RSSIntel Debuts Two Quad-core Server Processors, Touts Q6600 at CES
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published January 8, 2007, 12:02 PM
A consumer-oriented trade show is perhaps an awkward place for a CPU manufacturer to be releasing a server processor set, but Intel may be using its server performance jump as a leveraging point to push its Q6600, its entry-level 2.4 GHz quad-core processor.
The quad-core Xeon 3200 series targets single-processor servers, with the notion that today’s 1P server could be as powerful as yesterday’s 4Ps – or, more realistically, a “2.5P.” The 2.4 GHz X3220 will sell for $851 to vendors purchasing in units of 1000, while the 2.13 GHz X3110 will sell for $690. There currently is no 2.13 GHz consumer-grade counterpart in Intel’s quad-core line. Using today’s CES news cycle, Intel was able to get these figures out to far more potential customers than for almost any other time of the year.
Intel CEO Paul Otellini’s characterization of the Q6600 as “quad-core technology on anyone’s PC” could lead to speculation that the company may already be beginning the phasing out process for entry-level dual-core processors introduced just last July: specifically, the Core 2 Duo E 6400. Though Intel did not release new pricing on the Q6600 today, street prices range from between $875 to $1,100.
I think this will be a huge boon to data centers. Being able to put a quad-core chip on a blade will cut down power consumption and cooling requirements. Two of the biggest headaches to any data center.
I have a dual-core chip in my desktop now, I'd love to have a quad - don't really do anything that needs that kind of horse power, but that really doesn't mean anything.
It's like being the first geek on the block to own a terrabyte of diskspace. :)
Score: 0
I didn't think any of us geeks associated enough with people on our blocks to know if we were the first with a terabyte of disk storage.
Score: 0
my issue with the quad is that there isnt that much performance gain over the core 2 duo, if any. (Im getting this from benchmarks done by maximum pc in i believe the december 2006 issue) Personally, Id rather have a core 2 duo over the Quad.
Score: 0
There is no need to have a quad-core when we are just starting to utilize Dual-core. It will be another year before " having a Quad" is the big thing.
Score: 0
One command:
#emerge world
Definitely a need.
Score: 0
Correct me if I'm wrong... but if one is running Windows Server, is there not a Pay per CPU policy? That's going to suck.
Score: 0
My understanding was that applied to physical processors. Technically it's one processor.
Score: 0
Even if this were not the case, Windows Server 2003 Standard edition supports 4 CPU's by default.
See: http://www.microsoft.com...es/comparefeatures.mspx
Score: 0
So is it a X3220, a Xeon 3200, or a Q6600? This naming convention is baffling / retarded. Or maybe its a Core 2 Quad 6600. or maybe its not... WHO KNOWS?!
Score: 0
...anyone with brain and basic reading skills?
/sarcasm
Score: 0
I got the "Q" part, but what's the 6600 mean?
seriously now, i got this straight from the intel website:
"The processor number is not a measurement of performance, nor is it the only factor to consider when selecting a processor.
The digits themselves have no inherent meaning, particularly when looking across processor families. For instance, 840 is not "better" than 640 simply because 8 is greater than 6.
Furthermore, linear increments between processor numbers may not indicate linear feature advancements. For example, the differences in processor features between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 760 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 will not be the same as between an Intel® Pentium® M processor 765 and an Intel® Pentium® M processor 770, even though both pairs of processors are separated by an increment of five digits.
Processor numbers do not represent specific system configurations and do not replace system-level benchmarks. "
lol, why not just call them "fred" or "bob".
:-p
Score: 0
MS made sure no-one would ever use "Bob" again.
Fred sounds good though. I'd buy a Fred 6600.
Score: 0
Buahahahaa!!!!
I love it!
Score: 0
"street prices range from between $875 to $1,100"
-- haha, sounds like they're selling drugs
Score: 0
Price on chips has been fluctuating at the same price as 8 years ago - you could say that nowadays we are getting more for the same price as in 1999.
When AMD releases their Quad, we can expect another price war (as usual) for market dominance.
As per the names Intel chose to use, I know it might sound confusing. But OEMs demand the latest "immediately" and they don't care what you call it. Since AMD has Dell, we'll see similar name confusion on their turf too which is no big deal.
Score: 0