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

Core 2 Quartet would be good. Or Core 2 FOUR OF 'EM.

Damn! You could play Oblivion with Doom 3 and HL2 idling in the background!

Impressive stuff as always. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bonzo_catalin

What TDP Kensfield have ? :confused:

---

80w and 120w for XE.

winrar compresor
source file 796mb
quadcores@2.4g
7'17" finish

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...NSFIELD/27.gif

d920@4.5g
7'52" finish

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/D9...600/d920_3.gif

t2600@3.1g
7'48" finish

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/D9...00/T2600_3.gif

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

pcmark05 cpu scores 9453pts

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...NSFIELD/29.gif

This stuff really kick some As***

I wonder how much points this would get @ rosetta@home, I think this would help a great deal. So please run rosetta@home on it for a while think of the medical aspects of doing that :)

3g@pcmark05 cpu scores 9556pts

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...NSFIELD/30.gif

Nice runs there coolaler:toast:

Do you have yo use big amperage psu with sli/cf oc'd?

Impressive, simply impressive!

Great CPU!

Revolutionary.

(^^a word yet to be used to describe the awesomeness occurring)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by savantu

80w and 120w for XE.

---

So, there'll also be a non XE Kentsfield? (nice!)

Question for Fugger. Can you say if the RD600 Sb600 ATI chipest M/B is DDR3 ready. If so the XE model with 1333 FSB with DDR3 1600mb memory should be a great combination.

That is one hell of a CPU you got there Coolaler.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turtle 1

Question for Fugger. Can you say if the RD600 Sb600 ATI chipest M/B is DDR3 ready. If so the XE model with 1333 FSB with DDR3 1600mb memory should be a great combination.

---

I vote for the Most-Misplaced-Comment-Ever-Award

so, btt
great scores! those cinebenches are whack! mine are like your scores times 10 or so^_^

I never would have seen it.

RD600 is supposed to be DDR2/DDR3 capable now. I have not tested it myself to confirm as I will not see DDR3 until mid/end of July.

Running 333FSB is not a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FUGGER

I never would have seen it.

RD600 is supposed to be DDR2/DDR3 capable now. I have not tested it myself to confirm as I will not see DDR3 until mid/end of July.

Running 333FSB is not a problem.

---

Oh baby!

I'm trying to get a bud's MSI X800XL that's really a 512MB XT, got my 2GB of GSkill 4-4-4-12 DDR2 800. Now need the board and E6600. DO you think the ATI based board will be ready by Conroe launch and is there anything to the July 5th Preorders?

Donnie27

HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!!!!! those pc mark runs are amazing. blows everything else out of the water!

Very nice work Coolater, nice indeed!:woot:

what about some LN2?? :D
i'd love to see that baby @ 4ghz+++:explode:

core four. less is more ;)

Coolaler, can you lower the multiplier, raise the fsb and run 4 Superpi /cinebench 2003/9.5 /winrar to see if you get better results?

All I gots to say is "HOLY JEEZ". That thing rocks

1.4V@3G SPI32M

http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...NSFIELD/31.gif

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?

^^ Yup.

Jan 2007 infact.

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.:stick:

However, It's nice to be able to game, compress video, convert music, and have a Burner running at the same time, without thinking about bottlenecks, from other than your harddisk drives, but that will be solved, by running with 1-2 of the successor to I-RAM (can't remember the name). :D

Do the 975/965 chipset support dual socket setups too?

I already smell the beef if dual kentsfield was the case :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ceylon

Back to the Future :)

---

QFT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steensen

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.:stick:

---

Really ? How come he has a point if Conroe is the best in both worlds : single threaded and multithreaded SW ?

Hes not referring to Conroe vs. "something else" but single vs. dual/quad core.

Granted there is a diminishing return scenario depending on what you are using the computer for. Most games doesnt gain much from multiple cores at the moment (if I recall correctly Q4 actually ran worse in SMP mode).

However you would still have some gain since most of the OS tasks can run on one CPU thus freeing some cycles for the game task (nVidias driver make use of multiple cores for instance) etc.

In the future I can see a lot of uses for multiple cores, for instance both WoW and BF2 uses scripting languages which would be better to offload to a separate core and if you do other stuff while gaming the gain is obvious.

