Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Core 2 Updates, QX6850 and E6750

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the reminds-me-of-a-daft-punk-song dept.

Intel 105

An anonymous reader writes "As AMD's Barcelona approaches, the price war between AMD and Intel continues. To spice things up a bit this week, Intel is throwing into the ring a number of new processors, refreshing the Core2 line-up. HEXUS reviews the high-end QX6850 and mid-range E6750: 'Now is a golden time for anyone looking to buy a new CPU, whether Intel or AMD. The latest round of price cuts means you can now get an incredible level of processing performance for little more than £100. But if your need to buy is not urgent, remember that Intel and its big rival are each promising new processors before the end of the year — AMD with K10 quad-core and Intel with 45nm Penryn-derived CPUs.'"

cancel ×

105 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Unasked, unanswered question (4, Insightful)

ceeam (39911) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875129)

Have they fixed those bugs?

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875195)

Yes.

Download the latest BIOS for your motherboard or PC vendor (Dell, HP...etc). This will contain updated microcode.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875717)

Unlikely to be true. Motherboard vendors don't release new updates for microcode updates, only for bugs - and then often only for the first couple of months of the motherboards' life... and even then they may not actually include the updates (eg. the latest bios for the mobo on my big server was released in may and includes no such updates).

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

utopianfiat (774016) | more than 7 years ago | (#19877239)

uh, you mean like, these bugs? [slashdot.org]
I can't really blame you for speaking out of your ass, because the "related stories" section isn't working properly.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875285)

Unasked, unanswered, uninteresting question. It has bugs, and so's every consumer CPU since before the infamous Pentium floating point bug because as the fix some, they get some new. Most of those are worked around in BIOS or in basic OS routines, and the Core 2 processors are neither worse nor better than the rest (AMD or Intel). I'm happy to keep AMD around for competition but this is just FUD against Intel.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875519)

True, all chips have bugs, but not all bugs are created equal. The Pentium floating point bug, for example was one that could not be "worked around in BIOS or in basic OS routines" and required that Intel offer replacement chips. The bugs in the news recently are important to consider because unlike most bugs they could have security ramifications.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875603)

"It has bugs, and so's every consumer CPU since before the infamous Pentium floating point bug"

So Intels "professional" CPUs dont have bugs? or what you mean is that all of Intel CPUs are "consumer" CPUs? because server CPUs are affected by the bugs as well. I guess that they are "consumer servers".

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875765)

Shut the fuck up, retard.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19876797)

Anger problem

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19877179)

Jew.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875929)

x86 servers are referred to in that manner. They differ from what is referred to as "big iron"...so...yea.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1, Flamebait)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875981)

So, I suppose you will blame the BIOS or the OS or anything _but_ _your_choice_ of CPUs when the security-related bugs that promise to allow any script kid to compromise your servers in unprecedented ways are exploited.

For me, choosing any CPU that has known security bugs to be used on any connected computer is reason enough to be fired.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (4, Insightful)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876959)

So, I suppose you will blame the BIOS or the OS or anything _but_ _your_choice_ of CPUs when the security-related bugs that promise to allow any script kid to compromise your servers in unprecedented ways are exploited.

For me, choosing any CPU that has known security bugs to be used on any connected computer is reason enough to be fired.
What security bugs? I don't know where people get the idea that there were security bugs in the errata Intel released. Theo said that out of 50 bugs "2-3" were "potentially exploitable", but as far as I know no-one has given so much as a proof of concept.

Saying that these bugs "allow any script kid to compromise your servers in unprecedented ways" is totally over the top.
  • No-one has shown that any of the bugs contain any sort of vulnerability,
  • no-one has shown that any of the hypothetical vulnerabilities allow remote code execution,
  • no-one has shown that any of the hypothetical remote code execution vulnerabilities could be exploited in realistic scenarios,
  • certainly nothing has been made available to script kids,
  • and I don't even know what "in unprecedented ways" means in this context.

It is just FUD, until someone can actually point out a realistic code execution vulnerability, or even a PoC, even one that could be exploited in unrealistic scenarios, even a DoS, an idea, anything!

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

ppanon (16583) | more than 7 years ago | (#19878909)

Maybe Theo was just wise enough, for once, to keep quiet, at least temporarily, about how to exploit a processor bug for which no fix or workaround exists and avoid handing it on a plate to skript kiddies and hackers-for-hire?

Just because he didn't demonstrate an exploit doesn't mean it can't be done. If you're serious about security then his comments ought to set of your paranoia triggers off. Theo's been (obnoxiously) right a lot more often than his detractors have.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880513)

Maybe Theo was just wise enough, for once, to keep quiet, at least temporarily, about how to exploit a processor bug for which no fix or workaround exists and avoid handing it on a plate to skript kiddies and hackers-for-hire?

