CPU Maximum Temperatures

Excessive heat damages electronics. Monitoring the temperature of your CPU and other computer components can help you keep them running properly. To properly use most software of this type, you will need to ensure you have ACPI functionality enabled in your motherboard BIOS.

CPU temperatures can still raise if they are being used at full power for a long period of time. Using CPU's at high temperatures can lower cause system crashes in the short term and in the long term cause the life of your CPU to be greatly reduced. In extreme cases your CPU could burn out or melt onto the motherboard. This usually happens when a fan breaks down and goes unnoticed. Today's motherboards come with temperature monitoring software and hardware which actually shuts the computer off the CPU temperature gets too hot. Even these however are not 100% fail proof. The only way to be sure is to check your fans and other cooling equipment regularly and also use CPU thermometers to check your CPU temperature is stable and not raising over time. CPU's have a rated maximum temperature sometimes called a critical temperature. What this boils down to (quick pun :} ) is what the manufacturer states is the maximum temperature the CPU will operate at. This is not to say you want your CPU to operate at this temperature as it will be borderline between working and burning out. Always try to keep at least 20C below this value if you can. Below is a table showing you the critical temperatures for most of the CPU's we use today.
Please be aware that as faster models are released even under the same name the thermal requirements may change. this table is meant for a guide only and Critical temperature is often referred as Critical Case temperature as CPU core temperatures are difficult to report accurately.

CPU	Critical Temperature
AMD Athlon Series
AMD Athlon (socket) upto 1Ghz	90°C
AMD Athlon (slot) all speeds	70°C
AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.1Ghz+	95°C
AMD Athlon MP 1.33Ghz+	95°C
AMD Athlon XP 1.33Ghz+	90°C
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred upto 2100+	90°C
AMD Athlon XP T-Bred over 2100+	85°C
AMD Athlon XP Barton	85°C
AMD Athlon 64	70°C
AMD Athlon 64 (Socket 939, 1.4 volts)	65°C
AMD Athlon 64 FX	70°C
AMD Opteron
AMD Opteron	65-71°C depending on model
AMD Sempron
AMD Sempron (T-bred/Barton core)	90°C
AMD Sempron (Paris core)	70°C
AMD Mobile Sempron	95°C
AMD Duron Series
AMD Duron up to 1Ghz	90°C
AMD Duron 1Ghz+	90°C
AMD Duron Applebred	85°C
AMD K6 Series
AMD K6/K6-2/K6-III (All except below)	70°C
AMD K6-2/K6-III (model number ending in X)	65°C
AMD K6-2+/K6-III+	85°C
Intel Pentium III Series
Pentium III Slot 1 500-866Mhz	80°C
Pentium III Slot and socket 933Mhz	75°C
Pentium III Slot 1 1Ghz	60-70°C depending on model
Pentium III Slot 1 1.13Ghz	62°C
Intel Celeron Series
Intel Celeron 266-433Mhz	85°C
Intel Celeron 466-533Mhz	70°C
Intel Celeron 566-600Mhz (Coppermine)	90°C
Intel Celeron 633-667Mhz	82°C
Intel Celeron 700Mhz+	80°C
Intel Celeron D	67°C
Intel Itanium 2
Intel Itanium 2 below 1Ghz	66°C
Intel Itanium 2 1Ghz - 1.6Ghz	83°C

source: http://www.pantherproducts.co.uk/Articles/CPU/CPU%20Temperatures.shtml

What to Get? Which is Better? part 3

One CPU Core Against the Other

Having no preference to Intel, no preference to AMD, allows you to understand that as a consumer, hyper-competitive companies tend to trade market dominance from one season to the next. 'A' is not always going to be better than 'B', and vice versa.

It'd be nice to have a third option, a 'C' to choose from, but sadly all of Transmeta's best technological advances have come under the Intellectual Properly gavel. Still, the impact it had on energy efficient processing is due more credit than history has bestowed... but that's a story for another day.

