The best 775 cpu's turned out to be 771 xeons with far larger L1/L2 cache than their desktop counterparts, insert a microcode and kabam you have a far superior system. "Dont forget the sticker on the bottom to reverse two pins" "P.S I'm getting alot of comments about the upper echelon of 775 like the extreme editions and the 9555 and up " Yes if you wanted to pay crazy money for a cpu and get identical performance to a 15 dollar / Euro one go ahead and claim its the same performance. But the majority of the Q line had lower and less Cache than their 771 Xeon counterparts. Go to Cpu list and you see the majority of the 771 line up had at least 8 to 12 MB while the lower skew on the Q 775 started at 2mb with the 7100: Whilest the Xeon 771 started at 6/8 MB by default"
The Xeons don't have any more L1/L2 cache than their desktop counterparts, unless you are talking about lower clocked ones (Q9*50, QX9*50 and QX9770 have full 12MB L2, Q9*00 and Q9*05 have 6MB and Q8*00 has 4MB). The thing with the used 771 Xeons was better bin and lower price than the Core2 Quads.
The LGA771 Xeon mod for LGA775 was a blessing for tech enthusiasts. We've moved past those days now because a maximum of 8GB RAM isn't enough and LGA775 is incredibly picky with memory (unpredictable boot loops and crashes happen constantly when tinkering). But I modded at least five boards and in the pre-2020 era it was a no-brainer mod for cheap performance.
Yup, couldn't agree more. I still have Intel's D5400XS + QX9775 + 16GB FB-DIMM, and they run just perfectly with Windows 11. I am an old timer who started playing with PCs since the Pentium III era. Oh, I also still have QX9770 running. Just couldn't let these babies go.
I had a Tualatin 1.13Ghz, used to play DOS games on it and a few games that offered software rendering with good old XP SP2. Had 1GB RAM with 20GB HDD (still have it) but no graphics card.
That is the perfect upgrade path. q6600 with 8800 -> 2600,2700k with 7970, then somewhere in 2019 ryzen 3rd gen. Amazing what those systems could do and how well they lasted. I was running a 3570k until last year. if you had a 2600k at 4.6 you couldn't care less about something like an i5 7500. The hyperthreading also helped, my i5 was struggling in bf1 multiplayer because of the lack of threads.
This CPU was legendary. Went for a Q6600 back in 2008 just before the Core i series came out later in the year. Amazing bang for your buck too - £100 for a top tier CPU. Clocked from 2.4 to 3.2GHz with 1600MHz FSB (on the P45 chipset) and it decimated everything. For years it was a beast. Very fond memories of this time.
TH-cam 4K60 VP9 is decoded by RX 5700 not by CPU, that's why you can get smooth playback. Remove RX 5700 and use only GTX 750 Ti (or disable Hardware Acceleration in browser), and you will see this CPU only support 720P30 VP9 maybe 1080P30 VP9 in CPU decode mode. AVC (h264) is also supported by GTX 750 Ti, so the decoding is done by the graphics card, not the processor
Gave away a Q9550 @ 3.4GHz + 8GB to a friend a few years ago, that system is still going strong for daily tasks such as browsing the web and playing back local media.
The only problem that Core 2 Quad have, is that each die has to communicate over the northbridge, as Intel effectively did single socket SMP due to how small their CPU die had become. So multi-threaded scaling improves with the FSB speed. Though having compared a QX6850 to both a Xeon X5450 and E5450 - C2Q went from good to fantastic with the change to 45nm, probably helped greatly by Intel improving latency between the die.
Man honestly, I can see chips like this still being in use as a lightly used family pc even today, especially with that smooth youtube playback at 4k. Obviously the 16gb of ram helps out alot especially with growing file sizes, but honestly even with 8gb of ram and a relatively decent gpu, I can see a PC rocking an archaic quad core for basic web browsing, school assignments and light games like roblox and minecraft
Old flagship quad cores can handle E-sport games easily and work stuff as well. I still have an old laptop with a Haswell i7-4700MQ and it delivers +80fps on Counter Strike 2 (basically launched last year) and the bottleneck is the laptop GPU. If i had a quad core without hyperthreading it would be unplayable with massive stuttering.
