OOOooOOOoOOoOOOooo
2corex2 hmm but what if conroe does the same?
Anyways i would like to use all for rendering
1 core for rendering ... one for video encode.. other two for gaming adn probably 1 gig mem each so 4 gigs ><
Whats teh realease date?
Printable View
OOOooOOOoOOoOOOooo
2corex2 hmm but what if conroe does the same?
Anyways i would like to use all for rendering
1 core for rendering ... one for video encode.. other two for gaming adn probably 1 gig mem each so 4 gigs ><
Whats teh realease date?
I am an intel kinda guy. But to be honest I find the 4X4 very interestig. More can go into that Socket than just another CPU.We will have wait and see how this plays out. On this story of AMD buying ATI won't happen Intel would step in and buy ATI out of petty cash.
K8L AMD is talking a H2 07 release thats being very optamistic unless they mean 4th Qt. 07. Also I think Intel really shook their tree. Amd gave away to much info to soon . Intel will have lot of time to make a revision on Penryn 1st qt. 08 . Look for Penryn to up FFU and retire 2 threads in one cycle. Amd really shouldn't have shown this info this soon . Big mistake. They are scrambling.
All they could manage were some crummy 65nm samples running at unknown clockspeed and power?Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealcpu
No 65nm shipments until December?
No K8L until MID 2007 (read: Q3 if they are lucky)
First 65nm shipments top out at 2.4GHz because that's the "volume" portion of the market (per Dirk)? What a joke. Sounds like AMD's 65nm process is still badly broken right now.
2MB L3 cache doesn't do all that much. It's the size and latency of L1(more importantly) and L2 cache makes more of difference in performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealcpu
Intel will be continuosly mopping kitchin floors, bathroom floors, livingroom marvel floors, and other tile floors with AMD chips.
and how would they do that?Quote:
Originally Posted by crackhead2k
AMD has hypertransport but was does intel have? :confused:
its quite easey for AMD do make such things with 70% or maybe 80% more performance on very multithreaded tests
but intel doesnt have HT, so how would they let their cpu's communicate with eachother?
So if you think that you're educated enough pls take a look on the following two pictures and then try to explain why K8L will be faster.Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackX
http://www.iian.ibeam.com/events/tho...33/Slide54.JPG
http://www.realworldtech.com/include...es/merom-2.gif
nice 1 :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by Willis
U wont understand anyway m8 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by kl0012
If seriously there is a whole article about this architecture so please read it by ur self. :slapass:
arent the pics too different to see the real differences?
i dont think the amd pic is detailed enough
a hatrick for BlackX :p:
link, plsQuote:
Originally Posted by BlackX
Ugh this thread is full of unpleasantries and flames :(
hehe, indeed it is, but not very clever to put this in Intel section instead of AMD where it belongs, was QUITE predictable that alot of ppl wouldnt like to hear such, weather its true or false...
I belive woodcrest will f**k 2x FX62 pretty bad... - Woodcrest is serversolution, and not 1-way, so, guess multi CPU options's better for Intel as well, since FX62 aint anywhere near conroe in performance...
Intel begins to be heavily bandwidth starved in multi-way computing. I think most would agree that AMD has the performance edge in the enterprise server market, and Woodcrest will not likely change that. Intel will need to move away from an FSB and shift to CSI before they can truly compete with AMD there.
AMD is simply playing the multiprocessor card, where they should still be stronger thanks to Hypertransport and intergrated memory controller.
Questions are:
1) how good and SMP-scalable is enthusiast software at that time?
2) do they put a cache-coherent Hypertransport link only into the FX CPUs or into all AM2 CPUs?
If you get two X2 for quad-core in an overclocking board with unregistered RAM, and you have software that makes use of 4 CPUs it would be pretty strong.
Ever consider Intel putting an IMC on a Core 2 based design?
I'm sorry but i am shocked that no one has brought up the point that Intel already has a working 45nm die......