As it stands right now, Intel dominates the processor market - in value, in performance, in inertia. I'd be remiss to count AMD out just yet though.

AMD has been delayed by technological kinks, missed release dates that may have kept it in lock step with its largest competitor, and for better or worse swallowed $5 Billion in debt for ATI at the beginning of this year. There are positive signs from AMD if you know where to look though...

The AMD 690G chipset is a resounding success for example, and if Intel has taught us anything, it's that chipsets pave the path to PC dominance.

AMD has not been asleep at the wheel on the processor front either. Much delayed perhaps, but not asleep. It is readying a new core, called 'K10', and a slew of intermediary processors based on 'Barcelona.' Not much is known about the performance of AMD's upcoming 'K10' Phenom X2 and Phenom X4 desktop processors right now, but we should find out very shortly if the 'Agena' and 'Kuma' chips will give Intel a run for its money.

While much of AMD's success the last few years can be traced to its partners, Intel has guaranteed the success of the Core 2 Duo processor with well designed chipsets. As they say, "it's the chipsets, stupid."

The Intel Core 2 Duo is a very efficient processor, its TDP values are roughly half of what the Pentium 4/D series use to be, and real world testing shows that complete computer systems equipped with an Intel Core 2 Duo use considerably less power.

This is all well and good, but the real ace up Intel's sleeve is not that it has a processor which is faster by some percentage points, it's that the Core 2 Duo is faster and aggressively priced! I can't remember a time when you got so much value in a CPU for so little.

Mind you, Intel's Extreme Edition processors are still priced in the stratosphere, but its regular desktop CPU lines are very affordable. Compared to AMD processors in the same price bracket, Intel has the upper hand.

So as these things go, when it comes to AMD or Intel? Intel wins this round. The bottom line is simply that Intel has outmaneuvered AMD, scrapping an entire generational branch of CPUs for a double headed offshoot that rocks. The Core 2 Duo performs really well, so it's what I've been recommending.

But before we close up this debate, there's one more point you should consider. Along with casting away brand loyalty and judging CPUs based on cold hard benchmarks, there's another option we rarely see mentioned on sites set with deconstructing the latest and greatest technology. If the computer you have right now does what you need it to, you really don't have to choose between AMD or Intel's latest do you? ;-)

source: http://www.pcstats.com/

What to Get? Which is Better? part2

Chipsets and Dual Videocard Support

The one thing that has propped up AMD for the longest time was wide support for dual videocard gaming - both nVIDIA SLIand AMD CrossFire technology. For Intel users who wanted to run dual videocards, there was no real option for the longest time.

That was eventually sorted out when Intel added support for dual videocardsto its P965 Express chipset. A few Intel Edition nVIDIA nForce 590SLI motherboards also brought SLI to the Intel platform, but they weren't released in very significant volumes. That Intel Edition nVidia chipset seemed to be EOL'ed rather quickly too.

The situation is much better for gamers looking to run dual videocards with a Core 2 Duo processor nowadays. nVidia's nForce 680i/650i series motherboards are readily available, and Intel P35 Express supports AMD CrossFire technology better than the P965 Express.

The upcoming Intel X38 Express chipset is rumored to support both nVIDIA SLI and AMD CrossFire! AMD has certainly lost its well deserved monopoly on multi-videocard gaming platforms. Which CPU will take the lead in quad videocard gaming platforms remains to be seen...

It's Always About The Price

Intel has been unusually aggressive with the pricing of its Core 2 Duo/Quad processors this year. Consumers have benefitted surely, but what cost us nearly $800 last CPU generation entered the market at just $300!? I don't know how they do it.

Still, I have to tip my hat towards Intel, not only are its emerging CPUs fast, they're just such a bargain. As of this writing, $120 US will get you an Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 processor which is perfectly adequate for a workstation or home PC. A year ago, an equivalent class of processor would have been 2-3 times as much.