Intel's cheap CPUs are a god sent for people building NAS and Plex servers. The QuickSync feature provides hardware capability for video encoding/decoding without a need for a GPU.
Before quad core, before duel core, before two CPUs on a mother board, even before the war with the Eskimos, but after we only had two computer for the whole company, I connected a switch to my computer and sent jobs to eight computers. As each one finished their job they sent the results to a printer and then got another job from my computer. This allowed me to do over 200 jobs in 16 hours I was not working. The limitation was the amount of paper the printer could hold.
I love those processors, even if im a AMD man at heart. I ran my Q6700 @ 4GHz with 1.62 volts. With watercooling it still ran just under 90c at load. It ran fine like that until 2018 when the motherboard broke. I still regret selling it after that.
Excellent oration and reporting. Tech is definitely your forte. I would love to hear your thoughts on ARM and RISC-V as compared to modern x64 and where you see things going.
I upgraded from an E5300 dual core to a Q6700 for $11. I think Haswell, 4th gen I series, had just came out. Old as it was, it was still a wonderful upgrade and got me into overclocking. Those were the days you could really overclock.
I remember it seemed like everyone went from AMD X2's to C2D's and C2Q's over night. EVERYONE went with the E6600 because that thing smoked everything for a decent price. Only the really well off people went with the Quads right off the bat. I was so jealous of the Core 2 performance on benchmarks compared to my AMD Athlon X2 5600+..
Quad-core CPU's are still just fine for lots of things. I recently built a productivity machine for a friend using an i3 12100, and an HTPC/Plex server for myself with the same chip. Of course, that's an 8-thread chip.
I still got my Q6600 kicking around in a bag of spare CPUs from that era, along with a BUNCH of other LGA775 chips too (including a Q9400). But I just can't bring myself to using them for anything other than a retro machine. I think if I had to build a functional 4C setup, I'd go for Sandy bridge or Ivy Bridge at the minimum, simply because they're just SO much more efficient and faster.
I was fortunate enough to find an engineering sample Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (QPHV) for sale a few years back. It’s installed in an older D975XBX board with 2GBs of 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM. Honestly, very few games in 2006 and 2007 used more than one CPU core effectively so having a Conroe was overkill at that time. It wasn’t really until 2008 with more and more “7th gen” console-focused multi-platform games coming out that having a quad-core started to really make sense for games. Still, lovely CPU that QX6700 is, no doubt! I had a Q6600 system in 2007, specifically in anticipation for Crysis LOL
"Those were the days my friend.." Good video. I had a QX6700 back in the day, I ran it at 4ghz. I also had 8800gtx's in tri sli. I remember getting 14th on a 3d mark score ranking for about a week. Under load, I could feel the heat coming from the pc when sitting near it. Those parts ran hot. (For gaming I only used 8800gtx in sli because of the stutter, I eventually used the 3rd card just for physxs.) I did not know the QX6700 was the first quad core cpu.
@3:06 - X48 wasn't the last chipset for LGA775 platform, but it was liked by enthusiasts a lot as it was the one most stable with DDR3 past 1600MHz and was capable of running with low latencies. The only thing that was somewhat lacking on X48 was ability to run extremely high FSB frequencies, especially with quad core cpu's. P45 had surpassed it on this front. And technically you are running it at 1.408V, because Asus has large vdrop (or even lower when loaded because of vdroop). Also the DDR3 memory speed may be different than what the BIOS settings is because of a bug - depending on whichever FSB Strap is set by the "Auto" - P45/X48 chipset, strap 400 the 2:3 is misdetected as 3:5 in CPU-Z/BIOS genuine 3:5 is only possible with strap 200
I do not like AMD but TBF if they would not put huge pressure with Ryzen's price to performance in those early years we would have stuck with 6 core 14900K now.
@@My_Old_YT_Account They act like they are the savior of poor people and little guys in their presentations but given the chance they are greedier than Nvidia. Just drop the act that's all.
