HT2 isn't HT :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
Like all pre-release news, you must take it all with a grain of salt.
Printable View
HT2 isn't HT :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuji
Like all pre-release news, you must take it all with a grain of salt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombman
im with you on that.
i have my doubts now
Conroe Extreme edition right here-
http://www.importjdm.com/cxe.jpg
"Whilst this does not mean it won't ever be included, it is clear that there are currently no plans to include it. The reasoning for this is that it was a bridging technology to bring multi and dual core to us all."
Yeah, that sounds like a pretty damn inconclusive report. Let me summarize that paragraph for you: "Yeah, no HT, umm, wait, maybe it will, don't know, things could change.....uhhhh, yeah, we have no idea."
so if k8l is good or beats conroe, they will release ht2...Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
2.93GHz, 1066FSB = Correct.
Hyperthreading in current Conroes = Completely made up.
Prove me wrong, I dare you.
And that goes for Fugger, FCG, anyone.
where on xs do they(you guys) have like a benchmark page for conroe xe??? since someone just got the es.
it is under nda for another 5 days. Check out freecableguy's signature.
Quote:
Conroe XE = real
HT2 = not real
hope this cleared some stuff up.
If Fugger say there is there probably is... and nothing intel is secret cuz fugger usually some how get it ;)Quote:
No HT2? fugger and FCG say there is
You may be right. In fact, reviewing information with others in the business I tend to believe you are correct. There is no HT for Conroe XE. It didn't make sense that it would in the first place but I did have very compelling data that suggested otherwise for a little while.Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
Anway, joining XS to share your opinion of FUGGER's level of knowledge and stating:
isn't exactly getting off on the right foot. My suggestion to you is that you demonstrate a little more tact in the future. If you do feel that you must post this information, Hardforum is a great place to share your uninformed opinion. :) thanks. ;)Quote:
....the guy doesn't know what he is talking about.
no Willis, he is not an Intel employee. :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by Willis
you're telling an Intel employee that he's got an uninformed opinion? *bangs head on desk*Quote:
Originally Posted by freecableguy
you missed my point. im not talking about your opinion regarding HT on the XE. i'm talking about your opinion with respect to fugger's level of understanding. you need to get off your high horse. no one is impressed and you're quickly demonstrating your undesirable attitude. if you have something further to take up with me, pls PM me and I will be happy to discuss with you in private.Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
-FCG
Come on dewd, this is Fugger's place, a little more tact would be in order here. See the crack about [H]ardforum? They could use some of the stuff that's not under NDA that you've posted, don't get shut out over this issue.:nono:Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
I've talked to poncho sevearal times and he knows what he's talking about (he works for Intel after all. There are several other Intel employees at [H] too).
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1055342
Of course, he can't answer half of my questions being that most of my questions are gaurded by NDA.
He also had screenshots of Conroe way before XS or anyone had them.
Poncho, if nothing else, could you give us some sort of word about release date? All sorts of rumors floating around, and these engineering samples are getting tiring...
poncho can you run super pi on the XE??
wow, thats great, we finally get someone here with some real knowledge rather than all the BS (that gets rather deep) around here and he basically gets told to go F-himself and to go post on [H] just because he called out FUGGER.... who's on the "high-horse"?
:rehab::cheer2:
Poncho, please feel free to post as much as you can. thanks :toast:
Please, stop the bull:banana::banana::banana::banana: in this thread. Nobody needs it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Camel
Let this be the last post about this, PM me if you hate me or whatever ;)
don't start down this path. i'm warning you. just knock it off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Camel
I'm guessing that people relay what they are told
People at XS do know what they are talking about
Anyway i'm upset that the XE won't be 3.33/1333, but XE is XE and we're looking at the same overclocking headroom i guess. Stock speeds don't matter much cuz i'm there for all of 30 seconds to check temps ;).
But if the new XE is 2.93/1066 and costs the same as the 3.33 would have, that's disappointing. But it's true that intel doesn't need to release the 3.33 yet, it's excessive. Looks like they're saving it up to try to stomp on whatever AMD might get out in the 2nd 1/2 of 06.
Maybe by q1 07 though we'll see a 3.66 XE Conroe ;)
They would need it to compete with K8L, i was thinking K8L added ~10-20% performance by many people (see sig) are claiming much greater performance from K8L, and it's not just nn_step, i'm starting to think that i'm underestimating K8L. Only time will tell though.
All you company employees, spill the beans dammit! :D
JoeCamel, that is enough. Period. If you dont have anything to decent say, then dont.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Camel
If I receive another complaint about you there will be repercussions.