If you're building a new computer or buying a mainstream PC, a very nice Intel processor will only set you back $150-200US. For that, what you'll get will be faster than the AMD equivalent at that price. Factor in the cost of the other computer components, the fact that going AMD is no longer 'the cheaper option', and it really just makes sense to build Intel this time around.

When it comes to budget computing, the lines become blurry. Intel's budget Celeron D processor is still based on the Pentium 4 architecture, so there are those downsides when held up to the light of the current Core 2 Duo architecture.

It's a tough call. I suppose if I were putting together a budget PC right now I might just opt for a Celeron D instead of an AMD Sempron, mainly because of the flexibility of upgrading that LGA775 socket to a Core 2 Duo CPU at a later date. Now the socket AM2 AMD Semperon is a better budget processor all around than the Celeron D, but the upgrade path for AM2 just isn't as alluring right now. Like I said it's a tough one. The choice seems to be sacrifice a little performance now for better upgradability down the road, or benefit from entry level performance now and sacrifice upgrade performance later on.

The Ebb and Flow of CPU Architecture

Blind loyalty towards one brand precludes you from the decision making process. Is 'A' better than 'B,' or does 'B' have a better marketing program than 'A'? If you're not up on current CPU tech, this kind of decision making can quickly turn confusing.

Consider this; AMD and Intel are both corporations in the business of making microprocessors. The aim of a corporation is to make money, there's no hidden agenda to that. Intel has proven that in a short span of time, it can re-engineer a failing processor lineup and completely turn around its fortunes. AMD has shown us that in that same period of time a stagnant processor architecture can loose momentum because of a lack of innovation on a timely basis.

source: http://www.pcstats.com

What to Get? Which is Better?

There are countless companies in the computer industry but there is only one battle that counts... AMD vs. Intel. This is a favorite topic in the forums, yet instead of blindly pledging allegiance to one CPU or the other, let's take a look behind the scenes and find out which companies processor is the best bet.

Now I should say that I'm a hardware enthusiast at heart, so for me CPU performance matters the most. I stick with gear only as long as it keeps my PC at the front of the performance curve. After that, I drop it like a rock and move onto greener pastures, regardless if it's the same brand or not. After all, what's the point of brand loyalty? AMD and Intel don't love you back, no matter how much you might sing their praises. Put another way, it's not like AMD only sells to you, or Intel has a smiling shot of your mug on every pay stub as a testament to your past processor purchases now is it?

Anyway, the point I'm trying make is this. As a hardware enthusiast you have the pick of some of the fastest computer hardware on the planet. Ignore the urge to stick with AMD or Intel out of tradition, go out there and find the best gear based on benchmarks!

So, who offers the best performance - is it AMD or Intel? I'm glad you asked, the answer is....

...Intel. For the moment anyway, Intel's dual and quad core processors are the king of the heap. In particular, the companies Core 2 Duo/Quad processor lineup is out-pacing AMDs current Athlon64 X2/FX processor families. That may indeed change by the end of Q4'07, or it may not.

AMD is partly to blame for its current situation. Big green has not refreshed its CPU lineup since the last time PCSTATS dished the dirt on the AMD vs. Intel slugfest.AMD won the battle back then, but relying on the now somewhat dated K8 Athlon64 processor has left AMD without a good competing CPU for Intel's "Conroe". Intel published performance results on "Conroe" for quite some time before it was officially released, so it's not like AMD was blindsided by it either.

Intel Climbs Back To The Top

For its efforts, Intel has undergone more than a few self-evaluations. It had to deal with a "Prescott" Pentium 4 voltage leak issue, it stopped pushing GHz as the singular processor metric and adopted the same kind of rating system AMD had been using for years. Then, Intel abandoned Netburst and modernized the P6 core into what we now know as the Core Solo and Core 2 Duo processor.

The Core Solo was nice, but Intel's Core 2 Duo is the real beauty. The CPU was an immediate hit among gamers from the time of its release, and it continues to out pace comparable Athlon64 processors.