I had the QX6700. Bought it at launch in late 2006 paired with a 8800 GTX. Was a really fast CPU for the time and I enjoyed it a lot. Nice to see some history on it :)
I had the slightly later Q9450 (based on 45nm) and kept it all the way from 2008 to 2015, when I upgraded to an i7-6700K. Getting in on quad core relatively early definitely paid off in longevity.
It's crazy that there was a time where CPUs stagnated so if you bought a good quad core from the start, it would still handle stuff exceptionally well even beyond 5 years later. Much like the i7 2600k where you probably didn't care about upgrading until at least the 8700k came along. They're moving along fast enough that I don't get too attached to mine anymore and go for an upgrade as soon as I feel like there's a benefit.
People who bought Ryzen 1st gen wouldn't feel a need to upgrade if not for Windows 11, the Intel 8th gen buyers sure aren't either, it works well enough
Note: Separating the dies is really just going to help with yields. There's no real reason you "can't" use one large die. It's been done many times on various platforms including game consoles. There's little difference between building in a communication bus on substrate vs on die besides yields. In this case allowing you to use 2 identical P4 dies on the PD allows better yields vs having to bin a large PD die itself. Not saying the engineer is lying, maybe they did rush, but there's nothing wrong with a combo die from an EE point of view.
You should do some tests with higher front side bus speeds with the fsb:ram ratio still at 1:1. LGA775 really starts to shine once you get the fsb up there. 480fsb was what I used to run my Q6600 at with a P45 based Gigabyte board with the CPU running at 3.84Ghz.
This is not the world's first quad core processor. Sun Microsystems Sparc chips had multiple core processors starting in the 90s into the early 2000s. In 2004 they released an 8 core, 32 thread chip. For reference.
@@lettuce7378 That distinction belongs to the PowerPC lineup. You could say the Intel product was way greater volume as well as better performance, but it's still a PowerPC first. Just like the Core 2 Quads, the first units were 2 Dual cores on an interposer. However, they could scale to 4096 nodes with 65536 processors if needed. Interestingly all of these designs from all of these companies were a reaction to the decline in Moore's Law.
Its not that progress has declined, its that you are not doing anything that requires that progress. If I where to try to encode a 4K video on your Precision 6400, it would be slow, I dont know the exact numbers, but slow, on my 13900K+4090, its something like faster than real time depending on specific encode settings used. If I where to do basic web browsing, spreadsheets, some work in word, I would see little difference either.
My first quadcore was a Q6600, which could be modded with the BSEL mod. Very easy to do. Which increases the fsb from 1066 to 1333 which increases the clock speed from 2.4ghz to 3.0 ghz. Upgraded later to the same cpu as your with the QUPE spec.
WRONG esign: The Phenom is a monolithic multi-core design, meaning all the cores are on the same silicon die. This is different from Intel's Core 2 Quad series, which is a multi-chip module (MCM) design. Release: The Phenom was released on the Socket AM2+ platform.
That progress has declined sharply is just incorrect, IMO. I got a great deal on a 5950X, as an upgrade from a 3900X. And I just keep on being impressed at how much snappier and overall fast the 5950X is, compared to the still fast 3900X. Very impressive in one generation.
I remember the IT department at school got itself a single machine with a Q6600 in it, and the few people doing IT for A-levels would remote in to use it. Thing was running 4 Win XP VMs no sweat. It seemed like a ludicrous amount of power.
The Q6600 was my 2007 upgrade from the Pentium 4 3GHz from 2004, it was the first time I bought a new pc where the clock speed was less than the previous CPU as it was only 2.4GHz.
@@lettuce7378 I know, I'm just too lazy to update it. It works fine so I'll probably keep it like that for now and get a newer PC in the next few years
Fully Buffered : the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700, released in Nov of 2006, doesn't count as the first 4-core CPU, because as you said, it had 2 CPU-s under 1 CPU die (just like todays 12-th, 13-th and 14-th gen). The first true 4-core cpu with 1 CPU under 1 CPU die was the AMD Phenom X4 9600 released in the beginning of 2007. So AMD was the first :) just like with many other inventions.
I still have a Q6700 Go running a @3.2 nothing heavy in a windows 10 system it keeps chugging along have it as my back up turn it on update it and nod quietly before shutting down it was on 14 hrs a day from 2010 to 2022 every day.