Just because he didn't demonstrate an exploit doesn't mean it can't be done. If you're serious about security then his comments ought to set of your paranoia triggers off. Theo's been (obnoxiously) right a lot more often than his detractors have.
You're saying the most well known advocate of full disclosure isn't disclosing vulnerabilities? This is really clutching at straws.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

fmileto (533185) | more than 7 years ago | (#19886455)

with blackhat next week I would guess that a POC will be released then or that everyones to busy working on their blue pill detector

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19884573)

Some of the Intel Core bugs are reliability issues. In fact most security bugs are also reliability issues as well.

I wouldn't buy one based on what I've read from Matthew Dillon (on /.) in response to what Theo de Raadt brought up, and my own understanding of these bugs. They rushed the Intel Core architecture to market.

It's not just FUD. It's your ignorance IMO.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19877871)

For me, choosing any CPU that has known security bugs to be used on any connected computer is reason enough to be fired.

Congratulations, you just fired every sysadmin in the world. I hate to break this to you, but all modern processors have lots of bugs. They are usually subtle, and they can usually be worked around in one way or another, but they all have them. Expecting a modern processor, with hugely complicated microcode, to be bug-free is like saying you could write a full-scale, bug-free operating system: the costs of doing so would be astronomical, so pretty much no-one does.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879327)

A floating point bug is one thing. A bug that creates an exploitable security hole is something very different.

And no. I seriously doubt that every modern processor has a known security problem in its hardware. For me, the Intel processors mentioned in that errata Theo made some noises a couple days ago are out of question on any critical activities for now.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 7 years ago | (#19882901)

"Expecting a modern processor, with hugely complicated microcode, to be bug-free is like saying you could write a full-scale, bug-free operating system: the costs of doing so would be astronomical, so pretty much no-one does."

Still, both goals are worthy. Although for practical reasons, perhaps only the bug-free OS is feasible.

We live in an era of persistent internet connections, large numbers of attackers attacking computers attached to those connections, and money to be made in compromising systems. We are also seeing a diminished number of "killer apps" requiring more computing power than what is cheaply available.

It seems that the logical direction software should be moving towards is refinement. It costs nothing to replicate software. And bugs are finite.

Think of it like a car. Every model has problems, and they are usually bugs that can be fixed. A little plastic part that should have been made out of metal gets fatigue and cracks. The difference between models of cars and models of operating systems is that the design of the OS is the OS itself, whereas the design of a car is useless without a huge industrial plant necessary to build the car cheaply.

One allows a situation where the profit motive ensures that consumers are jerked around believing that their new expensive car is a great improvement, and yet it carries the same amount of people, at the same speed, wastes the same amount of energy, and has the same number of poorly designed parts that will break on you ten years down the track as the same car 50 years ago. The OS however allows a situation where something free and asymptotically approaching perfect is theoretically possible given time.

The processor situation is different again from the car industry and also the OS industry. Processors are very difficult for fashion to influence. They are unseen, have very little use for conveying status, and provide computing performance for a given power consumption and security risk. Thus although they require expensive plants to produce, they are more of a commodity. But reducing bugs will become more of a focus just as reducing power consumption has become important.

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (1)

galraooo (1124003) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875307)

I think yes, AMD aways try to keep the good quality, but i enjoy more Intel. The support of these thinks aways do a great job. See ya... Galrao http://www.toloicouto.adv.br/ [toloicouto.adv.br]

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (5, Informative)

bernywork (57298) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875487)

Yes and no,

Some of the bugs will be fixed, others won't. Every CPU has bugs, it's just a fact of life. These things are designed by humans, it's just going to happen. CPU errata happens with Intel (This is the Core2 link) [intel.com] and AMD [amd.com] . None of this is a major threat to most users, and they get worked around by most people pretty quickly. Microsoft have released fixes for the Core2 issue, as have Apple. I don't know whether there has been an update to the kernel for these yet, but I am sure they would get back ported by your distribution.

There is a note here [realworldtech.com] and here [dailytech.com] regarding the Core 2 bugs, I think one of these might have even become a slashdot article at one point. The two links here both are referring to Linus' comment of it being "Totally insignificant", which given that he worked for Transmeta and knows a lot more about how the industry works, I would be putting a bit of faith in his statement.

As another poster said, keep up to date on your BIOS revs, as CPU microcode does have fixes for this stuff too.

Berny

Re:Unasked, unanswered question (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19878239)

... These things are designed by humans ...

Okay..., who else is there to design this stuff. If machines (robots, or whatever you want to put in here) were able to produce stuff (in an industrial sort of way), they'd probably be manufacturing organic stuff, like stomach's (with which to enjoy food), penises and vaginas (well you know...) and hearts (to experience emotion and toil) and all those things that make being human interesting, unique and 'messy'. Funny isn't it, we're all trying to make their stuff, and if they could, they'd probably be trying to make our stuff.