Intel's previous NetBurst architecture had de-emphasized FPU power in favor of special instructions (SSE, 2, 3). This is partly the reason so many gamers ditched their Pentium 4/D computers in favor of AMD Athlon64 processors and it's more powerful FPU.

With the Intel Core processor architecture, the company finally addressed the FPU issue. Intel's "Conroe" CPU core has a very powerful FPU, and that has guaranteed a very welcome reception by gamers ever since.

As it stands in the fall of 2007, the Intel Core 2 Duo processor is generally more powerful than AMD's Athlon64 X2/FX series in games, and all around.

Whether you're working on multimedia tasks, workstation or just need raw data crunching power, the Core 2 Duo trounces AMD's best almost every time.

It's also proved its mettle as an excellent overclocker!

Early stepping Intel Core 2 Duo processors could overclock to 3.2 GHz+ on air cooling, and the recent 'G0' stepping can go even further. I've overclocked to the region of 3.8 GHz with the stock heatsink in fact.

By comparison, AMD's 90nm Athlon64 X2/FX processors have difficulty overclocking much past 3 GHz.... Make no mistake about it, clock for clock Intel's Core 2 Duo is currently faster than AMD's Athlon64 X2 and FX processors.

Thermal Output Improving

The Intel Pentium 4 and D processor series were notorious for consuming a lot of power, and consequently running quite hot. The architecture Intel based the Core 2 Duo processors on is much better in this regard. While Pentium 4 architecture was at one time headed towards 150W TDP (Typical Design power), many of its current processors are now pushing 85W or less. One generation before, Intel Pentium D CPUs hovered around the 125W TDP range, late model Core 2 Duo processors (like the E6750 ) have a 65W TDP!

It's true enough that the power values AMD and Intel specify are not entirely comparable with each other, but total system power measurements give a good basis for comparison. I've conducted some power draw measurements recently, and those tests showed that Intel is genuinely kicking high power habit. An average Intel E6750 based computer system draws about 7W more power than a budget AMD Sempron 3600+ based PC system with its single CPU core running at idle. You'd think the lower power budget AMD chip would be significantly easier on the juice than the fairly high end E6750 Core 2 Duo, but the difference is pretty small.

With an Intel Core 2 Duo system under load, total power draw results are impressive. For instance, a Core 2 Duo E6750 system consumes 163W of power (total PC power draw) when running with both CPU cores under load.

A comparable Intel Pentium D 940 system consumes 253W of power with both processing CPU cores stressed, and an AMD Athlon64 FX-62 power system consumes upwards of 235W! It's clear you can save a lot on the utility bills by switching to a CPU that sips electricity. Intel offers this, with great performance. (Please keep in mind that these are total system power draw values, not just the processor.)

I've often thought that Intel is the more innovative of the two companies when it comes to designing heatsinks for its processors. The current Core 2 Duo bifurcated radial fin heatsinks are remarkably good, and very quiet.

Gone are the days of throwing out the stock heatsink for an after market cooler the second the box is opened... For good all around CPU cooling, it's tough to beat Intel in terms of noise level. The stock heatsinks are just so quiet, thanks in large part to 90mm fans and Pulse Width Modulation which allows the rotational speed to vary based on moment to moment thermal output.

source: http://www.pcstats.com

Intel vs AMD - integrated graphics part3

Next we installed Windows Vista Ultimate Edition. This was Release Candidate 2 build 5742 as we don’t have the RTM build 6000, and we have to confess that the Aero interface and Flip looked lovely and smooth on the GeForce 6100.

The Prestige R scored 3.0 on the Windows Experience Index - the scale runs from 1 to 5.9 - which is exactly on the lower limit of what is required to run Aero.

Moving on to the Intel-based Prestige R Plus, we ran the same benchmarks and games on the default 6.14.10.4642 drivers which give support for DirectX 9.0b. Evesham supplied this PC with the BIOS set to dynamically allocate 128MB of memory to the graphics. This is the sensible approach but it confuses benchmarks so we changed it to the maximum setting of 256MB fixed, which is the same as the Nvidia PC.

