Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Nemo

Intel 45nm 3.16GHz Wolfdale Processor Tested

Recommended Posts

Woah, looks like a good little chip there. I'd like to see what it can do with a large tower cooler strapped on to it - 5GHz doesn't seem so far away now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Native multi of 9.5? That's interesting... Back in the P4/A64 days the processors didn't like the half multis very much, now they use them natively lol. Technology flies by amazingly fast these days!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW

I agree with a good cooling setup on there you could easily hit 5Ghz...

I very highly doubt that man! He's using 1.45V's for 4.32GHz, but what you have to remember is that this is a 45nm chip! They don't like too high voltages, but also, 5GHz on air is something that needs a lot of working I'm sure! If you check XS, most of the guys (if not all) are using high-end water or better to get to 5GHz!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ajmatson

You also have to take into consideration that some of the 5+ GHz scores are only for display and are not real world 24hour setups. The 4.322 speed that I reached I ran for 48 hours while running the benchmarks and everyday computing. It did run hot under some loads but not once did it ever throttle down because of overheating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I very highly doubt that man! He's using 1.45V's for 4.32GHz, but what you have to remember is that this is a 45nm chip! They don't like too high voltages, but also, 5GHz on air is something that needs a lot of working I'm sure! If you check XS, most of the guys (if not all) are using high-end water or better to get to 5GHz!
Good point but I bet you could easily hit 4.5 (5 is a bit of a stretch) with a good air cooler...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q6600 vs. E8500

 

Is it as good as a Quad Core? Close, but not quite close enough, but for those that are not wanting to spend the money to jump into the Quad Core field, then the E8500 is for you

 

26 of 59 seemed to favor the Q6600 over the E8500 (stock).

16 of 59 seemed to favor the Phenom 9600 over the E8500 (stock).

 

I've seen the Q6600 at $254+ (US) and it appears the E8500 will be around $300 (US) (not 100% sure on this price). Also, Intel has said that it will be dropping prices on a few of there processors, including the Q6600 (down to about $240 (US), April 20th I think, have to find article again).

 

 

I was going to ask if everyone really felt the Q6600 was the better... but after typing this all, I think I am starting to see just that. I only mentioned the stock E8500 as the OC E8500 should be compared to a OC Q6600. From what I understand, the Q6600 has a good amount of head room as well. Even if the Q6600 doesnt have as much room as the E8500.

 

Okay, straighten me out... Do I understand this correctly, more or less? Q6600 is still the better of the two... and the next thing to really look foward to is the C2Q 8xxx series (without dropping +$500 for a faster or even extreme series)? Also, if I do have this right, wouldnt the last quoted statement be a bit off, since it appears to be cheaper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q6600 vs. E8500

 

 

 

26 of 59 seemed to favor the Q6600 over the E8500 (stock).

16 of 59 seemed to favor the Phenom 9600 over the E8500 (stock).

 

I've seen the Q6600 at $254+ (US) and it appears the E8500 will be around $300 (US) (not 100% sure on this price). Also, Intel has said that it will be dropping prices on a few of there processors, including the Q6600 (down to about $240 (US), April 20th I think, have to find article again).

 

 

I was going to ask if everyone really felt the Q6600 was the better... but after typing this all, I think I am starting to see just that. I only mentioned the stock E8500 as the OC E8500 should be compared to a OC Q6600. From what I understand, the Q6600 has a good amount of head room as well. Even if the Q6600 doesnt have as much room as the E8500.

 

Okay, straighten me out... Do I understand this correctly, more or less? Q6600 is still the better of the two... and the next thing to really look foward to is the C2Q 8xxx series (without dropping +$500 for a faster or even extreme series)? Also, if I do have this right, wouldnt the last quoted statement be a bit off, since it appears to be cheaper?

If you are going for overclocking and benchmarking, the E8XXX chips are more desirable then the Q6600. Even with a respecable 3.5/3.6ghz OC that the higher overclocking G0 quads are getting, it still cannot compete with the raw power of a 4.4/4.5ghz E8400/E8500.

 

Maybe when benchmarks and(more importantly) games and common apps use 4 cores it will be worth it, but IMO with how high the E series chips are clocking it makes more sense to go that route.

 

NOW, if you fold or do graphics work or something, the Q6600 is a much more capable chip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are going for overclocking and benchmarking, the E8XXX chips are more desirable then the Q6600. Even with a respecable 3.5/3.6ghz OC that the higher overclocking G0 quads are getting, it still cannot compete with the raw power of a 4.4/4.5ghz E8400/E8500.

 

Maybe when benchmarks and(more importantly) games and common apps use 4 cores it will be worth it, but IMO with how high the E series chips are clocking it makes more sense to go that route.

 

NOW, if you fold or do graphics work or something, the Q6600 is a much more capable chip!

:withstupid: It depends on what you are going to be doing to which is the best to go with....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:withstupid: It depends on what you are going to be doing to which is the best to go with....

 

 

I plan to game with my Q6600 primarily however I do want to get into benching and stuff a lot more. I really want to get into OC'ing with my new rig. I hope I made the right choice in processor :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×