easy to Overclock but easier than that to Burn the Procy
Install and Run it in every startup and then minimize it, will show one info at corner of the screen… Like my bellow Screeny,
Core Temp Run it while Stability test under load for Temps monitoring
Pi Testing to test the stability of the OC…
orthos This is for a long time load test of the OC system !!!
ASUS PC Prob… Find in in ur ASUS Mobo CD
in one dumb sentence, what we do is, we increase the FSB / BUS speed by little mean, which in place (FSB / 4 = BUS) increases the CPU Speed BUS x multiple = CPU Speed… and when u OC high u need to increase the processor vcore (my case Default 1.24) to some stable vcore by one step at a time !!! also at some point u may see ur RAM fails to keep up so, u need to increase their voltage too, chip value rams will not allow more than 2.1v at any point…In my case, default E6600 FSB is 1066 MHz where as BUS speed is (1066/4) 266.5 MHz, so with multile 9 my E6600 runs at 266.5 x 9 = 2398.5 MHz So by trial and error Method I found one Stable at this, as my mobo allow FSB increase so, FSB 1575 / Vcore 1.5v / RAM voltage 2.178v….
So, the main idea is increasing the FSB / BUS without givng more vcore till the point where u need to put some vcore… as more vcore will mean more Heat !!!
Lets Start
So to start with in ASUS Boards Disable AI Tuning and CIA2 for Giga Byte ones…
BIOS Settings
Seting the PCI Expres (PCIe) @ 100MHz / PCI to 33 MHz
Disable the Q-Fan control to allow the Processor fan to runn at full speed all the time
Disable any thing which says CPUID MAX to 2
Disable C1E if running windows XP (well thats what all ASUS mobo manual says)
RAM Settings
Well make sure processor and RAM frequency is unlinked so, i would suggest keep the RAM frequency to default value…Till the point u cant boot or dont get stable OS, u dont need to play with the RAM voltage of Timings, but b ready on higher Overclock u will need to push the RAM voltage up [Razz] i got suggestion that Voltage is fine Till 2.1v !!! nothing up for our value rams…
Processor Settings
Some motherboards will allow increase of BUS speed (BUS x multiple) some will alow increase of FSB (FSB/4=BUS Speed)…
in any case, increase step by step, dont push a lot at a time rather step by step… till u find one stable max point…
Stability Testing
Well sure, u should be able to boot in to OS… and personal Suggestion make sure its a clean installation without any Startup object or AVS, as that delayes the time of start nessecary Temp monitoring sofwtares….
If u are unable to boot, means some vcore or RAM voltage !!!
Run CPU-Z to view ur speeds…
for me 1st thing is running PC Wizerd and minimize it to Start bar as that would give a lot of info at once… !!!
Running ASUS Probe
Running Core Temp
they will give info of idle temp…. Make sure, u stay in side the temp limit (explained later on)
Now Copy the SUPER PI Process EXE on 2 places, run those together (Dont start calculation, just run those EXE)… now from Tank Manager, Go to Process, right click on each of the Superpi.exe and put one on each core…
Now Start calculaiton for 2m pi for both at once… !!!! keep eye on ur Temp limits (Explained Later)… If system passes the test fine, proceed to later on, if ur system restarts, means u will need to push some Vcore and come bacnk again to here, even then its restarts, then some RAM voltage may be (Dont cross that 2.1v) !!!
Now when u pass the test next level of Load test
Load Test
Run one Instance of orthos and Start testing ur Procy !!! run it for atleast 1 hour keep an eye on the Temps (Core Temp / PC Wizerd) all the time… if u are crossing the denger lavel Stop the test and rebott back to lower the vcore and BUS/FSB too !!!
if u pass the test means u have a stable overclock system !!!
Temparature settings
At Any point load temp should not cross 60c, see on idle condition temp may low at 42 ot 45 but onload will push the temp close to 60c…
your Dengar Level is 60c, allways stay bellow it….
Please note
No 2 Processo are the same, I mean I have one E6600 which need vcore of 1.5v to run at 3.6 GHz where as its possible that Mr. A’s E6600 can reach 3.8 GHz with just 1.48 or Mr. B’s E6600 cant go byond 3.4 ghx at 1.5v….
So no specific info on exact settings, u have to try and try to find best Overclock for ur self…
Remember Never let the Temps touch 60c, keep the RAMs at their Default Frequency, lavue ram cant take byond 2.1v voltage…
In the end I would say there are tons of better guides out there in OIverclokcing, Google will give better results, so those who already tried it, please post so tricks a tips for higher overlocks…
And last of all, Dont forget to post ur Results, with some Temp and load testing apps running at Backgroud… and with ur OC setings info and steps
For me, on stock it was 2.89 GHz, where as with ThermalRight ultra 120 extreme, FSB 1575 / vcore 1.5 / ram voltage 2.178 (667 MHz)
What will you need ??
1. Hardware setup
2. Softwares for the process
Hardware Setup
This guide will cover mainlly Intel Processors… Basically Intel Core based ones, such as,
Processors
E2140
E2160
E4300
E4400
E4500
E6300
E6320
E6400
E6420
E6550
E6600
E6700
E6750
E6850
Q6600
Q6700
X7900
X7800
X6800
QX6700
QX6800
QX6850
Motherboards
For any Overclocking one thing is must, ur Hardware supporting Overclocking, mean u have a C2D but one Intel 946 / 965 based board, will mean no OC… as those boards doesnt allow OC…
Good Well Ventilated Cabbinet is needed as will generate a lot of heat for sure..so, large cabbi with few FANs so, for OCing high u will need to have cabinet modifications….
