Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Sample Preview

MojoKid writes "Intel took the wraps off a new Core 2 Duo desktop chip today, dubbed the E6750. Though this chip shares the same basic clock speed as the Core 2 Duo E6700 at 2.66GHz, this new processor also runs on a faster 1,333MHz Front Side Bus. The new chip's additional bus bandwidth affords it up to a 5% performance advantage over standard 1066MHz FSB-based Core 2 chips. However, what's perhaps more promising is this new chip's overclocking head-room of up to 3.92GH and beyond on standard air cooling."

All on one page

[edgr]

The link to the article all on one page is http://www.hothardware.com/printarticle.aspx?artic leid=989 [hothardware.com]

Re:Good marketing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Overclocking raise the heat and power consumption, and the most important, it lower the lifetime of the CPU. Intel have to guarantee that chips work a certain amount of years, this is not so important in the desktop world, but in the server space it is very important.

Re:Overclocking...

[commlinx]

Exactly, and why the chip is sold as 2.66GHz not the 3.92GHz that the marketing department would prefer. Semiconductor manufacturers do a stellar job of testing and specifying things over the complete operating range of the device. Ignoring obvious differences in things like ambient temperature and power supply fluctuations when you overclock a device you risk a number of factors for reliability. Any temperature measurement is always taken at a single point and if another point on the surface of the silicon is hotter, for example because your application of heatsink compound was not so great or it contains higher speed switching and more dense circuitry in that area you always run the risk of frying things. Not to mention there is a difference between running a game that might place peak demands on the CPU and allow it to cool versus compute-intensive applications where you might want to drive all cores at 100% over a long period. And they might be using a different section of the processor, and your CPU might be from a different batch, and...

Re:Good marketing?

[jawtheshark]

Yes, it's all market related... but not how you think.

There is no such thing as a xyz GHz chip. They are all the same (except for caches on chip and so, but let's neglect that) The chips are all made from the same wafers and then are tested: those that are tested at high speeds and work, get sold als "high speed chips", the chips that fail are tested at lower speed and then, if they work, sold for that speed.

Now, that's fine in theory, the problem is that when the yields of high speed chips are very high. At that point Intel has a problem: their high-premium chips are plentiful and hence they should sell them at lower cost. Especially that they don't have lower speed chips that are for the middle and low-segment market. But wait! Why not just sell the chips that work at high speeds, but tell the customer that they are slower speed chips. The (average) customer will not test if it runs higher speeds, and frankly, it is not in their interest to do because they would lose warranty.

That's what really happens...

Xeon

[AnimeDTA]

Some models of Xeons run at 1066 and 1333. Just off the specs on the article I'd say they released those Xeon CPUs as desktop model on the LGA775 socket. The larger cache, higher bus speed, thermal design and Smart Cache match up to the Xeon E51xx and E53xx.

Re:"Up to 5%..."

[cowbutt]

Now what I would like to see advertised - but won't - is slower but highly reliable motherboards, processors and memory at commercial prices. How about a Core Duo Reliability Edition? I would reallyt like to be able to build a server and a few desktops from commodity hardware and almost be able to forget about them for 5 years.

Er, that's exactly why I stick with Intel CPUs on quality motherboards (Gigabyte/ASUS) that use Intel chipsets and Crucial memory, despite the taunting of my AMD fanboy friends. Also, pay attention to your cooling and PSU (i.e. fit as many fans as you physically can fit in the case, and don't use the cheapest case/PSU combination you can find), as cutting corners here will severely impact your reliability. I'm not interested in overclocking, either. My oldest self-built Intel machine is 9 years old this summer and being used as a desktop by my dad. I also have a 5 year old Celeron machine that's on 24/7 as my MythTV box and firewall.

I know it's possible to build reliable AMD-based systems, but it seems to be harder work, and probably involves going with an Opteron on a Tyan or Supermicro board in order to be able to use an AMD chipset, rather than one of the third-party (e.g. VIA, SiS, ALI) chipsets.

Electrolytic capacitor reliability has been a problem throughout the electronics industry for the last 10 years or so, but even that should be less of a problem shortly. Gigabyte, for one, are introducing all-solid capacitor [gigabyte.com.tw] boards to eliminate this weak link in the chain.

Re:Megahertz myth

[OverlordQ]

You know what "Turion 64 X2 TL56" means?

Turion - Series
64 - 64-bit CPU
X2 - Dual-Core
TL - Taylor Core
56 - Dunno.

Go ahead, OVERCLOCK to your harts content.

[viking80]

Of course people overclock. instead of buying the 2.6GHz Core 2 Duo, you just buy the 1.8GHz version and pay half the money ($160 insted of $320).

Now just overclock it back up to 2.6GHz.

You may want to do a little 2 corner testing (Voltage and Temp), just to make sure you are within stable regime.

As long as you dont overvoltage the chip, there is really no reason not to max out the clock rate. As soon as the CPU idles, it underclocks automatically anyway, so you get the boost only when you need it.

If you do any home video decoding, the difference is huge.

To make the point clear: You can burn out a power transistor if you run it too hard, but this is not possible on a CPU. It will hang long before it even gets close to be damaged. If the chip overheats and/or is driven at a too high clock, it just hangs. Reset and cool, and it is good as new.

Re:Good marketing?

[level_headed_midwest]

Yes and no. You are correct in that a two-platter 250 GB drive and a two-platter 320 GB drive likely use the same platters, with the 250 GB unit being "locked." But the hard drive manufacturer can and does vary the number of platters for differing capacities as well as putting in a different motor for different speeds. Intel generally has one set of dies for all of a certain arch of chip- the Core Duo, Core Solo, Pentium Dual Core, and Celeron M 400 series are made from the same mask. Even the Core 2 Duos are generally all made from one mask, with a handful of Merom-2Ms and Allendales being made from the smaller 111 mm^2 mask rather than the 140 mm^2 one for 4 MB L2 cache.

Re:"Up to 5%..."

[niko9]

The company your are looking for is Tyan. http://www.tyan.com/ [tyan.com] Their workstation and server boards are some of the most reliable around, i.e., for people in the know. You don't hear much about them from "mainstream" review sites because the boards lack l33t OC'ing features and super cool LED lit fans. Take a look at their workstation boards, they make a great desktop board alternative. Available for AMD and Intel CPU's.

I have had zero issues with any series of boards I have used from them, and all of them with Linux no less.

Re:Good marketing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes and no. That does happen, but not precisely for the reason you mentioned.

Equilibrium price is what it is because it maximizes profit for both the buyer and the seller. If Intel could sell more chips at a lower price with the same costs, they would. The problem is two-fold: first, there's a "luxury" effect. Some buyers think that because they are spending more, they are getting more. These people (as a group) would buy more chips at $600 than at $400. It's a small effect, but it exists, and Intel knows this.

The second, and probably more important reason, is that those yields aren't STABLE and vary from product to product (and to a lesser extent, batch to batch). If Intel dropped the price on their chips to widen sales on their mid-range market, the high end market wouldn't exist when Intel went to the next generation of chips (which had much poorer yields). So in essence, Intel is sacrificing short-term profit for stability of their market.

IANASemiconductorEngineer, but this is a purely Economics driven decision.