Categories:

Performance Summary

Performance Summary

Ad

The Core 2 Duo E6750 was more overclockable than the Core 2 Extreme QX6850, but not by the large margin we’d thought was possible. We’d hoped that a few changes in settings would allow an approximation of Q6600 capability, at least for Q6600’s that have the same stellar G0 core stepping revision. This obviously didn’t happen. Still, we can prove the gaming advantage goes to the cheaper dual-core, can’t we?

At its maximum clock speed, the better-overclocking Core 2 Duo E6750 edges out the Core 2 Extreme QX6850 in games. At other speeds, the QX6850 wins. Gamers will be happy to see how close these two are, as it justifies buying the cheaper processor and spending the huge amount of leftover cash on something more important - like a second $600 graphics card!

Many applications are coded to use multiple cores, but a few are still limited to one or two threads. We expect a fairly large average gain for the four-core processor, but how well did it do in a maximum-overclocking race?

At 2.66 GHz, four cores beat two by around 36%. The difference narrows a bit when both processors are overclocked to extremes, which we expected because the Core 2 Duo E6750 overclocks higher than the Core 2 Extreme E6850.

Some synthetic benchmarks test raw CPU power, so we can expect to see the greatest four-core advantage here.

At 2.66 GHz, the Core 2 Extreme is ahead of the Core 2 Duo by a whopping 86%. Once again, the four-core advantage narrows a little at maximum CPU speed, due to the dual-core’s better overclocking capability.


Talkback

Leftfield42 09/08/2007 12:33
Hide
-0+
Leftfield42
Er, it might just be me, but where are the piccies??
blade85 09/08/2007 02:19
Hide
-0+
blade85
haha, i dont see them either
skyline0511 10/08/2007 10:08
Hide
-0+
skyline0511
Try disabling your adblock plus if ur using firefox. Others disable any ad blocker
Cabelo 10/08/2007 12:25
Hide
-0+
Cabelo
Can anyone still not see them? They seem to be alright now...
CJJE 15/08/2007 07:06
Hide
-0+
CJJE
Like many flight sim enthusiasts, I am trying to decide the most cost-effective CPU for FSX SP1. This can use multi-cores we're told but reports suggest not that well.

Could you add FSX SP1 (under Vista) to your benchmarks for CPUs please? I am particularly interested to know whether the E6850 is better than the Q6600 or not!

Note You are going to post a comment as anonymous.

  •  

Google Ads