Intel to Phase Out its Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor Next Year

[kyle2020]

Vcore is 1.45 I think. Can't remember the rest but this board only had like 4-5 other voltage control options.

ah, pretty close to mine then. I can run it at a shade over 1.4V - your happy to run it at that voltage 24/7?

 

[hv43082]

ah, pretty close to mine then. I can run it at a shade over 1.4V - your happy to run it at that voltage 24/7?

Yeah. My CPU cooler keep it idle at 45-48 C in the hot Miami weather. I stress tested all 4 cores and they run in the high 60's. Since I got my laptop, I only use the system to play games.

 

[lemonadesoda]

I think they kind of did move the Q6600 to 45nm, I think they meant the Q9300 or Q9400 to replace it.

Q6600 and Q6700 are FSB 1066. Both have 8MB L2 cache.

Q9300 and Q9400 are FSB 1333. Both have 6MB L2 cache.

A Q6x00 would outperform a Q9x00 at the same clock. Intel had to bring out the Q9x50 to beat the Q6x00 series.

The Q9xxx is not compatible with older s775 boards that only do FSB 1066. If you have an older core2quad board then there is no upgrade path. And that's the point. Intel no longer provides LOYAL CUSTOMERS with an upgrade path. The only option is to get a whole new system, ie new chipset and new CPU. Whereas in the past, Intel made sure there WAS an upgrade path; they released better CPUs with higher clocks, SSE enhancements, HT, bigger L2 or L3 cache AT THE SAME FSB. And remember the whole pentium OVERDRIVE series?

 

[kyle2020]

^ but surely that upgrade path has run its course long enough, nicely placing us upon the lap of the i7?

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

I need one befoer they go extinct

 

[lemonadesoda]

^ but surely that upgrade path has run its course long enough, nicely placing us upon the lap of the i7?

But that's my whole point. There IS NO upgrade path for a Q6x00. Unless you consider a 5% improvement by going Q9xxx, but that is ONLY available to a few who bought the latest chipset mainboards, in which case they dont have a Q6xxx anyway.

Everyone here is saying "I'd better get me a Q6600 while they are still around and going cheap". That just goes to show that the show aint over for 1066 Q6xxx series. I bet there are a lot of people who would get a Q6850 3Ghz 1066 65W. Who would like one? Anyone wanna buy a Q6850 65W just $150? I bet they would sell like hotcakes.

 

[spearman914]

Why do they want to close down the most popular quad and not a low-end dual or celerons.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

But that's my whole point. There IS NO upgrade path for a Q6x00. Unless you consider a 5% improvement by going Q9xxx, but that is ONLY available to a few who bought the latest chipset mainboards, in which case they dont have a Q6xxx anyway.

Everyone here is saying "I'd better get me a Q6600 while they are still around and going cheap". That just goes to show that the show aint over for 1066 Q6xxx series. I bet there are a lot of people who would get a Q6850 3Ghz 1066 65W. Who would like one? Anyone wanna buy a Q6850 65W just $150? I bet they would sell like hotcakes.

I would

 

[newtekie1]

How would they get a Q6850(or even a Q6600) down to 65w exactly?

Q6600 and Q6700 are FSB 1066. Both have 8MB L2 cache.

Q9300 and Q9400 are FSB 1333. Both have 6MB L2 cache.

A Q6x00 would outperform a Q9x00 at the same clock. Intel had to bring out the Q9x50 to beat the Q6x00 series.

The Q9xxx is not compatible with older s775 boards that only do FSB 1066. If you have an older core2quad board then there is no upgrade path. And that's the point. Intel no longer provides LOYAL CUSTOMERS with an upgrade path. The only option is to get a whole new system, ie new chipset and new CPU. Whereas in the past, Intel made sure there WAS an upgrade path; they released better CPUs with higher clocks, SSE enhancements, HT, bigger L2 or L3 cache AT THE SAME FSB. And remember the whole pentium OVERDRIVE series?

The higher FSB on the Q9300 and Q9400 makes up for the lower L2. See here. Despite the lower L2, the Q9000 series outperforms the Q6000 series, mainly due to architectual improvements and the higher FSB.

I don't think there are many s775 boards that support the Q6000 series, but not the Q9000 series. And if they are that old, then chances are the customer has gotten their upgrades out of it. Even then, if you pick the right motherboard, that isn't really an issue. My P5B, which is well over 2 years old, started with a Celeron D in it, and still supports the Q9000 series. How long do you expect intel to continue to provide upgrade paths? Should they still keep pumping out Socket 478 P4's just so people with ancient boards can still have an upgrade path?

Be real, eventually, they are just going to have to move on. The few people that have ancient hardware are going to have to be left behind, Intel can't be blaimed for this. They chose to have the old hardware, and they chose to buy cheap when they bought it.

