Gigacore
30-10-2007, 06:33 AM
TechReport has an early review on the new Intel QX9650 45nm 3.0 GHz quad-core extreme desktop CPU (due for launch next month) and the power consumption results are shocking. The new QX9650 quad-core based on the latest 45nm HKMG (High K Metal Gate) manufacturing process consumes less power on average than an Intel E6750 2.66GHz dual-core. At idle the QX9650 system draws 160W versus an E6750 at 175W idle. At peak consumption the QX9650 draws 215W versus the E6750 at 214W which is nearly identical. That’s shocking when you consider the fact that we’re comparing four 3 GHz cores versus two 2.66 GHz cores.
The E6750 is based on “stepping G” which is already the latest and most mature 65nm manufacturing process from Intel and it was already an extremely efficient CPU. The idea that the first 45nm CPUs on the planet that has barely matured can get these kinds of results is astounding. What’s just as astounding is the fact that Intel calls the QX9650 quad-core CPU a 130W TDP part when the Intel E6750 is already a very conservative 65W TDP part. It is noteworthy that the server version of the 3 GHz 45nm quad-core Intel processor is rated at a less conservative 80W TDP which makes perfectly good sense considering it’s in the same power envelope of a conservative 65W TDP chip.
Read More (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=844)
The E6750 is based on “stepping G” which is already the latest and most mature 65nm manufacturing process from Intel and it was already an extremely efficient CPU. The idea that the first 45nm CPUs on the planet that has barely matured can get these kinds of results is astounding. What’s just as astounding is the fact that Intel calls the QX9650 quad-core CPU a 130W TDP part when the Intel E6750 is already a very conservative 65W TDP part. It is noteworthy that the server version of the 3 GHz 45nm quad-core Intel processor is rated at a less conservative 80W TDP which makes perfectly good sense considering it’s in the same power envelope of a conservative 65W TDP chip.
Read More (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=844)