Actually, as a person who was playing the Q6600, it was running GTA Online way better than this. Although mine was at 3.6GHz. I also used the Q8200 and the Q9550.
Complaining about technology slowing down is like complaining that lightbulbs don't evolve anymore. It's just time to go past lightbulbs into night vision! Or something like that, VR, whatever. Something better that pc.
Those were 2x core 2 duos. They worked well, hell, i still daily one, but there is definitely a penalty for going over fsb. Windows past 7 has botched scheduler for them as well, bouncing low thread workloads around the dies uneccessarily and inducing latency for no reason.
It's interesting how things can change, because AMD chips are "chiplet" designs now and Intel is the single die, lol. It doesn't matter much how its implemented if it works.
Ah the time Intel was loosing right and left. I don't remember it being a hack job. But, a push out the door so they can claim the title of first Quad Core CPU. Even if the price was though the roof.
Technically speaking the first true quad core CPU was a Phenom X4 9950 BE since it was a true monolithic die 😜😂 the Q6600 was just 2 * dual cores that communicated through FSB 😜
The best 775 cpu's turned out to be 771 xeons with far larger L1/L2 cache than their desktop counterparts, insert a microcode and kabam you have a far superior system. "Dont forget the sticker on the bottom to reverse two pins"
"P.S I'm getting alot of comments about the upper echelon of 775 like the extreme editions and the 9555 and up " Yes if you wanted to pay crazy money for a cpu and get identical performance to a 15 dollar / Euro one go ahead and claim its the same performance. But the majority of the Q line had lower and less Cache than their 771 Xeon counterparts. Go to Cpu list and you see the majority of the 771 line up had at least 8 to 12 MB while the lower skew on the Q 775 started at 2mb with the 7100: Whilest the Xeon 771 started at 6/8 MB by default"
Especially the E variants of the Xeons. They run noticeably cooler than the X models.
The Xeons don't have any more L1/L2 cache than their desktop counterparts, unless you are talking about lower clocked ones (Q9*50, QX9*50 and QX9770 have full 12MB L2, Q9*00 and Q9*05 have 6MB and Q8*00 has 4MB). The thing with the used 771 Xeons was better bin and lower price than the Core2 Quads.
The LGA771 Xeon mod for LGA775 was a blessing for tech enthusiasts. We've moved past those days now because a maximum of 8GB RAM isn't enough and LGA775 is incredibly picky with memory (unpredictable boot loops and crashes happen constantly when tinkering). But I modded at least five boards and in the pre-2020 era it was a no-brainer mod for cheap performance.
Yup, couldn't agree more. I still have Intel's D5400XS + QX9775 + 16GB FB-DIMM, and they run just perfectly with Windows 11. I am an old timer who started playing with PCs since the Pentium III era. Oh, I also still have QX9770 running. Just couldn't let these babies go.
I had a Tualatin 1.13Ghz, used to play DOS games on it and a few games that offered software rendering with good old XP SP2. Had 1GB RAM with 20GB HDD (still have it) but no graphics card.
I remember running a Q6600 back in 2007 inside a black Paradigit case. I ran that setup till 2012 when I upgraded to a 2600K.
a n i m e
n
i
m
e
That is the perfect upgrade path. q6600 with 8800 -> 2600,2700k with 7970, then somewhere in 2019 ryzen 3rd gen. Amazing what those systems could do and how well they lasted. I was running a 3570k until last year. if you had a 2600k at 4.6 you couldn't care less about something like an i5 7500. The hyperthreading also helped, my i5 was struggling in bf1 multiplayer because of the lack of threads.
Used a Q6600 system with windows vista until 2017 lol
This CPU was legendary. Went for a Q6600 back in 2008 just before the Core i series came out later in the year. Amazing bang for your buck too - £100 for a top tier CPU. Clocked from 2.4 to 3.2GHz with 1600MHz FSB (on the P45 chipset) and it decimated everything. For years it was a beast. Very fond memories of this time.
