Testing QX6700

Come November, Intel will officially launch their Quad-Core processors based on the Kentsfield core. They are essentially based on the Core Architecture that is gaining popularity and recognition these few months through the Intel Core 2 Duo Processors. Simply put, the Kentsfield CPU is putting 2 of the Core 2 Duo cores onto a single processor, giving an effective of 4 independant Cores. Hence the offical name of Core 2 Quad.

The Engineering Sample is Made in Malaysia, week 33 of 2006

Since the Core 2 Duo spot a 4MB of shared L2 Cache between the dual cores, the Core 2 Quad naturally spots a double serving, 8MB of L2 Cache- 4MB shared between 2 cores each! November is just one month away so it's ripe timing for us to do a preview on this upcoming luxury. Our main test setup will be run on the Intel D975XBX Motherboard while we await a proper D975XBX2 media sample for further testing. Meanwhile, you can take a sneak preview with us at the D975XBX2 "Bad Axe 2" right here.

 

I used a Scythe Ninja Tower Cooler fitted with a silent Noctua 120mm 1.2K RPM Fan for cooling.

 

Above, you see the QX6700 side by side with the X6800

Running Temperature

Now, even though the Core 2 Quad spots a total of 8MB L2 Cache, the BIOS detects it as just 4MB.

 

The default voltage of the X6800 we ran was 1.2875v and the default voltagte of the QX6700 we ran was 1.35v. Above, you see the BIOS Processor temperature readout for each processor compared side by side. The QX6700 runs about 4C hotter in this environment.

 

First, I compared the 2 Processors with Sisoftware Sandra Synthetic Benchmark.

The QX6700 is 80% faster in these 2 processor benchmarks! Sigh... I wish these numbers could translate real-world.

3D Mark, PC Mark, CineBench

Since we are testing Processors here, let's take a look at the CPU Scores churned out in 3D Mark 06:

3D Mark 06's CPU Test is very well programmed in terms of multi-threading so you can see the 2.66GHz Core 2 Quad outperforming the 2.93GHz Core 2 Duo by close to 60%.

CineBench is another benchmark well-programmed to utilize multi-processors and is based on the CINEMA 4D software.

Here, the QX6700 outruns the X6800 by 48%.

FutureMark PC Mark 05 CPU Performance comparison:

QX6700 scores 14% higher here.

Gaming, Video Rendering, Multi-Tasking

Gaming? I ran Quake 4 updated with the Multi-threading patch.

Apparently, the multi-threading boost is minimal, and the higher clocked X6800 actually outperforms the QX6700 by 8%.

 

I tested out Video Rendering with Adobe Premiere on a 5 minute 30 seconds Video clip adorned with a huge tonne of effects.

Even here, you can see that the 4 cores onboard are not fully utilized from the task manager screenshot seen above.

The X6800 actually finishes 2 Minutes 17 Seconds faster! That's 6% faster than the QX6700. It's time we throw in some multi-tasking since we don't like to sit on our bums to wait for tasks to finish before starting on our next one.

 

I started the Video Rendering again, and then went on to run Adobe Acrobat Professional to convert a 200 page Powerpoint file into PDF format.
(The conversion runs on the IDE Hard Disk while the Rendering takes place on the SATA, to prevent Hard Disk bottleneck) Once that was started, it was time to do some Quake 4 Fragging.

In such a scenario, the table was turned. The QX6700 was only slightly affected (1% slowdown) and the whole video took 22 seconds longer to render. The X6800 on the other hand slows down by 12%, taking 3Min 41Sec longer to render the whole video. The QX6700 is 3% faster than the X6800 is this particular Multi-tasking scenario.

Performance in Windows Vista

Jumping onto Quad Core is probably future-proofing oneself and one would probably expect the benefits to fester as we move to Windows Vista. I tested out performance briefly on Windows Vista RC1 (v5600-16384). It seems Windows Movie Maker is better-tuned at multi-threading and publishing a movie through it shows a lot more CPU utilization on the QX6700.

QX6700 publishes my movie file 38% faster when I use the Windows Movie Maker, on Vista.

 

A very generic Processor benchmark provided on Windows Vista Accessment Tool.

QX6700 performs 5% better in this MicroSoft Benchmark Index.

Power Consumption

Yes, power consumption is a consideration for many. You might straightout figure a double in power consumption using a 1+1=2 calculation, but let's just clip on the Clamp Amp Meter to take a look.

Results seen above. During more normal operations, the QX6700 should be consuming about 4% more power in a typical setup, while under intense multi-threading scenario, it can consume up to 15% more power. Do take note that percentages are based over the entire setup's power consumption.

Overclocking

Overclocking? Yes, quite a bit of head-room for that!

Without any increase in voltage and bumping up the multiplier up to 13x from the default 10x (The Multipliers on the QX6700 are unlocked upwards and downwards by the way), the QX6700 we have on hand has no problem doing 3.466GHz fully stable. That's a 30% increase in clock speed on a Quad Core Processor that easily! After the whole session of testing I retried this with the default air-cooler instead of the Ninja and I had no problems keeping it 100% stable at this same speed. Simple pressing of the + button three times in the BIOS screen got me 25% increase in performance!

 

Bumping the voltage up to 1.45v, and cooling the CPU with the Ninja Tower Cooler, 3.73GHz fully stable is no issue. 1.07GHz extra Quad Core performance can be realistically expected on the QX6700 if you are running a decent air-cooler setup. I find that the processor is quite sensitive to temperature, more so than voltage at normal air-cooling temperature, as 1.55v makes it less stable due to heat.

There are some issues with the Kentsfield and high FSB runnning so I tested out the maximum FSB attainable on it.

356MHz FSB Air-cooled... but at 3915MHz it is definitely not fully stable with just air-cooling. It does seem that the 400+ FSB we have been seeing on the Core 2 Duos may not be as easily seen on Core 2 Quad, unless perhaps the BX2, revision 2 holds a surprise in this department.

Well, this session of overclocking was a rather effortless try. I shall continue with Water-cooling next and then perhaps even more extreme cooling.

Conclusion

The outstanding X factor of the Core 2 Quad for me is first of all, the very non-proportional power consumption/ Heat output, in a good way. I saw for myself that the power drawn is not a huge amount over the Core 2 Duo even with Quad Cores. This is rather pleasing when you know that it is technically a double serving of a Core 2 Duo. The overclocking, particularly with this latest Stepping 7 batch of processors, is impressive as well, for you can blast it up 30% without much effort. This will probably be the final stepping before the processor "goes gold". Yet the lack of good and wide-spread multi-threading support in many applications throws a wet blanket on it, and we do not see it performing up to it's potential in many cases unless one is in a processor intensive multi-tasking environment. An ambitious step forward and a great show of technology nonetheless... we should get there soon brothers!

Pre-Order Kentsfield QX6700 Now!

 

Overall Rating : 82 VRMarks!

Discuss This Review in our Forum

Return Home

Check Hottest Deals

Check Latest Price