IFMU
Yar, poncho was one of the reasons I posted that there would be no HT seeing as he had an XE and works for Intel and said no HT. The problem is that for every 1 person that knows their stuff there are 10 that don't, and if someone makes an offhand comment about something like 'HT2' then there are posts about it in all the hardware boards across the internet. Clearly I know that this is not you fault that there are so many numbnuts around, but at the same time you have to realise that such people exist and try not to start rumors. Certinally we have heard that there is a possibility of SMT in later Conroe designs, but the posts on the subject in this forum seemed to suggest it was on the current XE which we all know is not the case.
2.93GHz and NOT 3GHz 333MHz FSB is makes the Xtreme Edition Name BS again in and of itself. Not directed at you personally. Sorry if I sound a disappointed, hehehe! Hey, still E6600 or bust!Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
End this guys.
Current 2.93XE will not have HT. True statement.
Future CPU's specs can and do change.
If information is incorrect there is a more polite way of getting your message across. What is obvious is that if you were in the know in Intel you would know who I am and what I do.
Poncho, please clean up your posting style here. Not a good start but nothing that we cannot get over.
We were expecting the 3.33GHz part with 2 physical and 2 logical cores = HT enabled. I was not going by previous generations of EE and XE having HT. We al know now that has changed as well, no 3.33 till 2007??
We also know that the set range of processors was switched around to a non HT enabled CPU as the XE.
As you know "evidence" is NDA and most likely doesnt exist in public domain. I cannot link internal Intel tech docs, nor would I.
"comon man" Stop trying to call people out, very tacky.
If the 3.33 has HT on release can we give you a swift kick in the nads? If it doesnt, then props on being correct.
We know current XE has no HT. We confirmed that already when they switched around the product line. We have had CPUID info.
I guess some would be mislead by this thread but this was started before we knew of the marketing changes.
how much performance difference from FSB 1066 to 1333?
can you change the FSB on the Conroe XE?
can you change the FSB on the regular conroe?
Conroe does not have FSB. FSB is on your motherboard. And yes you can change it on the motherboard.Quote:
Originally Posted by p360stick
thanks, i'll probably just get a regular conroe and using the extra $ for a better PSU, memory, hardrive etc.
how about the 2mb cache and 4 mb cache?
ok, sent one to "someone" he will bench it in few days:banana:
;) now Xe is 2.93G "XE6800"
BTW, intel retail will delay...not july, soon will be Aug.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hicookie
hope you got my address ok :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by hicookie
Do you know why?
Not doubting the statement, just curious as to the reason behind it. Poorer than expected yields, larger pre-launch stocks, poor binning.. what? o.O
I think it has to do with the expected demand. Conroe is going to be a VERY powerful CPU and will be priced very competitvely.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethernal
Quote:
Originally Posted by ethernal
bad am2 performance maybe
1333FSB sounds nice to me. I read a couple months ago that 1600FSB is slated somtime in the future. I wish I saved it, I doubt I will find it again.
Yea, everyone remembers the first extreme edition. Double the price for 1% increase in performance. It was an insult. It's nice to know that the future Extreme Editions will bring somthing more than useless L3 cache for gamers and benchers. Everyone will enjoy the increased FSB :).Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
If I remember correctly, 2mb is only 1 core... So you definitely want the 4Mb one (anyway the first one is quite cheap)Quote:
Originally Posted by p360stick
There we go.. delay start... It's bad news for us that don't have ES chip to play with :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by hicookie
and........:rolleyes:
ths year the highest spec is "X6800"(2.93G) intel named it.
and 2007Q1 first coming will be kentsfield (2.4G Quadcores);) ←i already seen ths chip.:D
wow hicookie u were right, i was shocked when i opened fiiefox and browse through x-bit lab today, it says Intel Core 2 Extreme X6800 is 2.9 Ghz !!!!
Wow that's cool - any idea what the kentsfield will run?Quote:
Originally Posted by hicookie
Also, hicookie, you seem to be in the know. Will woodcrest not work with the current 771 socket boards? Cheers!
yeah what he says.Quote:
Originally Posted by alexio
Just think about it, and how HT works.
With Conroe monster 4 decoders, short pipeline, and micro ops fusion, there are hardly any pipeline bubbles at all for HT to take advantage of. I bet you if somehow Intel introduced conroe chips with HT, it would actually be slower in majority of benchamrks.
Actually, it seems that the Core architecture would be a superior system to deploy HyperThreading on compared to the P4.