Another review and benchmarks (4, Informative)

mikemuch (870535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875165)

The benchmark I want: (1)

gerf (532474) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875941)

Hexus PiFast Challenge! They stopped updating the scores a couple years back, but it's interesting to see the sheer speed increases through the years.

And yes, that is me near the bottom with an old laptop (that still runs).

QX6850 costs $999USD (5, Informative)

Organic User (1103717) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875179)

Just in case anyone is interested in buying a new QX6850 which features 3Ghz 8mb cache quad core processor with 1,333MHz FSB. It is going to cost you $999.

Required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875287)

Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these!!!

Re:QX6850 costs $999USD (1)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875367)

Bargain!

Re:QX6850 costs $999USD (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875545)

Yeah, "early adopters" and all that...

BTW, is anyone else peeved at the notation "333 MHz (1333 MHz QDR)", as it was over at Hexus? I mean, the bus speed -- the data speed -- *is* really 1333 MHz, it's quite incidental that it is based on a 333 MHz source clock (using the "QDR" method of two signals half a phase out of sync and encoding at every falling and rising wawe edge, thus at four slots per clock tick). At the least it should be "1333 MHz (333 MHz QDR)" -- do these guys understand the tech they are writing reviews about?

Okay, I'm not *sure* I understand it either, but least the notation should be "1333 MHz (333 MHz QDR)" ;-)

Re:QX6850 costs $999USD (1)

narsiman (67024) | more than 7 years ago | (#19877817)

With a falling dollar, that will be 80 euros in a few months.

Re:QX6850 costs $999USD (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 7 years ago | (#19878559)

Yeah, well, duh. This is Intel and their new top notch desktop CPU. I would be very surprised if it did not cost $999 to the dollar. They always do.

Re:QX6850 costs $999USD (1)

glitch23 (557124) | more than 7 years ago | (#19882485)

The price isn't news since the QX6800s debuted at $999 with some online stores putting a $250 markup on them.

More Details, Analysis Here, HH Review (5, Informative)

MojoKid (1002251) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875181)

HotHardware also has a full review up right here [hothardware.com] . They were able to take the new quad-core up to over 3.7GHz and show power consumption numbers for all the high end chips as well.

Tom's Hardware (3, Informative)

Wicko (977078) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876049)

Here is another by Tom's hardware, covers benchmarking the 6650 as well, and compares to all the current AMD and Intel chips in a whole wack of different benchmarks.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/07/16/cpu_charts_ 2007/index.html [tomshardware.com]

RIP Power PC. (0, Offtopic)

Pionus (1128701) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875273)

I use to check all the performance charts back when AIM was still alive. Now I really can't care about them. Would have loved to see a G6 pwn Intel and AMD, oh well. Long Live PowerPC. I'll Always Run You!

Re:RIP Power PC. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875911)

apple stop making chips, to concentrate on mp3 players!!!

oh well they were always the fisher price of computers;

at least now its plain to even the thickest and most loyal fanboi that they've just poured loads of eye candy over a unix setup, and thrown a load of their usual marketing into the mix.

oh btw you're offtopic you stupid twat.

Re:RIP Power PC. (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#19879509)

"Would have loved to see a G6 pwn Intel and AMD"

If you are thinking about floating point performance, it does. It's not called G6 - we call it Cell.

Re:RIP Power PC. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880845)

Actually, the Cell's PPU is of the POWER architecture.

Re:RIP Power PC. (1)

rbanffy (584143) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881929)

Yeas, but the PPU is rather lame in performance when compared to the SPUs.

If Apple took it, it could be called G6

Re:RIP Power PC. (1)

seebs (15766) | more than 7 years ago | (#19886501)

Cell can run rings around Intel on floating point or integer [b]vector operations[/b]. Not on anything else. And, in practice, the development time is so disproportionate that it's not worth it except for hobbyists or supercomputing apps.

For everything else, it's a hyperthreaded (not even dual-core) 3.2GHz in-order PPC64. Bo-ring.

Stackable cores (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875281)

I always thought it would be cool if they could get to the point where you buy another core and just plug it in on top of the ones you already have, stacking them up as you need them. The cooling system would have to be ridiculous on that though.

Re:Stackable cores (1)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875311)

Cooling systems have a zero gain.

The amount of hot air spouted by people with custom cooling systems is cancelled out by the amount of cooling they produce.

Re:Stackable cores (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875343)

"The amount of hot air spouted by people with custom cooling systems is cancelled out by the amount of cooling they produce."

That's probably true. Perhaps we can manufacture a sort of catalytic converter that people should attach to their faces to stop them from expelling such noxious gases.

I vote for duct tape.

Re:Stackable cores (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875593)

I'm too lazy to look up the reference but I thought someone was working on this...possibly Intel.
Or maybe that was something else. I don't remember it being like a CPU that had a socket for another CPU on the top of it, I think it was more on the nano-scale....
Hmm, now I'm trying to think what they were using that technology for then...

