4 cores in 1,Conroe E6600 8Mb Cache,Kentsfield result@MSI 975X

Wow, I love it.

WHOOOO Kentsfield!

IT IS looking veeeery nice!

We are still looking at a Q1 07 launch right?

CoolerAler can you do me a favour and do some benchmarks with Sciencemark 2 ? www.sciencemark.org.

Please run Sciencemark Primordia and Molecular.. and memory testing - and post the results.. then you are me herro!

:banana:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinos22

do me a favour and name it Core Quad-o.............this would be comedy gold.....hey there's no reason not to have a bit of a sense of humour with these :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

---

I don't get the joke!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gotheb1ues

I don't get the joke!

---

sorry can't help you there :)

THIS IS DEFINATLY MY NEXT CHIP!!!
have to wait till february to avoid price gouging though
(hey, im realistic lol)
8800gtx will be available during that time, just as a heads up to ppl planning ahead...hopefully i can use my 7800gtx for physics in the future, its good to recycle lol

OMG this just made me have an orgasm ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theteamaqua

so its slightly faster in compression, well i ithink the programs have to optimized for cpu like this, otherwise no perfmormance gain compare to dual core conroe

---

:up:

The relatively poor compression score is due to the fact it's probably limited by something else in the system. Maybe the HDD or the RAM bandwidth if the dictionary doesn't fit into L2.

WinRAR is ~90% RAM performance. Both bandwidth and latency come into effect.

Quad cores would be beneficial in many other things though....and talk about multitasking!

Let's see, specifically why you don't need a quad core for the average system... Well, on a gaming rig, what you are really interested in is doing one thing very very fast -- playing that game. Like it or not, almost no games, even in this day and age, use SMP. So unless your OS can manage SMP of programs on its own (which it does, to some extent, but it's not very good at it), a single, faster core will run games better than a multicore system that is slower. A server is generally designed to use SMP, but it uses it in a specific way.

A server will run more than a single program in that clock tick. Servers need to offer many services concurrently without any of these services taking down the whole machine. This makes SMP very valuable for servers. If you have ever tried to run a very nasty SQL query on a server that also provides other services you need, you really appreciate those other processing cores, because it means both things can happen without taking the entire day.

4 cores are useless much less 2. Your no better off since your just running at the same clock speed of one core. In reality 2 or even 4 cores are not going to be any faster then 1. It may seem like it in benchmarks ofcorse. But they are made to take advantave of dual and quad cores. Again almost no programs at all do this and are still single threaded 95% of them. Very nasty problem. Sure you can make the cpu run 4 different tasks at once but in raw speed, nothing is gained.

You don't get more power, only more multi tasking. So this is just pointless unless your crazy mad about having the latest junk and like to show off, or your really going to use it in a server for a perpous. Really as long as programs are single threaded its like saying your 4 core cpu is no better then mine give or take a small % of real speed gane here like 10 or 15%. Afterall the fastest CPU clock per clock is a FX-57 at 4.2ghz single core not a dual core. Now thats how you show off. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed. Just because you have 2 cpus doesn't mean you get some special 50% speed boost. The speed is always the same, your abillity to do 2 things at once is not. But programs people. So this junk is just hype. The real performance difference is only a convenionce of about 15% at most. Won't help me any.

The tech is useless if no program can use its advantages is a fact. Maybe great in 2010 but until then your gaining nothing but a nice utility bill. lol

Wow, very impressed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serge84

Let's see, specifically why you don't need a quad core for the average system... Well, on a gaming rig, what you are really interested in is doing one thing very very fast -- playing that game. Like it or not, almost no games, even in this day and age, use SMP. So unless your OS can manage SMP of programs on its own (which it does, to some extent, but it's not very good at it), a single, faster core will run games better than a multicore system that is slower. A server is generally designed to use SMP, but it uses it in a specific way.

A server will run more than a single program in that clock tick. Servers need to offer many services concurrently without any of these services taking down the whole machine. This makes SMP very valuable for servers. If you have ever tried to run a very nasty SQL query on a server that also provides other services you need, you really appreciate those other processing cores, because it means both things can happen without taking the entire day.

4 cores are useless much less 2. Your no better off since your just running at the same clock speed of one core. In reality 2 or even 4 cores are not going to be any faster then 1. It may seem like it in benchmarks ofcorse. But they are made to take advantave of dual and quad cores. Again almost no programs at all do this and are still single threaded 95% of them. Very nasty problem. Sure you can make the cpu run 4 different tasks at once but in raw speed, nothing is gained.

You don't get more power, only more multi tasking. So this is just pointless unless your crazy mad about having the latest junk and like to show off, or your really going to use it in a server for a perpous. Really as long as programs are single threaded its like saying your 4 core cpu is no better then mine give or take a small % of real speed gane here like 10 or 15%. Afterall the fastest CPU clock per clock is a FX-57 at 4.2ghz single core not a dual core. Now thats how you show off. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed. Just because you have 2 cpus doesn't mean you get some special 50% speed boost. The speed is always the same, your abillity to do 2 things at once is not. But programs people. So this junk is just hype. The real performance difference is only a convenionce of about 15% at most. Won't help me any.