The few boards I know of that support the Q6600 but not the Q9000 series, support 1333FSB just fine, they just don't support the 45nm quads. These are nVidia's 600 series boards, which Intel can hardly be to blaim for nVidia's poor chipsets not supporting 45nm quads(even though they support 45nm duals just fine). What board are you talking about anyway, that is 1066FSB only, but supports quad core processors?

 

[insider]

They had to kill this chip, it was likely one of the main reasons people held off buying the newer Q9xxx quads along with a brand new Intel board.

The price/performance is very good, infact too good for Intel to continue selling it when they want people to splash out on the brand new i7 platform.

 

[Mussels]

Vcore is 1.45 I think. Can't remember the rest but this board only had like 4-5 other voltage control options.

both mine take 1.425v for that (in bios, approx 1.4v real)

 

[hv43082]

both mine take 1.425v for that (in bios, approx 1.4v real)

My board is pretty cheap so I don't mind to bump up the vcore for stability.

 

[Nitro-Max]

ah, pretty close to mine then. I can run it at a shade over 1.4V - your happy to run it at that voltage 24/7?

I can run mine at 3.6ghz on less 1.360v stable. Been a great chip that i dont plan on changing anytime soon. Had it all the way to 4.2ghz but my air cooling wouldnt keep it cool enough. i think i had it set to 1.45v then but had to bump up the northbridge voltage also and i dont have much cooling on that just a heat sink/heatpipe.

 

[niko084]

I don't think they are necessary anymore with the E7000's and E8000's.

The E7ks and E8ks are dual cores.....
And a Q6600 even at 2.4 will stomp a E8600 at 3.33 in a application that uses a quad core.

Some of those Q6600's were purely euphoric!

 

[Nitro-Max]

The E7ks and E8ks are dual cores.....
And a Q6600 even at 2.4 will stomp a E8600 at 3.33 in a application that uses a quad core.

Some of those Q6600's were purely euphoric!

Very true i benched my Q6600 @ 4.2ghz with a 3870x2 @ stock system memory @ stock too if i remember right and became the 3dmark 08 champ for ages beat all the higher clocked E8xxxx with card and memory maxed out on the oc too. The Q6600 absolutly owned it.

 

[lemonadesoda]

How would they get a Q6850(or even a Q6600) down to 65w exactly?

The higher FSB on the Q9300 and Q9400 makes up for the lower L2. See here. Despite the lower L2, the Q9000 series outperforms the Q6000 series

65W? By going 45nm and reducing volts. There is a 2.5Ghz Quad Xeon at 50W, dont ya know. New fab process wins by lower volts = lower power PLUS lower current leakage = lower power.

Eh? A Q9300 does not outperform a Q6600 clock for clock. Look at your own link. They show the Q9300 being about 4-5% faster on average than the Q6600, across a set of benchmarks. But guess what 2.5Ghz (Q9300) is 4% faster than 2.4Ghz (Q6600). Yes, there are a few that are 10%, clock for clock 6% faster. But those are wins due to higher FSB, improved cache latency, and SSE4.1.

So, WOW. Sometimes you can get up to 6% improvement, but sometimes it is negative, and on average the same, clock for clock.

So, a Q6850 at 65W would be a lovely CPU. QED.

 

[newtekie1]

65W? By going 45nm and reducing volts. There is a 2.5Ghz Quad Xeon at 50W, dont ya know. New fab process wins by lower volts = lower power PLUS lower current leakage = lower power.

The L5420 is a special processor, cherry picked for lower power usage. The 45nm quads usually don't go below 80w. The desktop side is lucky to see under 95w. In fact the lower clocked Q8000 series, with lower cache sizes still sits at 95w. A 65w Q6600 isn't possible, well it is, but not worth it. Oh, and those cherry picked Quad Xeons come at about a $100 price premium over the same 80w parts.

Eh? A Q9300 does not outperform a Q6600 clock for clock. Look at your own link. They show the Q9300 being about 4-5% faster on average than the Q6600, across a set of benchmarks. But guess what 2.5Ghz (Q9300) is 4% faster than 2.4Ghz (Q6600). Yes, there are a few that are 10%, clock for clock 6% faster. But those are wins due to higher FSB, improved cache latency, and SSE4.1

So, WOW. Sometimes you can get up to 6% improvement, but sometimes it is negative, and on average the same, clock for clock.

The Q9300 averages 7% faster than the Q6600 but the clock speed is only a 4% increase. So the Q9300 will outperform the Q6600 clock for clock. A 4% clock increase yields a 7% performance increase.

And I have yet to see a negative performance wise from going from a Q6600 to a Q9300.

So, a Q6850 at 65W would be a lovely CPU. QED.