The Intel graphics gave higher frame rates in Lego and Sims 2 because we simply weren't presented with the option of enabling the eye candy as the games detected the graphics as fairly low spec, which is a safe bet with most Intel silicon.

We then updated the drivers to the latest 6.14.10.4704 version from Intel’s website, although this is something we wouldn’t expect the typical customer of a £549 PC to do. This unlocked full support for Shader Model 3.0 and DirectX 9.0c but the games still refused to allow us to use high quality settings. You’ll note that Sims 2 jumped from 24fps to 35fps.

The Intel G965 graphics impressed us, however we could see a slight shimmering effect on the Windows XP desktop that looked a little fuzzy and imprecise.

It was time to install Windows Vista RC2 on the Intel PC, and initially it looked dreadful scoring 1.0 on the Windows Experience Index. This was on the RC2 Microsoft driver 6.0.5472.5 so we downloaded and installed Intel driver 7.14.10.111 which made things much better. We were now able to raise the monitor refresh from 60Hz to 85Hz and the Windows Experience Index score shot up to 3.4, yet there is clearly more to come as this driver doesn’t have support for Shader Model 3.0, even though we know the hardware is capable of it.

Once the driver was updated the Aero interface was enabled and the Intel system looked as good as the Nvidia machine. We were unable to tell them apart visually.

It may sound as though we fudged those figures but we ran Windows Vista on our high-end Core 2 Quad test system with a GeForce 7950 GT graphics card and it too scored 1.0 on the Windows Experience Index. We updated the driver to version 96.85 and the score leapt to 5.0, which is pretty darn impressive.

Verdict

There's not much to choose between the test systems when it comes to games. The Intel box's scores were higher, but then it didn't offer the choice to show off its graphics muscles at the price of a lower frame-rate the way the AMD/Nvidia machine did. We'd rather have the ability to turn off some of the eye candy to balance frame rate how we want, not the way the driver thinks we should have it. But will occasional gamers care? Probably not. And most of their time will be spent, surely, in apps that don't tax the GPU.

That will change with Vista, when the OS is going to want some graphics chip time too. But the upshot of our tests is that AMD is whistling if it thinks that Intel can't run Windows Vista in all of its Aero glory on G965 graphics. It can, and it looks great and it is our opinion that Intel is fully ready for 2007. ®

source: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/15/review_intel_vs_amd_integrated/page4.html

Intel vs AMD - integrated graphics part2

UK PC supplier Evesham Technology offers both Intel- and AMD-based integrated systems. We asked the company if it could help us out by producing two systems with specifications and prices that were very similar to allow us to focus on the performance of the integrated graphics. It delivered a Prestige R at £499 with an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ processor running at 2.41GHz on a Foxconn 6100M2MA-RS2H motherboard that uses an Nvidia's GeForce 6100 integrated chipset. The second system was a Prestige R Plus at £549. This was the Intel box, with a Core 2 Duo E6400 clocket at 2.13GHz on a Foxconn G9657MA-8EKRS2H mobo with G965 chipset.

Both PCs had 1GB of 533MHz DDR2 memory in dual-channel configuration with a 250GB WD 7,200rpm SATA hard drive, a Sony dual-layer DVD writer and Windows XP Home Edition. In short, a standard system of the kind rather a lot of folk will be looking to buy this festive season.

Test System Details
	Prestige R Shipped Driver	Prestige R Plus Shipped Driver	Prestige R Plus Updates Driver
Price	£499 inc. VAT	£549 inc. VAT	£549 inc. VAT
CPU	AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+	Intel Core 2 Duo E6400	Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
CPU Clock	2.41GHz	2.13GHz	2.13GHz
GPU	Nvidia GeForce 6100	Intel GMA X3000	Intel GMA X3000
Graphics Driver	Forceware 93.71	6.14.10.4642	6.14.10.4704

Common courtesy demands that we give Evesham thanks for helping us out with this feature but there’s more to it that that. Evesham is one of only a handful of manufacturers in the UK that can build PCs with any make of processor, chipset and graphics that you choose and Evesham was running the very real risk that its name would be dragged down by the performance of one of the graphics cores.

