Intel Kentsfield four core gaming CPU.

[Daveb2012]

How do you guys think some thing such as this compare's in performance to the FX-60 or 62?

link:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29735

article says:
"AMD is going to have to scramble to keep the gaming crown"

honestly im not so sure that 4 cores will actually cause a huge performance gain in the current games we play?

[gundamit]

Why would it unless the games are written to take advantage of it? Maybe Futuremark will optimize their 3D '07 for it. :rolleyes:

[eddieate]

hopefully we'll see some multithreaded games by 2007.
i dont see this blowing AMD out the water but you have to admit intel's turning the heat up a bit, which is good, might inspire AMD to move to 65nm faster :)
/Ed

[Cybercat]

I only know of one relevant thing that would take advantage of it, and that's 3DMark06, which supposedly can be scaled to use nearly any number of threads.

[onewingedangel]

If your multitasking running two tasks that are both multithreaded for two threads each, four cores would be a must to get the same 'experience' as running two single threaded apps on a dual core, so as applications are able to take advantage of more and more threads each, the number of cores needed will scale faster than the ammount of threads a single application would be able to take advantage of.

[eddieate]

Is this chip going to be netburst? If not what speeds and thermal output are we looking at?
I'd imagine it to be a monster perhaps they should wait for 45nm for quad core...
/Ed

[onewingedangel]

Kentsfield will be based on itels next generation architecture that will give use merom/conroe and woodcrest. It will be two such dies on a multi chip module, so the thermal envelope will likely be comparable to a 65nm dual core pressler based cpu, as the next generation architecture is somewhat more efficient than netburst.

Kentsfield was originally going to be two 45nm dies on a MCM, but intel decided to pull its release up 6 months earlier, and so it will use two 65nm chips. This is similar to what they did recently with the Paxville dual core xeons, which used two 90nm cores with 2mb l2 on a mcm instead of the 65nm cores that were originally projected.

[lizardmech]

Won't they have trouble with bandwidth seeing as they are still using FSB?

[nn_step]

That is all nice and wonderful except I wonder how the hell they expect to deal with the FSB bandwidth issues.. They will probably require another mobo update to use it..

[onewingedangel]

Add a nice l3 cache for the two dual core dies to share, would help alleviate some of the bandwidth limitation. Although even with 1333fsb and a 16MB l3 cache this may still have bandwidth issues, which will haunt intel until they add an integrated memory controller.

However you have to consider that this will be two meroms in a package, as it will have double the cores, and double the bandwidth, so the limitation may not be as bad as we're theorising - the next gen architecture may not need as high of a fsb as we're used to.

[eddieate]

it's looking good then, its progress which should never be sniffed at.
even if it needs another motherboard most people wont see this chip till its more mainstream anyways.
/Ed