Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Performance Preview

[Rob Williams]

When Bearlake launched last month, it opened the doors for native 1333FSB processor support. That's where the refreshed Conroe line-up comes into play. In our performance preview of the E6750, we will show you what to expect when its released later this summer.

You can read the full article here and discuss it here.

 

[Greg King]

Looks like a very solid chip. With Intel's upcoming price cuts, this CPU should find it's way into budget builds everywhere.

The sound you hear is the collective cheering of thousands of gamers everywhere. Solid review Rob.

 

[Garry]

I am confused now! As we all know intel is planing to cut the prices of the quad processors on the 22nd of July, but as i saw the preview of all this 6x50 stuff i am likely to be confused, because at this point i dont know which is better the Q6600 with 1066 FSB or the 6x50 with 1333 FSB? I am planing to build a new pc, but cant make out which CPU to choose! Also waiting for that X38 chipset motherboard from intel, to really set it off! The really biggest question is - is there a big difference between 1066 and 1333 FSB?

 

[Greg King]

If your waiting for the X38 (and who isn't), your better off going with a 6x50 based CPU simply for the upped FSB. That aside, I haven't seen anyone report that there is a night and day difference between the 1066 and 1333 front side buses.

You mentioned the Q6600. If you look at the "rumored" pricing updates, unless you need the extra cores, the smart bet would be on a higher end x50 chip like the E6850 that is supposedly priced under 300 dollars. Thats a 3.0 GHz chip for under 300, if the pricing holds true, thats a steal. As much as I would like a quad core in my personal machine, the dual core 2s are looking like an incredible buy come the end of summer.

I hope this helps.

 

[Garry]

Thanks for the reply! Yeah, i have always been going for the new, at the same time powerful and fast, so i think the 6850 will be ma choice, simply because of the 1333 FSB and the 3.0 Ghz and the price margin, besides the quad processors are only useful when the programs support that 4 core technology! And will defo use all of the power what x38 delivers!

P.S. Any news when X38 is coming out?

 

[NicePants42]

You mentioned the Q6600. If you look at the "rumored" pricing updates, unless you need the extra cores, the smart bet would be on a higher end x50 chip like the E6850 that is supposedly priced under 300 dollars. Thats a 3.0 GHz chip for under 300, if the pricing holds true, thats a steal. As much as I would like a quad core in my personal machine, the dual core 2s are looking like an incredible buy come the end of summer.

I hope this helps.

Bah. I'm much more of an overclocking enthusiast than that, and would point out that when Anandtech first looked at Intel's new P35 chipset, they noted that simply setting the FSB to 1333 resulted in a no-hassle overclock to 3.0Ghz on the Q6600. Come July 22, that could be a quad-core 3.0ghz chip for under $300, and I think you'd be hard pressed to get more future proof.

 

[Greg King]

I agree with what you are saying Pants. My point was that with the E6850, your getting that same 3.0 GHz speed stock. Also, Rob was able to reach 3.8 GHz on the E6750 that he reviewed and was apparently held back by the motherboard. Whether or not the CPU would have made it any higher is something that is unknown at the moment. I can't see to many quad cores reaching those clocks.

On a personal note, I will get a quad once they become a bit more affordable but for the money, if you don't need all four cores, the new E6x50 chips are looking more and more attractive each day.

 

[NicePants42]

Rob was able to reach 3.8 GHz on the E6750 that he reviewed and was apparently held back by the motherboard. Whether or not the CPU would have made it any higher is something that is unknown at the moment. I can't see to many quad cores reaching those clocks...for the money, if you don't need all four cores, the new E6x50 chips are looking more and more attractive each day.

Your point is a good one. Anandtech was happy with 3.68ghz with stock everything, Hothardware and PCper got to 3.9, and the Tech Report 'only' managed about 3.6. Certainly nothing to sniff at.

However, while I definitely agree that the quad-cores will be harder to overclock to ~4ghz reliably, we shouldn't forget that having 4 cores will allow a user to pick and choose the cores he/she uses. So while my Q6600 may only get up to 3.2Ghz with 4 cores enabled, I will have the ability to find the maximum stable speed of each core, and then to enable only the two (or three) fastest cores. In this way, users may be able to reach higher effective dual core speeds, yet still be able to have 4 cores at their disposal for when it's time to run Alan Wake, Crysis, UT2K7, SupCom, Virtualdub, etc.