TH-cam 4K60 VP9 is decoded by RX 5700 not by CPU, that's why you can get smooth playback. Remove RX 5700 and use only GTX 750 Ti (or disable Hardware Acceleration in browser), and you will see this CPU only support 720P30 VP9 maybe 1080P30 VP9 in CPU decode mode. AVC (h264) is also supported by GTX 750 Ti, so the decoding is done by the graphics card, not the processor
Gave away a Q9550 @ 3.4GHz + 8GB to a friend a few years ago, that system is still going strong for daily tasks such as browsing the web and playing back local media.
Nice retrospective. Later Q9000 series was added SSE 4.1 instruction which benefits runnable modern games, for example Forza Horizon 4.
You're thinking of SSE4.1, 4.2 was introduced with Nehalem
@@hblankpc my bad, you are correct.
@@hblankpc q9000 has sse 4.1 but not 4.2 (windows 11 24h2 needs sse4.2 which includes popcnt instruction for booting )
New Fully Buffered video is always a treat 😁 This makes me want to tune my QX6700, just need to get my hands on a proper motherboard.
Here's a great channel in the making! All the best man, you will get far if that's your intention.
The only problem that Core 2 Quad have, is that each die has to communicate over the northbridge, as Intel effectively did single socket SMP due to how small their CPU die had become.
So multi-threaded scaling improves with the FSB speed. Though having compared a QX6850 to both a Xeon X5450 and E5450 - C2Q went from good to fantastic with the change to 45nm, probably helped greatly by Intel improving latency between the die.
Man honestly, I can see chips like this still being in use as a lightly used family pc even today, especially with that smooth youtube playback at 4k. Obviously the 16gb of ram helps out alot especially with growing file sizes, but honestly even with 8gb of ram and a relatively decent gpu, I can see a PC rocking an archaic quad core for basic web browsing, school assignments and light games like roblox and minecraft
Old flagship quad cores can handle E-sport games easily and work stuff as well.
I still have an old laptop with a Haswell i7-4700MQ and it delivers +80fps on Counter Strike 2 (basically launched last year) and the bottleneck is the laptop GPU.
If i had a quad core without hyperthreading it would be unplayable with massive stuttering.
Gpu acceleration definitely helps the smooth 4k playback, without hardware acceleration it would never be able to play 4k vids.
It was interesting to get know about how old CPU performs in modern titles.
Thanks for the video!
Intel's cheap CPUs are a god sent for people building NAS and Plex servers. The QuickSync feature provides hardware capability for video encoding/decoding without a need for a GPU.
Before quad core, before duel core, before two CPUs on a mother board, even before the war with the Eskimos, but after we only had two computer for the whole company, I connected a switch to my computer and sent jobs to eight computers. As each one finished their job they sent the results to a printer and then got another job from my computer. This allowed me to do over 200 jobs in 16 hours I was not working. The limitation was the amount of paper the printer could hold.
I love those processors, even if im a AMD man at heart.
I ran my Q6700 @ 4GHz with 1.62 volts. With watercooling it still ran just under 90c at load. It ran fine like that until 2018 when the motherboard broke. I still regret selling it after that.
Excellent oration and reporting. Tech is definitely your forte. I would love to hear your thoughts on ARM and RISC-V as compared to modern x64 and where you see things going.
I really would like to never hear that seeing how he entirely ignored things like the SUN UltraSPARC T1
Keep him confined to playing with his x86 toys
I upgraded from an E5300 dual core to a Q6700 for $11. I think Haswell, 4th gen I series, had just came out. Old as it was, it was still a wonderful upgrade and got me into overclocking. Those were the days you could really overclock.
I remember it seemed like everyone went from AMD X2's to C2D's and C2Q's over night. EVERYONE went with the E6600 because that thing smoked everything for a decent price. Only the really well off people went with the Quads right off the bat. I was so jealous of the Core 2 performance on benchmarks compared to my AMD Athlon X2 5600+..
I would argue the Q6600 was the OG chip of its era :)
Fast and affordable.
Quad-core CPU's are still just fine for lots of things. I recently built a productivity machine for a friend using an i3 12100, and an HTPC/Plex server for myself with the same chip. Of course, that's an 8-thread chip.
I am using a quad core Intel 8350K gimped to 3.1 GHz driving a Nvidia 3090. It works 24/365 @ 250 Watts from the wall.