It seems to be a common misconception that the purpose of HyperThreading is to deal with pipeline stalls. This is not entirely accurate (though it helps, I guess) The real purpose of hyperthreading is to maximize the use of the processor's parallel instruction execution. Afterall, in the P4, it's a 3 issue core that can theoretically do 3 instructions in parallel in one cycle. However, it is very very rare that a single thread is capable of using all 3 execution units at once.
Hyperthreading allows multiple threads to mix together in a single clock cycle to try to maximize the use of the execution units in parallel. This is a rather poor explanation (and wrong on so many levels) but I think it makes the most sense. In a traditional CPU, let's say the processor manages to use OOE to run two operations at once. Let's say it uses the integer execution unit and FPU execution unit (a gross oversimplification, but go with it.) However, let's say the processor has another integer execution unit. It has to go idle, because the processor couldn't find anything to fill it with.
With hyperthreading, however, it is possible for the CPU to take another thread and say "Well, hrm, this has an integer operation I could sneak in with.. let's run this in parallel with the other thread to fill all three of my execution units! Sweet!" This actually increases the efficiency of the processor, because it's doing more work in a single cycle. This is how a processor can magically do a bit more work with HT enabled in many cases. In regular processing, CPU's are extremely wasteful. Even with the most advanced OOE algorithms, most of the time much of the CPU's execution units go unused.
The Core architecture would be able to take advantage of the 4-issue core (technically 5 issue if you include micro/macro-ops fusion) with HT much moreso than the Pentium 4's 3-issue core. Once again, this is a gross oversimplification, but you get the general idea.
I would assume there are numerous reasons why Intel did not include HT in the new architecture. First and foremost, I think that they figured that for everything besides servers, dual cores are enough to deal with all of the threads that an average CPU would run. Afterall, how often do you max out both cores? The only thing I can think of is things like rendering and encoding, which is something that the average user simply doesn't do. Even in multi-threaded games, there is usually a heavy bias on one core or the other and there is still plenty of idle time on the extra core. In short, it was better to use the transistor space for other things to increase single-threaded performance. The second reason has already been mentioned. Perhaps the advanced micro/macro-ops fusion wrecked havok on trying to use HT for whatever reason.
I wouldn't really expect HT to show up on the XE CPU's. I would expect them to show up on Woodcrest CPU's, because that is where you are most likely to gain performance from HT - heavily threaded multi-user environments.
Then again, who knows what Intel is thinking. I'm sure there was a good reason as to why not to include HT. Afterall, HT has been known to slow some things down. Maybe adding HT cluttered up the processor too much - a lot of overhead in different things that added unnecessary complexity. Who knows.
Woodcrest (Xeon 51xx-series chips) will work in all Socket 771 boards, its simply that Dempsey (the Xeon 50xx series chips) has launched with the Bensley platform and Woodcrest is coming later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlotkins
All the boards are designed for Woodcrest. :)
That's cool - too bad all of the boards use FB-DIMMs... they are pretty pricey.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorburn
As you know I disagree. As I already explained, with the fusion, other optimizations etc, all the units are kept pretty busy, so trying to squeeze in another thread to get them as close as possible to 100% busy would:Quote:
Originally Posted by ethernal
1. add lots of extra high power hungry dynamic logic
2. muddle up the caches, and reduce hit rate ratio
3. Introduce overhead of repeated switching due to race conditions, and deadlocks (not sure on this one.. its been a long while since I studied this stuff)
4. add extra demand on resources, especially the few load/store units, already demanding lots of bandwidth, not to mention mess up prefetche.
5. It just doesnt feel right for a short pipeline processor with so little wiggle room, focusing on getting stuff done quickly rather than having hundreds of instructions in flights, spending dozens of clock cycles re-arranging instructions in huge ROB queues.
However, I totally agree with you about the last point. Intel wouldn't have gambled billions of dollars and many years of research and development if they didn't know what they were doing.
Cool and I hope that mess with is Fugger is cleaned up. He's one of my Favorite folks here and not because of his statis. I think it had something to do with that Dare tag line in his sig he had that went like; If you think you rig is faster than mine, prove it, LOL!Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
Well done Fugger . This was started befor things were changed by intel .Quote:
Originally Posted by FUGGER
Most of us were exspecting The 3.33ghz. 1333 FSB Conroe Intel has backed that off to another date. Poncho since you have a 2.93XE Conroe can you say if the multipliers are unlocked up. If they are not what does the XE model offer to the O/C community.. Since you won't show us any Bench runs . Hows about a CPU-z shot .Here is part of your post at [H] I can't help but noticing that when you posted SS of CPU-z you said that it wasn't giving the correct info because its normal on an ES cpu. DO you have an ES cpu or is it XE? You seem to be saying its an ES cpu in the SS. So if you have an 2.93ghz ES =XE what does it offer that makes it worth $1100+ . Isn't intel releasing a normal Conroe CPU @ 2.93GHz. Can you give us any info backed up with a SS that makes XE more valueable than a normal Conroe????