Marketspeak (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875293)

"Now is a golden time for anyone looking to buy a new CPU, whether Intel or AMD."

Read as:

For the love of God, PLEASE buy these things. The warehouse is full, it's bursting, it's...oh, the humanities...

Re:Marketspeak (1)

moranar (632206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875373)

Nah. The introduction of big new shinies also usually means that the lower end ones get discounted. Big opportunity there.

Re:Marketspeak (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19882169)

It's 'ode to humanity'.

Price cuts (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875295)

Just as a point of interest, when I was looking for new components around a fortnight ago, suppliers were were already listing high-end chips in the forthcoming E6x50 series at lower prices than even the mid-range chips from the older E6x00 range. The E6600 has been near the sweet spot on the price/performance curve for quite a while now, so if you're looking for a cheap upgrade, it looks like they'll be practically giving away E6600s and E6700s for as long as they last.

Re:Price cuts (2)

ubuwalker31 (1009137) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875415)

I've never equated $222.90 [newegg.com] to "giving away free" before...but in comparison to $999 for the QX6850, it does seem like a steal. Especially since I can't find the QX6850 on sale anywhere yet....

Re:Price cuts (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875501)

I see no signs of price cuts yet for E6x00 chips, but I also see no-one actually shipping E6x50 chips yet.

However, I just checked several popular UK components web sites, and it's common to find (for example) an E6750 on pre-order at near enough the same price as an E6600 to buy today. Prices for the E6850 pre-order vs. E6700 shipping today are similarly close. To me, that suggests a big price drop for the E6x00 chips is coming.

Re:Price cuts (4, Informative)

Emetophobe (878584) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875697)

There's a planned price cut for Intel on July 22nd. http://www.vr-zone.com/index.php?i=4976 [vr-zone.com]

Q6600 2.4 1066 $530 $266
E6850 3.0 1333 - $266
E6750 2.66 1333 - $183
E6550 2.33 1333 - $163
E6540 2.33 1333 - $163

The quad core (Q6600) is getting a ~50% price cut.

Re:Price cuts (1)

MXPS (1091249) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875893)

The $266 price for q6600 that everyone is quoting is NOT the MSRP. The $266 price is for each chip, if you buy 1000 or more from Intel (OEM chips). The retail price for the q6600 will definitly be more than $266 as the retailers will need to make a profit.

Re:Price cuts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880863)

then are you saying the $530 "now" price in that table is...? the MSRP? the cost per chip in a lot of 1000? the street price for the chip is lower than $530. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8 2E16819115017 [newegg.com]

Re:Price cuts (1)

BlueHands (142945) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881913)

it will be close to that even if it isn't exactly that. frankly, the notion that in a couple months i might spend just under 300 dollars and get a quad core cpu is....amazing. or to put it another way: in just a month you will get a %100 increase in number of cores for a %50 increase in price.

wow.

Re:Price cuts (2, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19877175)

Athlon64 X2 4000+ 2.1GHz (Brisbane-65nm) - $70

Yes, this low-end dual-core is half the price, but not half the performance. Therefor a real bargain.

Re:Price cuts (1)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 7 years ago | (#19884751)

Athlon64 X2 4000+ 2.1GHz (Brisbane-65nm) - $70

Yes, this low-end dual-core is half the price, but not half the performance. Therefor a real bargain.

After next week's price cuts, Intel's low-end Pentium Dual-Core E2160 (Allendale, 1.8GHz, 800MHz FSB, 1MB L2 cache) will also be a real bargain. It's $96 today at Newegg, but next week it'll be $84 (Intel list price, not street price) [vr-zone.com] .

Note that 9 days ago, the Athlon 64 X2 4000+ was about $100 [dailytech.com] before AMD's July 9 price cut to $73 (AMD list price) [informationweek.com] .

Tom's Hardware shows [tomshardware.com] the Pentium Dual-Core 2160 outperforming an Athlon 64 X2 4000+ in open-source audio/video encoders and Photoshop. I'd like to find better performance comparisons between these two CPUs, but most of the good sites seem to ignore the Pentium E21xx series in favor of the Core 2 Duo E4xxx series (Allendale, 2MB L2 cache).

Intel / AMD (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875349)

I'm in the market to build my own PC. I have always been an AMD fan (purely because of 64-bit support), but have been annoyed in the past at some software (such as codecs - this was before Automatix2 for my Ubuntu box) not being available. I'm thinking an Intel QuadCore or the AMD Athlon 64 6000+ (Dual Core), but am tempted to wait a little longer - especially if AMD open the ATI GPU drivers and now i'm tempted to wait for these new chips! Choice...choice...choice...