I still got my Q6600 kicking around in a bag of spare CPUs from that era, along with a BUNCH of other LGA775 chips too (including a Q9400). But I just can't bring myself to using them for anything other than a retro machine. I think if I had to build a functional 4C setup, I'd go for Sandy bridge or Ivy Bridge at the minimum, simply because they're just SO much more efficient and faster.
I was fortunate enough to find an engineering sample Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 (QPHV) for sale a few years back. It’s installed in an older D975XBX board with 2GBs of 800MHz DDR2 SDRAM. Honestly, very few games in 2006 and 2007 used more than one CPU core effectively so having a Conroe was overkill at that time. It wasn’t really until 2008 with more and more “7th gen” console-focused multi-platform games coming out that having a quad-core started to really make sense for games. Still, lovely CPU that QX6700 is, no doubt! I had a Q6600 system in 2007, specifically in anticipation for Crysis LOL
"Those were the days my friend.."
Good video. I had a QX6700 back in the day, I ran it at 4ghz. I also had 8800gtx's in tri sli.
I remember getting 14th on a 3d mark score ranking for about a week. Under load, I could feel the heat coming from the pc when sitting near it. Those parts ran hot.
(For gaming I only used 8800gtx in sli because of the stutter, I eventually used the 3rd card just for physxs.)
I did not know the QX6700 was the first quad core cpu.
@3:06 - X48 wasn't the last chipset for LGA775 platform, but it was liked by enthusiasts a lot as it was the one most stable with DDR3 past 1600MHz and was capable of running with low latencies. The only thing that was somewhat lacking on X48 was ability to run extremely high FSB frequencies, especially with quad core cpu's. P45 had surpassed it on this front.
And technically you are running it at 1.408V, because Asus has large vdrop (or even lower when loaded because of vdroop). Also the DDR3 memory speed may be different than what the BIOS settings is because of a bug - depending on whichever FSB Strap is set by the "Auto" -
P45/X48 chipset, strap 400
the 2:3 is misdetected as 3:5 in CPU-Z/BIOS
genuine 3:5 is only possible with strap 200
imagine consumer got stuck with only 4 core for mainstream user from 2007 to 2017
Since you've build the PC on the P8Z68 packaging you should get a Core i7-2600K, clock it to 5GHz and redo the test - that CPU was amazing!
I do not like AMD but TBF if they would not put huge pressure with Ryzen's price to performance in those early years we would have stuck with 6 core 14900K now.
14900K is basically a seudo gaming Threadripper that literally would kill itself because of how hot it would get and high voltage.
Why do you not like AMD?
@@My_Old_YT_Account i don't like AMD either because they ruined ATI and gave NVIDIA almost a monopoly over the graphics card market.
@@My_Old_YT_Account They act like they are the savior of poor people and little guys in their presentations but given the chance they are greedier than Nvidia. Just drop the act that's all.
I had the QX6700. Bought it at launch in late 2006 paired with a 8800 GTX. Was a really fast CPU for the time and I enjoyed it a lot. Nice to see some history on it :)
IIRC this was my first multi-core cpu. Later I got a bulldozer 8 core foll0wed by their last pre-zen 8 core. Now I typing this on a 12 core 3900x.
I have a maxed out M6400: QX9300, HD 5800, 16 GB DDR3 and RGBLED. It's amazing how much they depreciated in price over the past year.
I still have my pc build with the i7 2600k , still works like a charm. I use it in my garage.
I had the slightly later Q9450 (based on 45nm) and kept it all the way from 2008 to 2015, when I upgraded to an i7-6700K. Getting in on quad core relatively early definitely paid off in longevity.