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 >
Thread Tools Search this Thread
05-14-2006, 05:44 PM #1
Poncho Limp Gawd
Baby's first Conroe...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well... finally got the goods and updated the old box... Specs at the bottom
Old system:
Intel D975XBX Rev 302 (re-worked, Conroe WILL NOT run on unmodified Rev 302 975 board)
Video Cards... Old and Busted (850XT Platinum) and the New Hottness (X1900XTX):
Installed on tray:
Tray with video card and sound card:
In the chassis:
Outside shot (got rid of the LCD. Never used it anyway, was just to do it)
CPU-Z Shots (The Proc is reading a bit funky there, though it's typical with ES chips)
The X6800 is unlocked up and down.
I was under the impression that in a processor like the p4 or athlon the decoders decode a maximum of 3 CISC aka x86 instructions. All modern CPUs are RISC, whose instructions contain only a single operation, while CISC which all code is written in contains 2-4 like load, add, and store in a single instruction. Assuming 3 x86 instructions are decoded to 6-10 RISC micro-ops, you could take up all execution units on the Athlon, P4, or pentium m. This would also include the load & store.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethernal
Read this by Johan De Gelas from Anandtech...
"A first for the x86 world, the Core architecture is equipped with four x86 decoders, 3 simple decoders and 1 complex decoder. The task of the decoders - for all current x86 CPUs - is not only to decipher the incoming instruction (opcode, addresses), but also to translate the 1 to 15 byte variable length x86 instructions into - easier to schedule and execute - fixed length RISC-like instructions (called micro-ops).
The most common x86 instructions are translated into a single micro-op by the 3 simple decoders. The complex decoder is responsible for the instructions that produce up to 4 micro-ops "(just one decoder, and athlons have 3 complex decoders)". The really long and complex x86 instructions are handled by a microcode sequencer. This way of handling the complex most CISC-y instructions has been adopted by all modern x86 CPU designs, including the P6, Athlon (XP and 64), and Pentium 4."
You can get even more info on Wikipedia by doing RISC and CISC searches.
This would explain why Intel put 2 simple integer units running at 2x the cpu clock on the p4, having a maximum of 4 intructions per clock, above 3. It would make sence for them to only run it at the normal clock rate if 3 intruction were the max, since if would be so unlikely for every instruction to be a simple integer calculation and it would probably increase yields. K8L is going to have twice as many FPU/SSE units and they will be 128bit, quadrupling how many instructions it can do, giving a total of 12 maximum 64bit instructions, and thats just floating point and SIMD, integer units are another 3 and I don't know how many the L&S can do. Isn't that extremely inneficient if there are only 3 operations at the most, why didn't they add any more decoders? Many critics have been skeptical that Conroe's extra decoder will increase performance, and I think this explains why.
Sorry this was a little off topic, but I just wanted to say that.
On topic, there's been hints from Anandtech and the INQ that AMD has something special in store to cempete on the high end, most likely a very high clocked FX, possibly 65nm. AMDs roadmaps have always been terrible so I wouldn't be surprised at all. Maybe this will spur Intel to release a faster CPU. The thing is higher official clocks won't really change what the chip is capable of, so it really will just mean a decrease in price.
Poncho, for an 'insider' you are supremely un-informed.
The X6800 is unlocked.
A program like Crystal CPUID will allow you to change the multiplier in Windows.
http://crystalmark.info/software/Cry...D/index-e.html
Not sure if you want to try it, but there it is.
It should have a higher multiplier than 11 because a Japanese overclocker just set a SuperPi record with an XE and he was using 12.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...d.php?t=100978
He also happens to work in the enterprise department and probably doesn't care if it's unlocked or not. On [H] he said that he wasn't really into overclocking anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorburn
not into overclocking......oh my....
Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
i know exactly what your talking about. I tend to overclock in spurts.
some months i push it to its max other months i'll run all stock settings.
Overclocking doesn't have to sacrifice stability. By 1.8Ghz stock X2 165 is as stable as it is at stock speeds and at 3.0Ghz with voltage that's 0.15v over stock. That's one hell of a good deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
There's a board mod that will unlock a number of BIOS features.Quote:
Originally Posted by FLG_Poncho
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...99&postcount=1
Scroll down to the third image.