/Q

:eek2:

omg.... i thought i'd never say this .... but i don't think amd will catch up to this .... :O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRIP

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

---

i believe it loses to the $90 pentium d 805 in quake 4...probly in prey too...and 3dmark06...well in everything multithereaded basically lol
:stick:
kentsfield vs fx57 is like superman vs a crippled old man, ud have to overclock the fx57 to like 14ghz to get performance like a kentsfield.
single cores are dead!

man you are one lucky guy to be testing that beast

ohhh my god this is great.
Dios mio vaya pasada estos de intel el pepino que han hecho :woot: :toast: :slap: am2 is dead:mad:

Brutal !! That Chip really kicks A**
Very nice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fixxxer

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

---

True. However, I think he means 4 cores designed as a system, or four cores on one dice, as opposed to 2 dice--or two Core 2s stuck together--in one package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by perry_78

Do the 975/965 chipset support dual socket setups too?

---

I think you have to use a Woodcrest (Xeon 5100 series) for DP. The DP functionality, I think, is part of the Blackford chipset. Please correct if mistaken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcoffman

I think you have to use a Woodcrest (Xeon 5100 series) for DP. The DP functionality, I think, is part of the Blackford chipset. Please correct if mistaken.

---

You are right but I think he asked because 875 chipset suported dual processors. Asus and Iwill both had great board for 875.

I doubt they do because Blackford has the Dual FSBs, higher FSB (not actuallly a problem) and the fb-dimms. It'd be cool to see though.

Reading about kentsfield im starting to think.....maybe i'll pass the conroe and wait for jan. 2007.:D Things are speeding up rapidly with intel.Its about time!

but then the next big thing will be on the horizon and you will wait for that and so on and never actually get anything lol

What about some comparison chart?
ex. | FX-62 / X6800 / Kentsfield | @3GHz
it would be very nice from u ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sluflyer06

it is air...its in the pics.

---

The friggin *stock* numbers are absolutely nucking futs; and it's shaping up to be an even more evil OC beast than Core 2 Duo (Conroe itself) was.

I can only hope that it will fit in the same boards that Conroe/Core 2 Duo does, though it will make for one scary, scary, crossgrade....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steensen

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.:stick:

However, It's nice to be able to game, compress video, convert music, and have a Burner running at the same time, without thinking about bottlenecks, from other than your harddisk drives, but that will be solved, by running with 1-2 of the successor to I-RAM (can't remember the name). :D

---

That precise issue is why Windows Task Manager *needs* a core affinity option. If multicore CPUs are going to be the standard, and if the apps can't take proper advantage, then the OS itself needs to be able to deal with it, either automatically with a manual override, or entirely manually. This would have helped out HT as well, but true multicore needs it more than HT ever did. Is there an add-in (or even a Task Manager replacement) that has a core affinity option?

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

---

That is precisely why operating systems need core-affinity tools (in Windows' case, it should be built into Task Manager). Until recently (in fact, until the original Core Duo) the assumption (which made sense) grounded with all programmers was that the target system had one physical core (even though virtual multicore processors, such as Intel HT, have been widely available for the past two years). This was a solid assumption because of lower-end processors that *didn't* support any sort of multicore (Celeron/Sempron, for example).

However, even with Core 2 Duo coming on deck this year (and Kentsfield next year), there will *still* be a rather large amount of single-core processors in service. It will take a while before multicore outnumbers single-core in the field, even with Intel dropping prices like so many cluster munitions. Until multicore outnumbers single-core, programmers have literally no reason to assume a multicore target (even for games); therefore, the programmers will continue to (correctly) program for the majority processor: single-core. At the OS level, task-monitoring tools (such as Windows Task Manager) are, however, where the ground floor for multicore support can be added rather easily. Windows Task Manager can *already* detect multiple cores (either physical or virtual); what it lacks (on the desktop side) is core-affinity management for underlying tasks. (This is where Windows Server 2003 differs dramatically, as Task Manager in WS 2003 allows for core affinity or even specifically running an application on a specific numbered core, though the default is for core affinity. I don't know if Windows Vista's Task Manager keeps the core affinity tools that WS 2003 has.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by matt89

but then the next big thing will be on the horizon and you will wait for that and so on and never actually get anything lol

---

:D yeah,but conroe release date and kentsfield release date is not quite far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steensen

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.:stick:

---

Well, latest info is that RHT is indeed part of every AM2-chip and will be enabled with a driver update (probably around the time Conroe goes major retail). If that's true, we'll see AMD's chips use both cores to run single threaded apps by the time the Conroe goes retail en masse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by grimREEFER

i believe it loses to the $90 pentium d 805 in quake 4...probly in prey too...and 3dmark06...well in everything multithereaded basically lol
:stick:
kentsfield vs fx57 is like superman vs a crippled old man, ud have to overclock the fx57 to like 14ghz to get performance like a kentsfield.
single cores are dead!

---

QFT!

Hmm... what socket/board revisions will Kentsfield need? Would it work in a Conroe 975x or 965 chipset board? I was also wondering, since the new FSB will be 1066, and 1333 is upcoming, will the new boards be able to handle the new 1333 FSB CPU's?