Re:Intel / AMD (2, Interesting)

ShamrawkNRoll88 (1113451) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875497)

Thats the problem with the computer market. You have to suck it up and just do it.

There's always something new and better and more shiny coming out next month.

Re:Intel / AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19876773)

> Thats the problem with the computer market. You have to suck it up and just do it.

The upgrade slope may be constant, but the compatibility curve is pretty hilly. That said, there's no new bus or memory standards over the immediate horizon, so if you get a quadcore-compatible mobo, you'll be able to put newer CPUs in it for some years to come.

Me, I got a socket 754 AMD with AGP at the tail end of the lifecycle of both of those lines. But I knew what I was getting, and I got it super-cheap.

Re:Intel / AMD (1)

j79zlr (930600) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875633)

ATi is not going to open up the GPU drivers, so I wouldn't wait on that account.

Re:Intel / AMD (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876127)

I was under the impression they were looking at doing precisely that, or at least the hardware specs.

Re:Intel / AMD (1)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 7 years ago | (#19877147)

They might, but then again, they might not. Wait until they actually do something other than say they might do something before you make a decision.

Re:Intel / AMD (1)

Disfnord (1077111) | more than 7 years ago | (#19878717)

Nope. A marketing guy said something about working on better Linux drivers at one point, and a blogger mistakenly reported this as "ATI is open sourcing their drivers". Slashdot and Digg jumped all over the blog, no one RTFA, and now we have a horde of misinformed people like yourself who are sure AMD said they where open-sourcing ATI drivers. They have NEVER said that, and it is highly unlikely that they ever will.

Re:Intel / AMD (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 7 years ago | (#19881259)

Actually, I said I was under the impression they would do one or the other, and that's given their previous history.

I have no idea what posting/blog you're referring to. Perhaps you would do well not to jump to conclusions and think someone's "misinformed"?

Messing up their own market? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875429)

I think, that with all the "pushing another processor in the market", they are making people to wait longer before they buy another processor. I'm looking for a new laptop, but sincerely, I'm still waiting so I won't fall in the same Core Duo/ Core 2 Duo trick. I bet lots of people are thinking the same way. So I'll wait at least until the T7000 series get cheaper (and also those 2G DRAM).

Re:Messing up their own market? (1)

Rickler (894262) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876923)

The yearly June price drop for ram has already come and soon it will be gone ram prices are already going up.

hitachi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875467)

where is the high end SH processors?

Re:hitachi? (1)

roarinelk (791328) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875657)

If you're a big Japanese OEM, you can get some SH7785 (600MHz SH4a)
which apparently perform quite well for their low power consumption
(however outside of Japan it's apparently damn near impossible to get
  newer SH chips. We've tried and failed to even get a roadmap from
Renesas Europe)

Renesas is refocussing on multi-core chips instead of higher clocks
(IIRC the SH-X3 is a quad-core design and already running linux)

Re:hitachi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879701)

Ah, the SH line. Put to most famous use in the Sega Dreamcast (SH4@200mhz) and Sega Saturn (SH2 x2 @ 28.6mhz). Implemented right, they can do decent things.

Also to be included: New DRM technology (2, Insightful)

ProdigySim (817093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875553)

What they don't mention is that just about every new processor they're releasing (or dropping prices on) comes with their new "Trusted eXecution Technology" built in.
This will be the on-die partner of Trusted Platform Module, which is already built into motherboards of this generation.

From Wikipedia:

Trusted Execution Technology (TET or TXT), formerly known as LaGrande Technology is a key component of Intel's initiative of "safer computing" . Intel claims that it will be very useful, especially in the business world , as a way to defend against software-based attacks aimed at stealing sensitive information. Although commonly advertised by Intel as security technology, the Free Software Foundation claims that it can also be used to enable development of more advanced, tamper-resistant forms of DRM, and can be abused to achieve vendor lock-in.
(Link) [wikipedia.org] Personally, I'm going to avoid this technology if I possibly can.

Mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19877503)

The real price for this increased performance is that it lets corporations usurp control of your computer.

Caveat Emptor!

Re:Also to be included: New DRM technology (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#19883679)

Yeah, they never used the TPM against us, so let's sweat about something else. Face it; the backlash against Palladium was so great that it'll stay dead.

Conclusion: 90% tests 6n50 = 6n00 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19875611)

The real question is, how long before the $1K 1033FSB CPUs drop to under $300 dollars. That is the only time it would make sense to upgrade my measly E6600.

Is everyone /. a gamer ? (0, Flamebait)

udippel (562132) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875873)

Just amazed about the craze about the latest and greatest.
Here I am running 4 terminals, Thunderbird, Firefox with around 20 tabs, a P2P-client, frequently an instance of mplayer, OpenOffice. Just the average user.
And this runs on OpenSolaris resp. Debian, and the processor load hoovers between 10 and 65%. On a Sempron 3000. With 0% swap use. Okay, at compiling (e.g. mplayer) the thing sucks. But how many percent of the users are developers ? And how many are die-hard gamers. And then, QX6850 and E6750 surely (still) suck just as much.

