Core 2 Duo E6750 Review

**Hardware Secrets Team** · 06-24-2007, 04:39 PM

There has been a new article posted.

Title: Core 2 Duo E6750 Review
URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/463

Here is a snippet:
"We received from Intel a Core 2 Duo E6750 engineering sample, which is basically a Core 2 Duo E6700 with a 1,333 MHz FSB instead of 1,066 MHz. It will be launched later this summer together with sever..."

Comments on this article are welcome.

Best regards,
Hardware Secrets Team
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com

paulus · 08-16-2007, 01:01 AM

I think the 1333 MHz FSB is also for the benefit of PC5300 (667) memory run in dual channel configuration. With 1066 MHz FSB this type of memory didn't perform well.

Quote:

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=get...65&articID=472

So it doesn?t matter much what memory speed/timings you buy, the value line will suit the Intel Core 2 system just fine, but do keep one thing in mind, as in our testing we found performance actually decreases a bit going from PC4200 (533) to PC5300 (667)!

The Core 2 has a front side bus (FSB) speed of 266Mhz x 4 (Quadruple) ?1066Mhz?, the ram is running at 266Mhz x2 (Dual Channel) x2 (DDR) = ?1066Mhz?, so with PC4200 memory and FSB are running synchronized. When you use PC5300 you are no longer running synchronous with the FSB and a memory divider of x1.25 (5/4) has to be used.

By running the memory synchronous to the FSB you have the least amount of latency and thus performance is at its best. Why is PC6400, which is also running asynchronous, faster then? Because the memory speed is now that much higher that it compensates for the loss of running asynchronous and overall performance does increase. PC5300 worked great with Pentium 4 but it should be avoided when running Core 2, except when you plan to overclock. PC5300/6400 will give you the extra headroom to increase the FSB while keeping memory synchronous.

IMHO your tests were totally inadequate. I mean, when you configure the systems to run approximately identical (E6750 with 1,000 MHz memory & E6700 with 1,066 MHz memory) ... one will expect identical results.

**Gabriel Torres** · 08-16-2007, 07:02 AM

Hi there and thanks for your feedback.

Just one little detail. If your memory is already running at 667 MHz it will keep running at 667 MHz with 1,333 MHz FSB, thus your criticism to our methodology makes no sense. As for overclocking, officially Intel does not support overclocking.

Thanks
Gabriel.

paulus · 08-17-2007, 02:10 AM

In your tests you used the same P35 motherboard with DDR2-1066 and different CPUs. Your conclusion was that E6750 isn't better than E6700 in that configuration. I said that your tests were totally inadequate because you could have found another configuration where E6750 performs better than E6700. I suggested using DDR2-667 in dual channel. What CPU do you think would have performed better in that configuration, and by how much? What would have been your verdict then?

**Gabriel Torres** · 08-17-2007, 10:37 AM

Hi there,

Discussing methodology is always a though job, as people have different opinions.

My opinion is that someone willing to buy a high-end CPU -- in fact, the most expensive and also the fastest Core 2 Duo available -- won't be installing regular mid-range memories on their system.

Thus I think using DDR2-667 on such system makes no sense.

Of course you are entitled to have a different opinion!

Cheers,
Gabriel.

06-24-2007, 04:39 PM	#1
Hardware Secrets Team Administrator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 2,952	Core 2 Duo E6750 Review There has been a new article posted. Title: Core 2 Duo E6750 Review URL: http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/463 Here is a snippet: "We received from Intel a Core 2 Duo E6750 engineering sample, which is basically a Core 2 Duo E6700 with a 1,333 MHz FSB instead of 1,066 MHz. It will be launched later this summer together with sever..." Comments on this article are welcome. Best regards, Hardware Secrets Team http://www.hardwaresecrets.com

08-16-2007, 07:02 AM	#3
Gabriel Torres Administrator Join Date: Oct 2004 USA Posts: 2,553	Hi there and thanks for your feedback. Just one little detail. If your memory is already running at 667 MHz it will keep running at 667 MHz with 1,333 MHz FSB, thus your criticism to our methodology makes no sense. As for overclocking, officially Intel does not support overclocking. Thanks Gabriel. Last edited by Gabriel Torres; 08-16-2007 at 07:07 AM.

Laptop Deals			Powered by Shopping.com
Acer (LU.S680B.066) PC Notebook From $256	Acer AOD250-1116 (LU.S700B.029) Netbook From $287	Toshiba NB205-N310/BN (PLL20U-00201D) Netbook From $367	Acer Aspire One AOD250-1326 10.1-Inch UltraThin Seashell White Netbook - 3 Cell Battery (LU.S690B.037) From $287	ASUS Eee PC 1005HA-PU1X-BK Netbook From $355

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-17-2007, 02:10 AM	#4
paulus Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Romania Posts: 3	In your tests you used the same P35 motherboard with DDR2-1066 and different CPUs. Your conclusion was that E6750 isn't better than E6700 in that configuration. I said that your tests were totally inadequate because you could have found another configuration where E6750 performs better than E6700. I suggested using DDR2-667 in dual channel. What CPU do you think would have performed better in that configuration, and by how much? What would have been your verdict then?

08-17-2007, 10:37 AM	#5
Gabriel Torres Administrator Join Date: Oct 2004 USA Posts: 2,553	Hi there, Discussing methodology is always a though job, as people have different opinions. My opinion is that someone willing to buy a high-end CPU -- in fact, the most expensive and also the fastest Core 2 Duo available -- won't be installing regular mid-range memories on their system. Thus I think using DDR2-667 on such system makes no sense. Of course you are entitled to have a different opinion! Cheers, Gabriel.