And then comes DDR3. I am guessing I'll need an entirely new board for DDR3 as well...

I believe it will work on the Conroe boards (ex: 304 badaxe), but to take full advantage of the things you mentioned, you'll need a new board at release time

:clap: Nice bro... just give ur best shot of it,.. :) but I never expected to much for quad core, I think conroe still take the lead of performance, :cool:

But now... after i saw it... your result,.. it's just change my mind, I think intel made a great job for this next quad core... it's really a dream system ! I belive you can bring it on 5G ! Great job bro.. :toast: sand my best regards for your lover :p: nice dog.. !! ;)

Hi, how about few tests of Quake 4, Divx conversion and Visual c++ compilation?

Nice Try :banana: :banana: :banana:
Good Result
Coolaler:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FUGGER

I never would have seen it.

RD600 is supposed to be DDR2/DDR3 capable now. I have not tested it myself to confirm as I will not see DDR3 until mid/end of July.

Running 333FSB is not a problem.

---

Thanks fugger and for the other gentleman . It may have been a misplaced comment but I got the reply I was looking for. :slapass:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by i found nemo

omg.... i thought i'd never say this .... but i don't think amd will catch up to this .... :O

---

they will leap beyond it ;)

Does Kentsfield work on all 975bx mb ? Just a bios upgrade?
I now it is kind of early to ask about.

how about posting some "openssl speed" benches?

openssl speed aes-128-cbc

or simply

openssl speed


works on various platforms, or even win32 with openssl.exe

any benchmark results ready from openssl encryption performance? would be great. thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by `odin

they will leap beyond it ;)

---

Any specific info on this? I don't mean 2008, but heard anything soon?

AMD would do :banana::banana::banana::banana: this year.

They even said so them selfs, That 2006 will not be a good year for AMD!
My personal opinion, though many others are more quilified is, Amd will catch up around Q3 2007, But just gessing :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smy

Does Kentsfield work on all 975bx mb ? Just a bios upgrade?
I now it is kind of early to ask about.

---

bx = bad axe? if so, it should work. every conroe compatible mobo would work with kentsfield too.

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

---

one word :D

virtualization

slightly off topic, but is there a workstation quad core chip, ie for dual cpu MOB like this, maybe still ES, that works with the blackford / greencreek chipsets?

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

---

Ur post is teh g@y

Serge84

It's not all about gaming. You mentioned it in your post and that's why I want dual core; for better multitasking. When i encode divx and whatnot, my pc gets so bogged down that it's not even funny. One could come up with a billion and a half reasons why it's slow, but the reality is because of the processor. I want to be able to encode, and game or actually be able to use my pc (so it doesn't take aim 30 seconds to unminimize)...and for those of us who fold, the more cores the merrier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gazzoom

is there a workstation quad core chip ... that works with the blackford / greencreek chipsets?

---

There's Clovertown, which is supposed to be two Woodcrests or Xeon 5100s in one CPU package. It's to arrive the first month of 2007, according to posters in this forum. Don't know if it will require a different chipset from Blackford or Greencreek.

The first quad-core MP chip of the Core microarchitecture should be Tigerton, due sometime in 2007, but that should require a different platform and chipset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fir3^StorM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smy

Does Kentsfield work on all 975bx mb ?

---

bx = bad axe? if so, it should work. every conroe compatible mobo would work with kentsfield too.

---

I thought that Core 2 only worked on certain Bad-Axes, those at a certain revision level. Would think that Kentsfield would be similarly restricted

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pcoffman

I thought that Core 2 only worked on certain Bad-Axes, those at a certain revision level. Would think that Kentsfield would be similarly restricted

---

That is correct, he is saying as long as it supports Conroe it will support Kentsfield, which is probably correct as well.

every support conroe's board,it's can run kentsfield almost too

D975XBX Rev 304 supports Kentsfield straight out the box, even with the shipping BIOS.

Can somebody confirm or deny if Kentsfield will be supported in a P5W DH Deluxe?

-k0nsl

I'm getting a DFI Infinity 975X/G, will it support Kentfield?
BTW? How can I get a Kentsfield CPU? Just give me a hint! :(

Yea it will...

You can buy a Kentsfield right now for about 2200$ :P.
Talking about the 2.4Ghz Quad Core 8mb L2 Cache. Lol.

Crazy price, I say :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goldenfrag

Yea it will...

You can buy a Kentsfield right now for about 2200$ :P.
Talking about the 2.4Ghz Quad Core 8mb L2 Cache. Lol.

Crazy price, I say :D.

---

WTF?! :eek:
lol! I'll pay $1,000 :D