For me: Nothing to be seen here ...

Well then (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876221)

Go scroll some text and stop bitching.

Seriously though, I don't get why people like to hate on new processor developments. Does everyone need them? No, surely not, but they allow for great things including pushing down the price of faster hardware. Do you like your nice high rez 2D interface? Like the fact that you can easily run 5+ different apps at the same time? Well then this is the kind of thing you have to thank for it. I remember a time not long ago, less than 2 decades, when you couldn't do that. I remember when computer video, to the extent it existed at all was best described as "postage stamp sized". I remember when playing MP3s was an activity that could take up an entire CPU's power. I remember when 1024x768 was something most monitors had to interlace to do.

I could go on, the point is because technology gets pushed at the high end, it trickles down to everyone. If you like what your system can do, and like that you can get it for a good price, you owe that to the fact that someone kept pushing what computers can do.

Also there are TONS of uses besides gaming for big CPUs. At work we can't get enough CPU power. The antenna design people especially are CPU hungry, but pretty much anyone who runs Matlab or HFSS or Cadence or Solidworks or anything like that has a virtually insatiable apatite for CPU power. The fact that we can get more power for less money in a desktop is nothing but good for us.

So if you enjoy what you do with a computer, great, but stop hating on those that have more to do, and recognise that the place cheap low end parts come from is expensive high end parts.

Re:Well then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19880015)

Fucking amen to that.

The fact that I can play back 1920x1080x24fps (or 60i) H.264 encoded video on an under $200 CPU today simply kicks ass.

Praise the lord for high-end-hardware pushing low-end forwards too.

Re:Is everyone /. a gamer ? (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876263)

Real PC gamers know to throw their money on a mid-range CPU and high-end video card.

It's the photoshop, transcoders, and CAD junkies that really go after these high-end CPUs.

Re:Is everyone /. a gamer ? (1)

init100 (915886) | more than 7 years ago | (#19878501)

It's the photoshop, transcoders, and CAD junkies that really go after these high-end CPUs.

I do some transcoding, but I went with the C2D E6320 anyway. It is still nearly four times as fast as my previous Athlon XP 2800+. :)

Re:Is everyone /. a gamer ? (1)

Saurian_Overlord (983144) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876541)

Sure, not everyone cares about this. As a gamer with a PC on the high side of "affordable," I'm not even sure I care that much. But it is interesting. It's nice to know about the new developments, whether or not I'm going to use them anytime soon.

Re:Is everyone /. a gamer ? (1)

eudaemon (320983) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876691)

This is not a "race to the bottom" posting to brag about who is on the smallest / slowest machine.

I do all my day-to-day web surfing from an OpenBSD P IV 1.5 GHz box running the latest distro.
Flash works fine, acrobat works fine and no worries about the bajillion signed-but-have-root active x controls,
acrobat overflow conditions, gifs/jpgs/etc with spyware/backdoor payloads, etc. Really, there's
no compelling reason to upgrade. But assuming I did the quantum leap in power to a recent intel or AMD
proc would get me by for several more years. Recently I've been mulling the use of a Sun X2100
instead but mostly due to the fact I have one laying around more than anything.

Do I have a Windows game machine? Sure. My current Windows desktop is a P IV 3.06GHz Northwood machine,
i.e. one of the few socket 478 processors to support hyperthreading. It runs XP very well and Vista passably,
and is my HD timeshifting box with a HDHomeRun digital tuner attached. Despite the age of the box
it plays whatever games I need it to well enough under XP and otherwise can drive a Viewsonic 32"
flat-panel in native resolution with no stutter or pause.

Intel or AMD may eventually get my money for a new machine just because, but even then the not-at-all-sexy
and clunky-by-today's-standards Northwood box will just be recycled as a MythTV machine easily extending its life
for another year or two.

So although it's sexy and cool that Intel and AMD just keep coming out with faster and lower-power procs,
there's nothing driving a switch. I wish there were because whatever that would be, it would probably be hella fun.

Re:Is everyone /. a gamer ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19877015)

Nope. Not everyone. My computer is a 7 years old Intel Pentium III 728mHz with 512MB RAM, 20GB Maxtor HD and a 145W PSU. The CPU itself is using 19.5W (TDP) according to some charts. The only thing that is failing sometimes is the PSU. I opened it up yesterday and had a look. Looked like some of the capacitors(?) had been leaking over the years, which I guess is the reason my computer just shuts down from time to time.. or won't boot. Most of the time it works just fine though. Running FreeBSD 6.2, with Firefox, Thunderbird, XFCE, GNU Emacs, Audacious...