 

[Greg King]

Touché Pants, touché.

 

[MakubeX]

Looking good. These new G0 revision chips seem to have an awesome OCing potential. However, I might still prefer a Quad core in spite of its higher power consumption and lower ocing potential.

 

[Unregistered]

On Pg.7 of the article, Rob wrote, " When overclocking a CPU without raising the Vcore , we do raise the voltages for the North and South bridges. "

Q. What voltages were the North and South bridges set at ?

Thanks

Storm

 

[NicePants42]

On Pg.7 of the article, Rob wrote, " When overclocking a CPU without raising the Vcore , we do raise the voltages for the North and South bridges. "

Q. What voltages were the North and South bridges set at ?

Thanks

Storm

That will depend on the motherboard that was used, and will vary across brands, chipsets, and even across identical boards. Basically that's just a footnote indicating that not all voltages in the system were stock.

Each individual overclock involves some trial and error, however, in this particular case, Rob used a motherboard based on the P35 chipset, and you can see on this page (from the review of the board) that the available NB voltage range is 1.25V to 1.7V. I run a P35 based board as well, and IIRC, the stock NB voltage is 1.25V. For the sake of overclocking, I'd try setting this to ~1.4V or so, and once you find your maximum speed, try and lower the voltage as far as you can while retaining stabilty.

 

[Rob Williams]

That will depend on the motherboard that was used, and will vary across brands, chipsets, and even across identical boards. Basically that's just a footnote indicating that not all voltages in the system were stock.

All very true. For the SB, I raised it a smidgen... it was so minor that it wouldn't even need to be mentioned. The NB was set to a max of 1.55v though... I don't recall in recent memory ever having to raise it higher than that, which is still a modest setting as is.

 

[Unregistered]

I was curious as to where you were with the core speed when it destabilized. And, ( according to the article ), you didn't raise the Vcore. Just bumped the voltages of the North and South bridges. Doesn't make sense to me, never mind the brand of MB or chipset.

Thanks for the responses.

Storm

 

[Rob Williams]

Here was my max overclock with stock voltage, grabbed from the article:

E6750 - 3.44GHz stable, 1.3Vcore

Here is the max overclock I found with a voltage bump:

E6750 - 3.8GHz stable, 1.5Vcore

From this, I assume that anything above 3.44GHz is where things began to destabilize, else I would have had a higher noted stable overclock. When extra voltage came into the picture, I was able to push it to 3.8GHz while retaining stability.

At 3.44GHz, only the NB had a voltage bump in order to handle the high FSB. Just because the NB requires a voltage bump doesn't mean the Vcore needs the same attention.

 

[Unregistered]

Rob ,

In a few days, I will be putting together a system using the Intel E6750 Core 2 Duo. Before assembly .. I research and read what I can about the processor, mb, etc. When I read your article on the E6750, it was the first time I ran across an overclocking situation where any other voltage was raised before the Vcore.
That's why I was asking for additional info on point of destabilization. Hope you don't think I was trying to pick apart your article. I've read many of your articles. They're very well done and full of great information.

Thanks for the quick response. And keep up the good work.

Storm

 

[Rob Williams]

Oh no need for explanation. I expect to be asked a lot of questions because I tend to do things a differently from everyone else. Not that there is anything wrong with how anyone else does anything, but if I can get away with overclocking the CPU without bumping the Vcore, I'm all over it.

Because the E6750 has a locked multiplier, the only real option was to raise the FSB, which required the NB voltage to be increased to keep stability. Voltage could have been added to the CPU, but as mentioned in the review, there was no need. Why increase it if it proved 100% stable with regular voltages? That's another thing I could touch on though... most motherboards default to 1.3250v... while I manually set it to 1.3000v. Despite the "lower than stock" voltage, it -still- proved stable at 3.44GHz. Impressive chip all around.

Good luck with your copy, and if you don't mind, relay your own overclocking findings here. I hope you have the same luck I did.