Our thinking was that anyone who buys a cheap PC for Christmas from the likes of Dell, Evesham, HP or PC World is unlikely to know or care what graphics are inside as the emphasis of the marketing is on processor, memory, hard drive and price. Yet it’s highly likely that they will want to play the odd game, if only to keep the kids quiet, and then there’s the whole question of upgrading to Windows Vista at some point in the future.

Both of these PCs have a VGA output instead of DVI so we hooked them up to our 22in Taxan Ergovision 2285. Nvidia offers GeForce 6150 graphics that support DVI and to date we haven’t seen an Intel motherboard with a DVI output.

The Evesham Prestige R - the Nvidia machine - came loaded with the latest 93.71 drivers and there were no updates available on the Foxconn website so we ran 3DMarks 05 and 06 to get an idea of the performance and weren’t surprised to see that it was fairly rotten. 3DMark06 didn’t return a Shader Model 3.0 score as the GeForce 6100 doesn’t support High Dynamic Range lighting at the same time as anti-aliasing. The frame rates were low but the pictures looked good so we pressed on and installed The Sims 2, Lego Star Wars II and Myst V:End of Ages, hugely popular titles despite the sneers of some on the first-person perspective shooter camp.

These games aren’t graphically intensive in the mould of Half Life 2 and Age of Empires III but they put a fair load on the graphics. Sims 2 requires a minimum 32MB T&L graphics card while Lego Star Wars II specifies graphics that have 64MB of memory with Vertex and Pixel Shader capability and Myst V demands a 32MB DirectX 9.0c compliant video card supporting 32-bit colour.

That’s clear enough if you have a reasonable level of technical knowledge but we suspect it would sound like gobbledegook to the average punter on the High Street.

All three games played reasonably well, although Lego Star Wars II was initially very slow and then speeded up, and we were presented with a full range of settings for graphical quality. In the case of Lego we chose to enable bump mapping, bloom filtering and plastic reflections while in Sims 2 we left the default settings which were High. Myst V is an odd case as the screen is displayed as a series of still images. All three games looked good and played acceptably well, and far better than you could have hoped to see on integrated graphics.

source: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/15/review_intel_vs_amd_integrated/page3.html

Games Test Results [in frames per second]
	Prestige R Shipped Driver	Prestige R Plus Shipped Driver	Prestige R Plus Updates Driver
The Sims 2	15 800 x 600	24 1,024 x 768	35 1,024 x 768
Lego Star Wars II	11 1,024 x 768	28 1,024 x 768 No eye candy	28 1,024 x 768 No eye candy
Myst V	24 1,024 x 768	24 1,024 x 768	27 1,024 x 768

Intel vs AMD - integrated graphics part1

Head-to-Head Make no mistake about it, the AMD Athlon 64 X2 dual-core processor struggles to compete with Intel's Core 2 Duo, and the upcoming four-core Core 2 Quad will move the goalposts even further away. Which gives AMD a major problem until it starts to roll out Athlon 64 X4 mid-2007. Meanwhile, it can’t rely on sales of mobile processors as that sector is owned by Centrino and it must surely be worried about Opteron’s position as Intel spreads its Core technology into servers.

This grim situation has forced AMD to beat the drum about a sector where it feels it has the edge over Intel, based on market researcher Mercury Research's latest 2006 figures. The key points that it makes are:

Desktop integrated graphics are 60 per ceent of the desktop market and discrete graphics are 40 per cent.
Mobile integrated graphics are 76 per cent of the desktop market and discrete graphics are 24 per cent

That sounds about right to us

AMD has an open platform so you can choose either ATI or Nvidia graphics

Again, fair enough. If you want to buy a cheap Core 2 Duo-based PC you can bet it’ll have integrated graphics from Intel, although it would be no surprise if Nvidia came up with some new silicon during the course of 2007. With an AMD Socket AM2 processor you get the choice of ATI or Nvidia graphics.