Been thinking about buying a new computer for a while now. Seeing how the CPU prices keep falling guess I'm going to wait a bit longer. Not too eager about the ridiculously high TDP's. Lowest possible ATM seems to be an AMD 3800+ EE SFF (@ 35W TDP), but it's nowhere to be found. The next step are some new 45W TDP AMD CPU's.

Re:Is everyone /. a gamer ? (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 7 years ago | (#19877067)

But how many percent of the users are developers ? And how many are die-hard gamers.


That's irrelevant. The question to ask is, what percent of users on this forum are developers and/or die-hard gamers? This is, after all, "news for nerds", not "news for average users".

So are these Intel's fastest FP processors? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19875931)

Or is Itanium still trouncing their traditional x86 offerings in this regard?

Real Benefits on the Low End (2, Informative)

dlevitan (132062) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876413)

Anandtech [anandtech.com] has a pretty good article about these releases and also about the price cuts. This is looking great for me when I build a new computer in a few months (on which I'm planning to spend $150 chip from two years ago look pathetic. Oh well.

Of course, I'll need to figure out AMD vs. Intel. I just wish Intel had a better bus design. AMD has a good bus (HT) and Intel has the best chips right now. Maybe if they merged...

Re:Real Benefits on the Low End (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 7 years ago | (#19878843)

The "bus design" is irrelevent. If someone offers me a car that goes 0-60 in 3 seconds and gets 45mpg, or a car that goes 0-60 in 3.4 seconds and gets 40mpg but has a super new carbon fiber uber efficient torquenator, I'll take the first car - thanks!

The bus only makes a difference in a few specialized cases. If you're buying a 4S server or doing stuff where memory bandwidth is number 1 consideration, then you'll have to take it into consideration. Otherwise, it's just a small factor.

As for merging, Nehalem is going to be the GodFather Uber chip. CSI serial connections, no more FSB. The AMD fanboi's last resort argument "but AMD uses HT!!!" will be gone.

Re:Real Benefits on the Low End (1)

Kazrael (918535) | more than 7 years ago | (#19882021)

Intel and AMD merging would reinforce the lack of true competition, making your 150$ go quite a bit shorter. Learn to read some review articles and make an educated decision.

Re:Real Benefits on the Low End (2, Insightful)

Almahtar (991773) | more than 7 years ago | (#19882565)

Maybe if they merged...
Then we'd have a monopoly and both bus and CPU would suck! Sweet!

Wow... just... wow! (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 7 years ago | (#19876451)

So, the latest CPUs are great value for money... *but* if people wait for a few months, there will be new CPUs and those will be even better. Wow! I've never seen anything like this before!

Re:Wow... just... wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879145)

Yeah, that's what I thought too. We know the drill by now, no need to spell it out with each new CPU announcement.

Re:Wow... just... wow! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19879481)

It's amazing, isn't it? Intel are like Jesus.

I wouldn't mind an AMD X2 BUT... (2, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19877399)

But, the AMD X2s in the office have got the unsync'ed TSC problem (which causes stuff like time appearing to go backwards aka nonmonotonic time, which can cause programs to have problems). Sure in theory you're not supposed to assume they're in sync. BUT in practice on consumer-grade motherboards there's not much choice - often you don't get stuff like HPET or it's broken. Plus if your TSCs are synced, they are a better choice - the other timing methods are actually quite crappy[1].

So the workaround I use at work is to never let the cores idle and always run them at full speed. Boot linux with idle=poll.

Ironically, the AMD X2s supposedly use less power than the Core 2 Duos while idle...

Apparently AMD say they're going to fix the TSC stuff, and though it's been quite a while since they said that, AFAIK I don't think it's been fixed. So if I had to buy a CPU today for a desktop computer, it'll be a Core 2 Duo. The alleged Core 2 Duo security bugs don't appear to be being exploited by hackers all the time, whereas this AMD X2 TSC problem is always there.

I believe there are Windows gamers who are having problems with their AMD X2s and end up running the game/app only on one core and it's probably due to this TSC problem. Yeah the programmers shouldn't use TSC etc etc. But really what are their choices? See [1]

[1] Why can't the CPU + hardware + OS people get together and come up with something good for something as basic as time keeping?

As Vojtech Pavlik summarizes:
RTC: 0.5 sec resolution, interrupts
PIT: takes ages to read, overflows at each timer interrupt
PMTMR: takes ages to read, overflows in approx 4 seconds, no interrupt
HPET: slow to read, overflows in 5 minutes. Nice, but usually not present.
TSC: fast, completely unreliable. Frequency changes, CPUs diverge over time.
LAPIC: reasonably fast, unreliable, per-cpu

http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/18/261

Re:I wouldn't mind an AMD X2 BUT... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19878645)

You do realize AMD has a driver for windows available for download that fixes this issue, right?

Re:I wouldn't mind an AMD X2 BUT... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19883783)

Yeah. But I'm not running windows on the X2s, and I did mention that.