It's crazy that there was a time where CPUs stagnated so if you bought a good quad core from the start, it would still handle stuff exceptionally well even beyond 5 years later. Much like the i7 2600k where you probably didn't care about upgrading until at least the 8700k came along. They're moving along fast enough that I don't get too attached to mine anymore and go for an upgrade as soon as I feel like there's a benefit.
we're kinda hitting that stagnation again tbh. its been a while since we've had more than a 10% performance bump generation to generation
People who bought Ryzen 1st gen wouldn't feel a need to upgrade if not for Windows 11, the Intel 8th gen buyers sure aren't either, it works well enough
Where is our promised i5-12600k overclocking video? 🥺
Note: Separating the dies is really just going to help with yields. There's no real reason you "can't" use one large die. It's been done many times on various platforms including game consoles. There's little difference between building in a communication bus on substrate vs on die besides yields. In this case allowing you to use 2 identical P4 dies on the PD allows better yields vs having to bin a large PD die itself. Not saying the engineer is lying, maybe they did rush, but there's nothing wrong with a combo die from an EE point of view.
Interesting!
Thanks for the video!
You should do some tests with higher front side bus speeds with the fsb:ram ratio still at 1:1. LGA775 really starts to shine once you get the fsb up there. 480fsb was what I used to run my Q6600 at with a P45 based Gigabyte board with the CPU running at 3.84Ghz.
This is not the world's first quad core processor. Sun Microsystems Sparc chips had multiple core processors starting in the 90s into the early 2000s. In 2004 they released an 8 core, 32 thread chip. For reference.
well, first *consumer* quad core cpu probably lol
@@lettuce7378 That distinction belongs to the PowerPC lineup. You could say the Intel product was way greater volume as well as better performance, but it's still a PowerPC first. Just like the Core 2 Quads, the first units were 2 Dual cores on an interposer. However, they could scale to 4096 nodes with 65536 processors if needed. Interestingly all of these designs from all of these companies were a reaction to the decline in Moore's Law.
If it's not x86, nobody cares
Its not that progress has declined, its that you are not doing anything that requires that progress. If I where to try to encode a 4K video on your Precision 6400, it would be slow, I dont know the exact numbers, but slow, on my 13900K+4090, its something like faster than real time depending on specific encode settings used. If I where to do basic web browsing, spreadsheets, some work in word, I would see little difference either.
My first quadcore was a Q6600, which could be modded with the BSEL mod. Very easy to do. Which increases the fsb from 1066 to 1333 which increases the clock speed from 2.4ghz to 3.0 ghz. Upgraded later to the same cpu as your with the QUPE spec.
WRONG esign: The Phenom is a monolithic multi-core design, meaning all the cores are on the same silicon die. This is different from Intel's Core 2 Quad series, which is a multi-chip module (MCM) design.
Release: The Phenom was released on the Socket AM2+ platform.
babe wake up new fully buffered video dropped
Yea quad core setups are still very much viable for builds to day especially the latter once like 7700k overclocked it's a performer
That progress has declined sharply is just incorrect, IMO.
I got a great deal on a 5950X, as an upgrade from a 3900X. And I just keep on being impressed at how much snappier and overall fast the 5950X is, compared to the still fast 3900X.
Very impressive in one generation.
Как всегда, спасибо за обзор. Ты красавчик! 😎
У меня был Q9650. Эх, интересные времена были.👍
I remember the IT department at school got itself a single machine with a Q6600 in it, and the few people doing IT for A-levels would remote in to use it. Thing was running 4 Win XP VMs no sweat. It seemed like a ludicrous amount of power.
The Q6600 was my 2007 upgrade from the Pentium 4 3GHz from 2004, it was the first time I bought a new pc where the clock speed was less than the previous CPU as it was only 2.4GHz.
@@blaser80 clock speed definitely is a bit misleading lol
I still have a Q6600 @ 3.0GHz tape modded in my HTPC. HP dc7900 SFF with 8GB DDR2, Radeon HD 6570, 240GB SSD + 3TB HDD, Windows 7 and Ubuntu 18.04
just FYI 18.04 went EOL last year. maybe upgrade to 20.04 if its possible
@@lettuce7378 I know, I'm just too lazy to update it. It works fine so I'll probably keep it like that for now and get a newer PC in the next few years
@@Pasi123 fair enough, can't fault you there.
Amd havent abandonded quad core, they have the 8000 series, and im sure they will have some quad core 9000 series out next year too
I'm rocking Xeon E5450 in my media pc. It's usable, yes. But DDR2 drags it very much.
i have dell precision t3400 with c2q q9550, 8gb ddr2, gtx 1050 2gb ddr5, 128gb ssd
2gb ddr5? wtf
I have that same model! Though, with different components. Core 2 Duo E7300, 4gb DDR2, GTX 1050 2gb GDDR5, 256gb HDD.