Better RAM, those Value rams of 667 or 800 is good for Ligh or mid range OC but will need better RAMs for sure…
Last of all, the most important, The motherboard…. one ASUS P5B-MX motherboard with 946 chipset will not going to oc the procy better, where as P5B DLx with P965 or P5N-E SLi with Nvidia 650 chipset or XFX 650i or higher ones like P35 Chipset based ones like ASUS P5K series and nForce 680i ones like P5N32-E SLi or XFX 680i, will overclock far more efficiantly than those 946 based or VIA based ones….
Before we start, lets learn What exactly is Over Clocking ??
What Softwares One would need ???
Really dont have much idea about Linux softwares, so i would expect all running Windows will suggest few which u will need in Windows…
Lots of Software to monitor the Heat lavel !! As every one says Its easy to Overclock but easier than that to Burn the Procy
Install and Run it in every startup and then minimize it, will show one info at corner of the screen… Like my bellow Screeny,
Core Temp Run it while Stability test under load for Temps monitoring
Pi Testing to test the stability of the OC…
orthos This is for a long time load test of the OC system !!!
ASUS PC Prob… Find in in ur ASUS Mobo CD
in one dumb sentence, what we do is, we increase the FSB / BUS speed by little mean, which in place (FSB / 4 = BUS) increases the CPU Speed BUS x multiple = CPU Speed… and when u OC high u need to increase the processor vcore (my case Default 1.24) to some stable vcore by one step at a time !!! also at some point u may see ur RAM fails to keep up so, u need to increase their voltage too, chip value rams will not allow more than 2.1v at any point…In my case, default E6600 FSB is 1066 MHz where as BUS speed is (1066/4) 266.5 MHz, so with multile 9 my E6600 runs at 266.5 x 9 = 2398.5 MHz So by trial and error Method I found one Stable at this, as my mobo allow FSB increase so, FSB 1575 / Vcore 1.5v / RAM voltage 2.178v….
So, the main idea is increasing the FSB / BUS without givng more vcore till the point where u need to put some vcore… as more vcore will mean more Heat !!!
Lets Start
So to start with in ASUS Boards Disable AI Tuning and CIA2 for Giga Byte ones…
BIOS Settings
Seting the PCI Expres (PCIe) @ 100MHz / PCI to 33 MHz
Disable the Q-Fan control to allow the Processor fan to runn at full speed all the time
Disable any thing which says CPUID MAX to 2
Disable C1E if running windows XP (well thats what all ASUS mobo manual says)
RAM Settings
Well make sure processor and RAM frequency is unlinked so, i would suggest keep the RAM frequency to default value…Till the point u cant boot or dont get stable OS, u dont need to play with the RAM voltage of Timings, but b ready on higher Overclock u will need to push the RAM voltage up [Razz] i got suggestion that Voltage is fine Till 2.1v !!! nothing up for our value rams…
Processor Settings
Some motherboards will allow increase of BUS speed (BUS x multiple) some will alow increase of FSB (FSB/4=BUS Speed)…
in any case, increase step by step, dont push a lot at a time rather step by step… till u find one stable max point…
Stability Testing
Well sure, u should be able to boot in to OS… and personal Suggestion make sure its a clean installation without any Startup object or AVS, as that delayes the time of start nessecary Temp monitoring sofwtares….
If u are unable to boot, means some vcore or RAM voltage !!!
Run CPU-Z to view ur speeds…
for me 1st thing is running PC Wizerd and minimize it to Start bar as that would give a lot of info at once… !!!
Running ASUS Probe
Running Core Temp
they will give info of idle temp…. Make sure, u stay in side the temp limit (explained later on)
Now Copy the SUPER PI Process EXE on 2 places, run those together (Dont start calculation, just run those EXE)… now from Tank Manager, Go to Process, right click on each of the Superpi.exe and put one on each core…
Now Start calculaiton for 2m pi for both at once… !!!! keep eye on ur Temp limits (Explained Later)… If system passes the test fine, proceed to later on, if ur system restarts, means u will need to push some Vcore and come bacnk again to here, even then its restarts, then some RAM voltage may be (Dont cross that 2.1v) !!!
Now when u pass the test next level of Load test
Load Test
Run one Instance of orthos and Start testing ur Procy !!! run it for atleast 1 hour keep an eye on the Temps (Core Temp / PC Wizerd) all the time… if u are crossing the denger lavel Stop the test and rebott back to lower the vcore and BUS/FSB too !!!
if u pass the test means u have a stable overclock system !!!
Temparature settings
At Any point load temp should not cross 60c, see on idle condition temp may low at 42 ot 45 but onload will push the temp close to 60c…
your Dengar Level is 60c, allways stay bellow it….
Please note
No 2 Processo are the same, I mean I have one E6600 which need vcore of 1.5v to run at 3.6 GHz where as its possible that Mr. A’s E6600 can reach 3.8 GHz with just 1.48 or Mr. B’s E6600 cant go byond 3.4 ghx at 1.5v….
So no specific info on exact settings, u have to try and try to find best Overclock for ur self…
Remember Never let the Temps touch 60c, keep the RAMs at their Default Frequency, lavue ram cant take byond 2.1v voltage…
In the end I would say there are tons of better guides out there in OIverclokcing, Google will give better results, so those who already tried it, please post so tricks a tips for higher overlocks…
And last of all, Dont forget to post ur Results, with some Temp and load testing apps running at Backgroud… and with ur OC setings info and steps
For me, on stock it was 2.89 GHz, where as with ThermalRight ultra 120 extreme, FSB 1575 / vcore 1.5 / ram voltage 2.178 (667 MHz)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)