Also i find it a little unfair to compare a dual core conroe to a dual core twin cpu setup :stick: that is just dumb, it would be like comparing a mustang to a pinto :banana:
long of the opinion that (contrary to the market mind you) microprocessors should come in two basically contrary flavors: ones with very small caches (physically) and LOTS of cores, and ones with LOTS of cache, and only a few small, ultra-fast cores. I don't think there is meaningful ground between (that couldn't be covered by a dual-socket MoBo accepting one chip of each type).Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
For instance - I'm frequently running an incredibly compute-intensive application that probably doesn't utilize even a small fraction of the cache of the processor. It is totally compute-bound. Being multithreaded, it scales almost exactly with the number of cores (yes, hard to believe, but true). I would love to have this machine with a 16-way or 32-way core, "cache be damned". But it wouldn't be a very good gamers or desktop machine, probably.
Problem is, we can't buy such a beast today. And that's kind of a pain.
If AMD (having the cajunas to do it) were to come out with such a line of chips, they would almost instantly "take over the world" of computing - having a GREAT new idea: buying application-tuned chips.
I mean, really: for the last 20+ years it seems we have been arguing the virtues of this processor (within a family) or that for servers, for workstations, for scientific or medical or network or entertainment computing ... but the actual difference of the whole of the chip line-up is pathetically similar.
Not so would by this contra-contemporary chip. The window of opportunity is just about OPEN: as multicore is causing all software houses to rewrite their code (or at least parts of it) to be multithread aware, it only seems obvious to me that the "new FPU" could very well be adding the second chip to the empty socket - and choosing between another 2-way all-around-great processor, or a 16-way ultra-wicked computing animal.
I swear everyone ignores me... Will this 4x4 setup only work with FX processors like the picture shows? I don't understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by CPLB
Question, which benchmark exactly would this win? Two FX-62's will still be two FX62's. A E6700 beats one, and most benchmarks seem to top out at 2 threads, wouldn't that kinda make spending U$2400 a bit of a waste?
Gamers have been pretty hard pushed to accept dual core cpus, and now AMD want them to buy two at a time? At least SLI/Crossfire is implimented at driver level, but this is just crazy.
And UnrealCPU, the cpu you're looking for has already been made, it's called the Cell. Professors already want to offer their reproductive organs to it, and I'm sure you two will be very happy together.
Until we see this in silicon, I don't think anyone can answer you.Quote:
Originally Posted by CPLB
The whole thing stands and falls with software maker's ability to truly multithread their applications.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconyu
Most games so far don't seem to really multithread their core code. They come up with some side work for a second core. That doesn't scale to more than 2 CPUs/cores, of course.
But if you look long-term: the software makers will be forced to get their acts together either way, and then the processor maker with the stronger, lower power many-CPU/core system will win and single-core performance won't matter anymore.
Question is: will that take 6 months or 9 years?
This is about the most on point comment of this thread yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam
Anyone who truly understands AMDs architecture understands that AMD's upcoming 4x4 will be heavily capitalizing on its strengths. Those who haven't a clue may scoff and laugh but that behavior only demostrates a lack of understanding. Make no mistake, 4 x 4 will be a desktop monster.
In addition, and MUCH more importantly than 4 cores is the open architecture where AMD opens up the Hyper Transport Bus. This is huge. If you don't know why, do some google reading.
CPU to CPU there is no need for arguement as Intel has the better design right now. AMD is countering with platform....the same strength that will continue to cause Intel major fits for quite some time in the enterprise market. By opening up the architecture to many partners, AMD is furthering its platform lead.
CPUs are nice. But they don't do anything for you sitting on your desk. So, whether you like it or not, its going to be a year of CPU vs platform. Performance is performance regardless of how you get it.
BTW, for those that think you'll need quad thread games to take advantage of 4 x4, think again. That's simply not the case.
Last point, 4x4 is already happening. There is nothing vaporware about it. You'll be seeing more of it shortly.
That all said, I'll be nestling down with my new Conroe based Intel system until 4x4 comes out and we see some hard and fast numbers :D Right now, Intel has my attention!
BTW, if I see another flame (especially direct name calling) there will be vacations for everyone involved. I know this thread may not be the best place for AMD news, but its not a license for a flamefest either.
This thread title is misleading
Please return to those forums then and stop trolling ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unrealcpu
I think what's more important than raw performance is performance per price. It takes nothing more than a big bank roll to go buy an 8 way Opty server.
What matters as far as the majority of desktop consumers are concerned is what's the best bang for your buck, ~200$ CPU. In the near future anyway, i cannot see this solution as anything other than a single CPU setup.
I really don't see how this affects anyone but servers, in which i think AMD already dominated because of their IMC design.