In April 2005, Intel was the first to release a dual core processor just before AMD. These processors became more and more popular since the release of the Core 2 Duo and decreases on AMD´s price list. Now the number of cores increases to four with the release of the Core 2 Extreme QX6700. The MHz race is over and welcome to the core era…two Core 2 Duos in one
To release a quad-core processor so quickly, Intel used the same method as for the first dual core. It isn´t a processor with four execution cores like AMD´s future K8L (available in mid-2007) but a pair of Core 2 Duos in the same package using the same Socket.
The method was already proven with the Pentium D. While the performance improvements from a single Pentium 4 to a Pentium D weren´t that great, they were close to what the Athlon 64 was to the X2. We now have a CPU based on 582 million transistors shared between two distinct dies.
Initially, only the Core 2 Extreme was concerned by the Quad. In consequence, the QX6700 will be sold for $999 like the X6800. We remind you that the latter is based on a Core 2 at 2.93 GHz whereas the QX6700 is based on two Core 2s at 2.67 GHz. Intel seems to have kept the same frequencies, because of the thermal envelope. However, in practice the QX6700 can reach higher frequencies as we will see later on.
If you want a "cheaper" Quad, you will have to choose the Core 2 Quad Q6600 that will be out next January. This time, the frequency is 2.4 GHz, like the E6600, and the price is 2.7 times the price of a E6600 or $851. Of course, knowing that there is no dual Socket 775 motherboard, we have to use the Xeon. The additional cost that this implies (motherboard, registered memory) in order to have an equivalent solution also means that the end cost would probably be a bit higher. Either way, we can’t be too happy with this pricing policy.
It is important to point out, however, that Intel currently has two problems with the quad. The first one is, of course, production costs as two Core 2 dies are very expensive to produce. It wouldn´t be interesting for Intel to sell a Quad for less than two times the price of a Duo since there is no competition from AMD in this domain. The second problem for now is that we have to say the improvements the quad brings aren´t obvious in all applications.
Four cores, what for ?
Indeed, we have to keep in mind that to use such a GPU, you have to feed each of the cores in parallel with tasks to execute. To do so, there are two solutions: either you have multithreaded applications, which mean that they execute their basic functions in parallel, or you have to use several applications that aren´t multithreaded in parallel.
In addition to server applications, most multithreaded ones are destined for workstations. This is the case of most software used to create computer generated images, editing and video and audio encoding. However, 99% of games are monothread, and when they are multithreaded, performance improvements aren´t always that obvious.
Since the release of the first dual core processors, there have been many promises about dual core optimisations for games. After a year and a half, multithreaded games are still rare and those with actual performance increases are even rarer. Of course, new games will be released in the months to come and we hope that this situation will change, mainly with Unreal Tournament 2007, or Supreme Commander.
For now, quad core is something that you should take into consideration only if you are running applications, which already heavily favour dual cores. If not, this processor isn´t for you unless you are planning on running at least three applications simultaneously using each core (which is really rare!).