The tech is useless if no program can use its advantages is a fact. Maybe great in 2010 but until then your gaining nothing but a nice utility bill. lol

---

wait, is this a joke post lol?
thats some jujitsu satire right there

I think he took the wrong left and ended up at XS by accident. lol :clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

wait, is this a joke post lol?
thats some jujitsu satire right there

---

I had an interesting idea, take either a dual core or quad core setup, and split it between 2 monitors/keyboards/mice...write up the software and be able to share one computer? Not possible? An interesting idea since most people never use more then one core anyways..2 computers for the price of one? Seems possible!
Gotta gimmie a million bucks if you like my idea:-p

can we have some 3d mark test with the cpu OC?

its cool !!

One question I can't find a good answer about ... is this XE chips only? Or can you also buy sensibly priced Kentsfields?

The reason is I was planning to finally step up from my K7 duallie sometime the start of next year, and was trying to decide between a dual Opteron socket-F setup or a dual Woodcrest setup, leaning towards the latter for performance reasons. I'd assumed (based on some rather rough back of the envelope calculations with current hardware I have access to) that the quad-cores would be just too FSB (Intel) or RAM bandwidth (AMD) limited. However, it looks here like Ketsfield isn't held back much by the FSB, even at 1066MHz, so assuming you can get non-XE versions I think I've found my next CPU :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leomax

I cant wait to see the real quad core.

---

Kentsfield is not a dual core processor w/ HyperThreading. It has 4 REAL cores. ;)

You always surprise me coolaler. Impressive the contacts that he has.

Truly impressive Rersultados. I don't have the conroe, and you already take out the future Kentsfield to the light ;)

Does he lack to know the price oficial,no it is this way? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serge84

Let's see, specifically why you don't need a quad core for the average system... Well, on a gaming rig, what you are really interested in is doing one thing very very fast -- playing that game. Like it or not, almost no games, even in this day and age, use SMP. So unless your OS can manage SMP of programs on its own (which it does, to some extent, but it's not very good at it), a single, faster core will run games better than a multicore system that is slower. A server is generally designed to use SMP, but it uses it in a specific way.

A server will run more than a single program in that clock tick. Servers need to offer many services concurrently without any of these services taking down the whole machine. This makes SMP very valuable for servers. If you have ever tried to run a very nasty SQL query on a server that also provides other services you need, you really appreciate those other processing cores, because it means both things can happen without taking the entire day.

4 cores are useless much less 2. Your no better off since your just running at the same clock speed of one core. In reality 2 or even 4 cores are not going to be any faster then 1. It may seem like it in benchmarks ofcorse. But they are made to take advantave of dual and quad cores. Again almost no programs at all do this and are still single threaded 95% of them. Very nasty problem. Sure you can make the cpu run 4 different tasks at once but in raw speed, nothing is gained.

You don't get more power, only more multi tasking. So this is just pointless unless your crazy mad about having the latest junk and like to show off, or your really going to use it in a server for a perpous. Really as long as programs are single threaded its like saying your 4 core cpu is no better then mine give or take a small % of real speed gane here like 10 or 15%. Afterall the fastest CPU clock per clock is a FX-57 at 4.2ghz single core not a dual core. Now thats how you show off. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed. Just because you have 2 cpus doesn't mean you get some special 50% speed boost. The speed is always the same, your abillity to do 2 things at once is not. But programs people. So this junk is just hype. The real performance difference is only a convenionce of about 15% at most. Won't help me any.

The tech is useless if no program can use its advantages is a fact. Maybe great in 2010 but until then your gaining nothing but a nice utility bill. lol

---

The fx57 @ 4.2 is just for the pic, so it could never be the fastest cpu clock per clock.
And you're completelly wrong when you say that an FX57 will totally rape the Core 2 Solo @ the same speed. It's exactly the opose... the core 2 solo @ the same speed that FX57 will for shure win, i'm shure of that.
Even a Dothan @ the same speed of FX57, was faster, yonah core solo is even faster than dothan clock per clock, so logically a core 2 solo based on conroe technology is even faster than that.
Just think a little bit before you say things like that man...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serge84

Afterall the fastest CPU clock per clock is a FX-57 at 4.2ghz single core not a dual core. Now thats how you show off. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed.

---

Wake up. Come back to the real world, boy.

It's almost July 2006, not September 2005. Things have changed and now FX57 rapes nothing. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixxxer

Wake up. Come back to the real world, boy.

It's almost July 2006, not September 2005. Things have changed and now FX57 rapes nothing. Period.

---

To mantain the atmosphere, the FX57 takes it in the ass from core2 cpus. ;):D

Back to the Future :)

Very impresive...

Does it ships in the Q1 of 2007?