Yes, it would be, but it isn't possible. The closest you are going to get is the Q9650 at 95w, in fact that would be the 45nm Q6850 exactly.

 

[wolf]

hats off to the Q6600, ive had my G0 for aaaaaages now, and it should be a solid chip for a while to come (overclocked, but who's isnt )

oh and as for this discussion... are 771 Xeons drop in compatible with 775 boards?

seems i can get the "Intel Xeon X3350 Quad Core Server Processor, LGA775 Pkg, 2.66GHz, 12MB L2 Cache Total, 1333MHz FSB, 45nm" in Aus for less than a Q9550

 

[lemonadesoda]

The Q9300 averages 7% faster than the Q6600 but the clock speed is only a 4% increase. So the Q9300 will outperform the Q6600 clock for clock. A 4% clock increase yields a 7% performance increase.

And I have yet to see a negative performance wise from going from a Q6600 to a Q9300.

Yes, it would be, but it isn't possible. The closest you are going to get is the Q9650 at 95w, in fact that would be the 45nm Q6850 exactly.

1./ 7% performance increase on 4% extra clock. 7%-4%=3% clock for clock comparison. Can you really see anyone "upgrading" for 3% clock for clock? The 4% extra clock rate is moot. Just OC the Q6600.

2./ Check your link. There are plenty of examples where performance is <4% better, BUT, on a 4% clock increase. Clock for clock it is slower.

3./ If a Q9650 is at 95w, then a Q6850 would be less than 95W. Why? Because the high clock FSB means more power communicating with the chipset. By reducing FSB but increasing the multiplier, you actually save power. It might not be a lot, but it is some. Also check out the *NEW* Intel quads. They are quoted at 65W. That's why we are taking about 65W. It's doable on todays fab. Not theory. Practice.

ANYWAY BACK TO THE POINT

I have a mainboard that cannot get to 1333 or 1600 FSB. But I would spend big dollar on a CPU upgrade, rather than have to buy a whole new chipset, platform, reinstall and all that BS. But there isnt a high multiplier FSB 800 or 1066 CPU except of the QX6700, (unlocked). Intel wont drop the prices on the unlocked extreme editions, so how about a locked quad with a higher multipler than Q6600 or Q6700. That would be a nice upgrade for many peeps, esp. if it had the 65W envelope.

 

[newtekie1]

1.) My point wasn't that they were upgrading. My point was that Intel has already replaced the Q6600 in the market. Of course you can just overclock the Q6600, of course the Q9300 can be overclocked also, so we don't really need to get into that.

2.) But overall it is faster. So clock for clock, it is faster. We don't judge performance on a single number, we judge it on overall performance.

3.) The Q6850 would be the same FSB as the Q9650, they would both run at 1333. For the 6000 series of processors, a 50 at the end indicates a 1333 FSB. Besides that, FSB has not affect on the thermal envolope of the processor, if you want and example of that look at the E6700 and E6750. Both are 65w, same cache size, both 65nm, both are 2.66GHz. One is 1333 and the other is 1066.

What Intel quad are you looking at that are quoted at 65w? None are quoted at that as far as I know. Intel doesn't have a desktop quad-core processor rated below 95w.

 

[lemonadesoda]

http://en.hardspell.com/doc/showcont.asp?news_id=4534

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-Planning-35W-and-65W-Quad-Core-Processors-98310.shtml

So, all we want is a 1066 version of these, ie, high multiplier, and many peeps would have an upgrade path for their "older" but not "old" systems.

We seem to be going in circles. This is my original comment http://forums.techpowerup.com/showpost.php?p=1080331&postcount=19

Have a nice day!

 

[newtekie1]

I don't believe either one of those articles. Both sources are terrible, and they two can't even get the model numbers right... I'll belive it when I see it.

And as for you original state, as I already said, Intel did move the Q6600 to 45nm, they called it the Q9300. The specs were not identical, but performance was improved, and overclocking was better also. Of course, if you want the true Q6600 of the 45nm world, look no further than the Q9650. And Intel has provided plenty of upgrade paths, the Q9000/8000 processor provide several upgrade paths.

 

[Benno]

That's a shame to see such a great cpu discontinued. Will there be anything good to replace it? I know the Q8200 is fairly similar in price, but I'd still rather the 6600.

 

[Hayder_Master]

sure they do this , q6600 best ever quad cpu release with performance per money and overclock , this cpu make some lost in seals with other intel quad's

 

[lemonadesoda]

I don't believe either one of those articles.

Do you prefer DailyTech: http://www.dailytech.com/Upcoming+B...rs+for+Desktop+Market+Leaked/article13449.htm

Or intel:
http://www.intel.com/Products/Desktop/Motherboards/DQ45EK/DQ45EK-overview.htm