Does anyone have any opinion on how effective the "AMD Dual-Core Optimizer" is and the drawbacks if any?

I'm sure the Linux people would be happy if there's a _decent_ way of keeping the TSCs in sync.

Re:I wouldn't mind an AMD X2 BUT... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19881543)

I don't know much about this issue, but if I understand this correctly, idle=poll means that your CPU will always consume maximum power, with little to no benefit, right? Couldn't you run a distributed computing project instead or rather, in addition? Besides, idle=poll comes at a performance penalty, doesn't it? And are you sure that there are any apps that you use that need the TSCs to be synced?

Re:I wouldn't mind an AMD X2 BUT... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#19883721)

AFAIK idle=poll doesn't come at a performance penalty, in fact it might be very very slightly faster.

Basically the CPU just keeps polling for something to do, rather than taking a nap till there's something to do.

Running a distributed computing project _instead_ of doing idle=poll probably won't help, since it is unlikely to 100% guarantee that your CPU will never HLT.

BUT, doing idle=poll AND running a distributed computing project could make sense if you cared about not wasting compute cycles - basically when there's "nothing" to do, the computer will be doing the distributed computing, and when there's absolutely nothing to do, it'll be spinning around polling for something to do.

There are plenty of apps that would like the TSC's to be synced. Even typing on the Linux console can get strange when stuff goes out of sync. Having nonmonotonic times in your syslog is doesn't look good. Stuff that does stuff and then waits for now()+10 seconds later to do some more stuff will behave strangely.

Sure I could probably use PMTMR (I believe that makes calling the gettimeofday() function take a fair bit longer), but it's not like desktop CPU power consumption at the office is a big issue. The machine seems to run long enough to shutdown properly on a 2 year old el-cheapo UPS, after all it's still an AMD X2 and not an Intel P4... So I'll prefer to just keep the TSCs synced and any naughty apps that directly access tsc and don't use gettimeofday will still work.

increased fsb (1)

john_uy (187459) | more than 7 years ago | (#19878615)

anandtech has the article here http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc .aspx?i=3038 [anandtech.com]

my main question before that they answered is if the core 2 quad processors are being choked due to insufficient bandwidth. they measured the difference between 1066 and 1333fsb and performance barely increased. this brings me back to the following observations:

1. the processor is not bandwidth limited and merging the 4 cores in a single die would not yield much performance benefit. this brings back to the argument who is better the native quad core vs 2 x dual core (though in an engineering standpoint, the native quad core will be better but in real world as long as performance is good, i really don't care.)
2. intel has made a good job with their branch prediction that required data is almost always in the cache reducing any performance hit via fsb.
3. on-die memory controller might not yield great performance improvement for current core2 processors (if intel would add them now.)

the main anticipation now is if amd will beat intel in their upcoming barcelona chips. the advantage right now with amd is their ability to increase sockets through hypertransport. but that advantage might disappear soon when intel integrates the memory controller.

anyway, as of now the consumers are winning. i hope that amd will be able to keep up with intel so we can have good competition. for the mean time, i will be buying a q6600 system. quite cheap cpu coupled with cheap memory now (good time to increase memory capacity to >=4gb.)

Re:increased fsb (1)

Klintus Fang (988910) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880263)

Your are right on most points, but you have point 1 backwards. The fact that the processors are not bandwidth limited means it actually makes sense to put 4 cores in the same die. The common complaint about Intel's current Quad-Core designs is that there isn't enough FSB bandwidth to feed 4 cores. Anandtech's data actually disproves that claim.

That said, it is still true that there is not much performance benefit to having 4 cores over 2, but the reason for that is very few users are doing the sort of work on their machines that would would benefit from having 4 cores.

good time for a new pc (2, Informative)

axiome (782782) | more than 7 years ago | (#19880751)

For anyone buying a new system (like myself), its a great time in terms of CPU pricing. With Intel's price cuts, you can get a quad core chip in the $300 range!

Add to that incredibly low memory prices and incredibly low HDD prices and you can piece together something fast and cheap with little cash.

Unfortunately, the mid-range graphics market for DX10 parts isn't up to par with the rest of the parts. There is a void between $125 and $260. The geforce 8600GT is the $125 part, which is ok, and the 8800GTS is in the $260 range. The 8600GTS is about the same speed as a 7900GT, give or take, and in the $150-$200 range. Being that previous generation midrange cards did very well against their high end predecessors, this is not the best generation of cards. The new AMD/ATI offerings are both worse than the nvidia ones, so thats no help at all.

November/December might be the time to buy.. (1)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 7 years ago | (#19884063)

The GeForce 9 series/G92 chip [theinquirer.net] should also come out near the end of the year. If Intel is not just blowing smoke about a new CPU design, then, not now, might be the time to upgrade.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>