|
Written by Nedeljko Kovacevic
|
|
Thursday, 07 December 2006 |
|
Page 4 of 4 Discouraging results from the end of testing should not shade the basic impression made by Intel’s Core 2 Quad processors. And the final impression is that these are very good processors. Anybody engaged in all types of operations including usage of any packaging for 3D rendering and visualization, have the fastest Kentsfield processor in their work. All people engaged in designing of commercials, clips or any other activity from domain of video processing (someone mentioned weddings and joining the army?) likewise do not have better solution than Kentfield. All people employed with different institutes and departments engaged in complex mathematical calculations of any kind, do not have faster solution than Kentsfield for „brain power“ of their PCs.
These three user groups are neither small nor insignificant. They should be adjoined by all enthusiasts competing for high scores in 3DMark 06. There are only few of them, but they are loud. They are so loud that they are not able to hear someone saying that Kentsfield practically has no advantages comparing to Conroe, speaking of graphical test results of famous benchmark program. For all of them, the recommended Core 2 Quad processor price, whether it is “plain” Q6600 for 850$ or “Extreme” QX6700 for $999, is not a problem nor factor worth of particular elaboration.
|
Reviews 