Windows Vista and 3D Graphics – platform quality is more important

In other words, Windows 95, 98, Me, 2000 and XP didn’t put any emphasis on the power of your PC's integrated graphics engine. The games and applications you run may well require specific features and abilities but Windows itself was a pussy cat. Windows Vista changes all that as the new operating system itself demands a fair amount of graphics power if you want to run the swanky Aero Glass interface that you'll find in Windows Vista Premium and Ultimate Editions.

In Summary... AMD solutions... achieve... a visible difference for consumers in performance versus the competition [and] outstanding Windows Vista performance tomorrow on mainstream PCs available today.

Now this is interesting. AMD has produced a number of graphs that show that Intel’s new G965 chipset and its GMA X3000 graphics core is - to put it bluntly - rubbish. It’s reasonable to be condescending about the Q965 chipset with GMA 3000 core as it isn’t much more than a refreshed GMA 950 with the addition of hardware transform and lighting (T&L), but the GMA X3000 is meant to be a completely different proposition.

Windows Vista Premium requires graphics that support DirectX 9 with Shader Model 2.0 hardware along with a Microsoft Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) driver. Intel has developed GMA X3000 with that specific task in mind, so when AMD claims that there would be a "visible difference" between integrated Nvidia and ATI GPUs and the new Intel core, it's something worth investigating more closely. We decided to find out whether the argument held water.

source: http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/12/15/review_intel_vs_amd_integrated/

Intel® Core™2 Extreme Processor

Extreme exhilaration. Extreme enjoyment.
Whether it's gaming, digital photography, or video editing, today's high-impact entertainment demands breakthrough technology. Now with a new version based on Intel's cutting edge 45nm technology utilizing hafnium-infused circuitry to deliver even greater performance and power efficiency.
Your options, multiplied
With four cores and high scores, the Intel® Core™2 Extreme processor QX9650 is flat out the most extreme desktop processor. It's Intel's top of the line quad-core processor specifically built for hardcore enthusiasts who don’t take kindly to compromise. Hafnium-infused circuitry drives innovative processor design, enabling greater performance and efficiency. The Intel Core 2 Extreme processor QX9650 is the ultimate multimedia engine. And the performance? It eats benchmarks for breakfast.

Features and benefits
When "Extreme" is an understatement.
It's not about playing the game. It's about dominating and winning the game. Designed for extreme performance, the Dual-Core and Quad-Core Intel Core 2 Extreme processors feature the latest arsenal of performance-rich technologies:
Intel® Wide Dynamic Execution, enabling delivery of more instructions per clock cycle to improve gaming execution time and energy efficiency


Intel® Deep Power Down Technology, designed to deliver extreme energy-efficient performance


Intel® Smart Memory Access, improving system performance by optimizing the use of all available data bandwidth


Intel® Advanced Smart Cache, providing a higher-performance, more efficient cache subsystem. Optimized for industry leading multi-threaded games


Intel® Advanced Digital Media Boost, accelerating a broad range of applications, including ultra-realistic game physics and human-like artificial intelligence for an intense gaming experience unlike any other. Now improved even further on 45nm versions with Intel® HD Boost utilizing new SSE4 instructions for even better multimedia performance
Warning: Graphics may appear to be too real.
The Intel Core 2 Extreme processor has the power for incredible visual experiences. Get inside amazingly complex HD games and applications with the incredible performance from Intel's most advanced gaming desktop processor ever.
Energy-efficient performance? Rage on.
The Intel Core 2 Extreme processor was designed to enable energy-efficiency so you can maximize your performance. Plus, the added energy efficiency allows systems to run quieter so you only hear what you want to hear - the sounds of sweet victory perhaps?


source:

Energy-Efficient Performance

Performance made energy-efficient

Energy-efficient performance is the intersection of great performance supporting expanded capabilities and designed for energy efficiency. The result: Performance made energy-efficient.

