Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Preview: The Desktop Gets a 1333MHz FSB
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 25, 2007 2:57 AM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
By the end of Summer, Intel's Conroe lineup will have ballooned from a meager five processors at launch to at least different 14 models. The once simple model number system is now well on its way to being the complicated mess that plagued the P4's system before it.
First it was the introduction of the value E4xxx series, then the larger cache Exx20 series, followed by the even cheaper E2xxx CPUs and now the new 1333MHz FSB processors.
The new 1333MHz FSB CPUs will end in the number 50 (e.g. E6750), with the exception of the E6540 which is also a 1333MHz CPU. Although Intel isn't announcing pricing at this point, we don't expect the new 1333MHz FSB CPUs to cost any more than their predecessors; in other words, we expect the E6750 to carry the same price tag as the E6700 does. We've included the post July 22nd price cuts for the unreleased Intel processors in the table below (note that current processors will fall in price as well, although the table reflects present day pricing for currently available CPUs), as well as pricing for chips to be released in Q4:
| CPU | Clock Speed | FSB | L2 Cache | Availability | Pricing |
| Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 | 2.93GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $999 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 | 3.00GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Q3 | $266 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 | 2.66GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Q3 | $183 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6700 | 2.66GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $316 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 | 2.40GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $224 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 | 2.33GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Q3 | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 | 2.33GHz | 1333 | 4MB | Q3 | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6420 | 2.13GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $183 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 | 2.13GHz | 1066 | 2MB | Now | $183 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6320 | 1.86GHz | 1066 | 4MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 | 1.86GHz | 1066 | 2MB | Now | $163 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 | 2.40GHz | 800 | 2MB | Q4 | $133 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 | 2.20GHz | 800 | 2MB | Q3 | $133 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 | 2.00GHz | 800 | 2MB | Now | $133 |
| Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 | 1.80GHz | 800 | 2MB | Now | $113 |
| Intel Pentium E2180 | 2.00GHz | 800 | 1MB | Q4 | $84 |
| Intel Pentium E2160 | 1.80GHz | 800 | 1MB | Now | $84 |
| Intel Pentium E2140 | 1.60GHz | 800 | 1MB | Now | $74 |
Intel sent out samples of its Core 2 Duo E6750 ahead of their scheduled availability as a preview (and probably to jab at its competitor a bit), so the processor we're previewing won't be available for a little while. Intel's internal roadmaps show Q3 as the timeframe to expect its 1333MHz FSB CPUs, but Intel's official statement is that these CPUs will be available "later this summer."
 |
 |
Keep in mind that AMD's pricing is keeping the company's lineup quite competitive with Intel below $300. You can buy all Socket-AM2 AMD processors for less than $300, resulting in great price/performance from the guys in green.
| CPU | Clock Speed | L2 Cache | Price |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ | 3.0GHz | 1MBx2 | $241 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5600+ | 2.8GHz | 1MBx2 | $188 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5200+ | 2.6GHz | 1MBx2 | $178 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 5000+ | 2.6GHz | 512KBx2 | $167 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ | 2.5GHz | 512KBx2 | $136 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ | 2.3GHz | 512KBx2 | $121 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 4000+ | 2.1GHz | 512KBx2 | $104 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ | 2.0GHz | 512KBx2 | $83 |
| AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ | 1.9GHz | 512KBx2 | $73 |
Note that AMD will respond with its own set of price cuts in late July to keep the landscape competitive after Intel's cost cutting measures.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
mbf - Monday, July 23, 2007 - link
I've been wondering how older motherboards will work with the new FSB1333 processors. Specifically I'm interested how an ASUS P5W DH Deluxe without the latest BIOS would react to having e.g. an E6750 dropped in. ASUS claims support for FSB1333 processors for the P5W DH Deluxe as of 2205 beta.Would the system boot and run using a pre-2205 BIOS (although not at peak performance), so a BIOS upgrade can be performed? Or would the system fail to boot at all, like when the first Core 2 Duo processors surfaced and needed a BIOS upgrade to run at all on certain boards.
The reason I ask this is that I've my eyes set specifically on that board (I have several reasons, ECC memory support being one of them). I had originally planned on getting an E6600 after the July 22 price cuts, but right now there's nearly no FSB1066 processor to be had locally. Also, I'd of course love to have a access to the latest processors in any case.
myrubbish - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link
which one is original ?http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?...">http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?...
kobymu - Tuesday, June 26, 2007 - link
If at all possible, I would like to see the impact ofA) 1333MHz FSB with DDR2
B) DDR3 bandwidth
C) both 1333MHz FSB with DDR3
on quadcore in multiprocessing scenarios, preferably the non synthetic ones.
myrubbish - Tuesday, July 17, 2007 - link
which one is original ?http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?...">http://www.hardspell.com/english/doc/showcont.asp?...
AnnonymousCoward - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
I noticed that last picture shows 1.088V, and my E6600 is rated at 1.325V (and measures 1.328-1.344V). Did Intel lower the voltage for this new series? This wasn't addressed.457R4LDR34DKN07 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
Y should I pick 1 of these up when a 2.66 GHz quad core will be avalable at $266 dollars. much better perfomance even at 1066 FSB and thats before overclock.Chunga29 - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
I see both listed, with the same price and same features. What exactly then is the purposed between having two model numbers? Does one of them not have virtualization? Even if that's the case, why bother? I mean, are there times when virtualization (even if disabled) would be a bad thing? Or maybe it's just a mistake in the table and I'm reading too much into it?Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
The E6550 has Intel Trusted eXecution Technology (TXT), while the E6540 does not. The model numbers would be far too easy to understand without curveballs like that :)Take care,
Anand
SunAngel - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
I like the artice and understand it is just based on dual cores. However, I believe that everyone, including myself, really would like to know which will be faster for encoding jobs the 2.4 quad-core 1066FSB or the 3.0 dual-core 1333FSB? Since encoding is big business now, it is no secret that raw power is everyones wish. So, the sooner you can get me this benchmark, the sooner I can get back to clicking on advertisements.Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, June 25, 2007 - link
It's a very valid and important request, but I do believe it's one we've already answered :) If you look back to our article on the Core 2 Extreme QX6800, I tested a Core 2 Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz/1066/quadcore) and a Core 2 Extreme X6800 (2.93GHz/1066/dualcore). While the X6800 not quite the E6850 (3.0GHz/1333), it's close in performance so you should be able to get an idea of the performance comparison:http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc...">
To save you the trouble of looking, the Core 2 Quad Q6600 is a better buy strictly for encoding if you're doing DivX/WME encoding. Our Windows Movie Maker and Quicktime tests show the Q6600 falling behind the X6800, but for DivX encoding and heavy WME work (and potentially H.264 encoding on other software platforms) you'll be better off with the Q6600.
I hope this helps :)
Take care,
Anand