That RX5700 must've been running at some stupid low pci-e bandwith. Probably what, PCI-E 2.0 8X? 4X?
2.0 x16, X48 does full x16 for two slots.
Fully Buffered : the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700, released in Nov of 2006, doesn't count as the first 4-core CPU, because as you said, it had 2 CPU-s under 1 CPU die (just like todays 12-th, 13-th and 14-th gen).
The first true 4-core cpu with 1 CPU under 1 CPU die was the AMD Phenom X4 9600 released in the beginning of 2007. So AMD was the first :) just like with many other inventions.
I still have a Q6700 Go running a @3.2 nothing heavy in a windows 10 system it keeps chugging along have it as my back up turn it on update it and nod quietly before shutting down it was on 14 hrs a day from 2010 to 2022 every day.
Actually, as a person who was playing the Q6600, it was running GTA Online way better than this. Although mine was at 3.6GHz. I also used the Q8200 and the Q9550.
vreemd dat dat bord die 5700 XT niet pakt o.O UEFI-only vBIOS misschien?
My firs quad core was AMD II x4 630😊 not bad cpu in 2010...
Its amazing how cheap all that hardware is now.
The best part, the CPU is less than £30 or 31.82 euro.
8:14 hilarious they mock Intel when COUPLE years later they did the same with FX LOL, good times....
Complaining about technology slowing down is like complaining that lightbulbs don't evolve anymore. It's just time to go past lightbulbs into night vision! Or something like that, VR, whatever. Something better that pc.
Amd still makes quad cores, 8300G for example
AMD also made a quad-core EPYC processor, the EPYC 4124P.
Realistically the first quad core was the phenom 1. The core 2 duo were two CPUs on one chip.
No IBM in 2001 released a Power 4 CPU with 4 multicores. Could get a desktop.
@@PaulGrayUK If I remember correctly the power4 was a dual core.
i have e6600 in my old pc. i would like a 3rd gen in it
Those chips started decade of 4 core stagnation. Until Ryzen arrived.
And now we're stuck at 16
@@AnEagle I like today situation with two strong players. 4 Cora era was nasty on many levels.
@@mentalplayground yeah, I mean this generation they seem to have both agreed to both suck
@@AnEagle Current ZEN is not for Desktop. New EPYC's look superb.
coleciono vga, essa 256 aqui no brasil é missao impossível achar
So Q6600 engineering sample? Stoer! So not quite, bummer.
The Intel Q6600 came out in Nov 2006, but it was not the first quad core. The Sun UltraSpark T1 preceded the Q6600 in 2005 (it also had 8 way SMT).
What about Niagara
Wait what about the Q9400
I mean the Q series
The Q9 thousands were the core2 dieshrunk double c2d chips. You can see some of the differences on the wikipedia article for Yorkfield.
Those were 2x core 2 duos. They worked well, hell, i still daily one, but there is definitely a penalty for going over fsb. Windows past 7 has botched scheduler for them as well, bouncing low thread workloads around the dies uneccessarily and inducing latency for no reason.
Next Time : Abit bp6
It's interesting how things can change, because AMD chips are "chiplet" designs now and Intel is the single die, lol. It doesn't matter much how its implemented if it works.
Male version sweetie fox 😭🙏
Back when AMD called out Intel for gluing, and went as far as calling them fake dual and quads.
Guess AMD is doing it, and have are fake X core count.
Ah the time Intel was loosing right and left. I don't remember it being a hack job. But, a push out the door so they can claim the title of first Quad Core CPU. Even if the price was though the roof.
Technically speaking the first true quad core CPU was a Phenom X4 9950 BE since it was a true monolithic die 😜😂 the Q6600 was just 2 * dual cores that communicated through FSB 😜
A quad core is a cpu with four cores, that is two cpus with two cores. The same thing as a dual socket with two core2 duo
2600K as first? Intel Q6600 says hello!
Gekoloniseerd
mb