Intel is bringing the benefits of energy-efficient performance to the world

As the demand for new and more powerful compute capabilities continues to grow, the need for greater energy efficiency becomes increasingly important. Energy costs are escalating around the world, and society is becoming increasingly aware of the environmental impacts of energy generation and consumption.

To address the need to balance ever-increasing performance gains while maximizing energy efficiency, Intel is delivering unprecedented innovations in processor architecture, silicon, platform technology and software. This is expected to translate into extraordinary computer experiences across all segments:

• Increased performance and improved multitasking enabling greater productivity
• Exciting new usage models and applications
• Greater power savings for enterprise computing
• Longer battery life for greater mobility
• Enabling quieter desktops for homes and offices
• Thrilling game performance
• New form factors for the home, office, data center, and on the go

Architecture innovation

Take advantage of new multi-core architecture innovations! With a new Intel® architecture delivered every 2 years, you'll be able to take immediate advantage of advanced, energy-efficient performance levels and cutting-edge capabilities. Intel® Core™ microarchitecture builds computing headroom and performance enabling smaller footprint and power demands through power-conscious design features: Intel® Intelligent Power Capability throttles power to the processor's execution cores, powering up only those components that are needed. Intel® Advanced Smart Cache improves performance and efficiency by increasing the probability that each execution core can access data from cache. Intel® Smart Memory Access increases performance by optimizing memory bandwidth and increases efficiency by improving out-of-order execution. Beginning in the second half of 2007, look for 45nm Hi-k Intel Core microarchitecture. By shrinking transistor size from 65nm to 45nm and using different transistor materials, Intel can enable dramatic increases in the performance and efficiency of Intel Core microarchitecture. In 2008, look for Intel's next-generation 45nm Hi-k microarchitecture, code named "Nehalem". This truly dynamic and design-scalable microarchitecture can deliver enormous performance and energy-efficiency gains across mobile, desktop, and server computing.

Silicon innovation

Energy-efficient performance begins with energy-efficient transistors at the silicon level. As transistors get smaller (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter), more power and heat dissipation issues develop. As a result, implementing new features, techniques and structures is imperative to continuing microprocessor innovation. Intel's groundbreaking 65nm process technology roughly doubles transistor density from the previous generation. 65nm transistor technologies include: Second generation strained silicon with 10-15 percent improved drive current (over the 90nm process) for improved performance 1.2nm gate oxide and 35nm gates for improved performance NiSi for low resistance cap on gates and source-drains Lower interconnect capacitance through low-k carbon doped oxide dielectric and 0.7x line length scaling, providing increased performance and lower power In the second half of 2007, look for Intel's paradigm-shattering 45nm Hi-k metal gate process technology. By using dramatically different transistor materials, Intel makes record-breaking PC, laptop, and server processor speeds possible while reducing the amount of electrical leakage from transistors that can hamper chip and PC design, size, power consumption, noise, and costs. Compared to today's 65nm technology, Intel's 45nm technology will provide the following product benefits: Approximately twice the transistor density (great for smaller chip sizes or increased transistor counts) Approximately 30 percent reduction in transistor-switching power Greater than 20 percent improvement in transistor-switching speed or a greater than 5 times reduction in source-drain leakage power Greater than 10 times reduction in transistor gate oxide leakage for lower power requirements and increased battery life

Platform innovation

Designing for energy-efficient performance is essential to ensuring that new systems can support high-end applications without dramatically increasing energy consumption. This requires a fundamental rethinking on how to deliver new levels of performance within a given power envelope at home, in the office, on the go and in the data center.

Intel® multi-core platforms offer new capabilities and enhanced user benefits across mobile, desktop, and server segments. These include:

• Higher performance blade servers with smaller footprints that deliver lower operating costs through greater energy efficiency
• Smaller, thinner form factors and enabled extended battery life for mobile devices
• Better application responsiveness in multi-tasking environments
• High-performance computing (HPC) technology for new applications