AMD 4x4 - 15% faster than core in gaming..

source here

Quote:

---

The Perspective Battle
So how will Core 2 Extreme stacks up against AMD’s 4x4 Platform? The answer is tough. Why tough? First AM2 has a speculation of being capable to do Reverse HyperThreading just by adding the instruction into the drivers. Even though users’ reports of Core2 series have discovered the multiplexing technique which is logically the same as in Reverse HT, 4x4 Platform will likely to beat Core2 into the second podium by a little margin. Theoretically when we take the average benchmarks between both the Athlon FX-62 and Core 2 Extreme have, an estimated 37-43% performance difference can be seen ( FX-62@2.8Ghz / Core2Extreme@2.93Ghz ) which is won by Core2Extreme. Let’s take an assumption if both chips have the ability to do Reverse HT. AMD’s 4x4 Platform will take its advantage by probably 50%( minus 5% of performance impact of HT Bus) extra performance since more threads can be executed in this platform compared with a single FX-62. Thus we can say that theoretically, AMD’s 4x4 Platform can outperform Core 2 Extreme by 10-15 percent in a condition where Reverse Hyper Threading is implemented.

---

:rolleyes:

It's all over the place that reverse hyper threading is not real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major_A

It's all over the place that reverse hyper threading is not real.

---

yet AMD announces it and they are going to come out again and say its fake or its not going to happen?

yea...ok because thats a great PR move..

if that the source said is true then AMD may hold onto its "best for gaming" title
(Intel hasn't released conroe yet so kinda hasn't taken anything away from AMD)

Lets see how this pans out...
Ive had my opty rig for sale for a week now and noone was biting..
Might just have to keep er now and see how this 4X4 is gonna handle the conroe and kentsfield battle..
Im thinking theres gona be a war against amd and intel in the next few months to regain the crown, and its gonna be upgrade extravaganza if you have the loot..

Ima wait it out and see what happens..

I mean if amd can do this why cant intel smash together 2 conroes or kents and destroy the world :P

Im an amd fanboi forever but I think this is just a desperate attempt to steal some of Intels steam ATM... We shall see..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philosophy

Lets see how this pans out...
Ive had my opty rig for sale for a week now and noone was biting..
Might just have to keep er now and see how this 4X4 is gonna handle the conroe and kentsfield battle..
Im thinking theres gona be a war against amd and intel in the next few months to regain the crown, and its gonna be upgrade extravaganza if you have the loot..

Ima wait it out and see what happens..

I mean if amd can do this why cant intel smash together 2 conroes or kents and destroy the world :P

Im an amd fanboi forever but I think this is just a desperate attempt to steal some of Intels steam ATM... We shall see..

---

3 little letters... F. S. B.

Intel's front side bus would choke the poor little chips to death. Kentsfield already has to talk between the 2 dies amongst the FSB, now add another 2 dies(making 4 dies total for kentsfield) and have them all communicate via that 1 fsb.

What do YOU think would happen?

Wow only 15% INCREASE between 4 vs. 2...shouldn't that be theortically 25%?

Hmmm amazing, so all there saying is it takes TWO DUAL CORES to beat a single intel DUAL CORE nowadays.
More heat output, more heatsinks, more case room needed.
I think this is more an anti-AMD thing.

AND NOTICE.

Its saying 2x fx62, thats how much money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00b 0f l337

Hmmm amazing, so all there saying is it takes TWO DUAL CORES to beat a single intel DUAL CORE nowadays.
More heat output, more heatsinks, more case room needed.
I think this is more an anti-AMD thing.

AND NOTICE.

Its saying 2x fx62, thats how much money?

---

2x FX-62 = 1600$
1x X6800 = 1300$

Even if this is real, why is everyone happy that they should buy a SECOND cpu, a SECOND hsf/cooling system, deal with a SECOND power consumer, and buy a new mobo?

x6800 is only $1300 right now becuase of scalping, when fx-62 came out it was $1200!
So why not $2400 vs $1300. I can play the unfair play game as well.

Well lets say you get dual lower speed dual cores, will it beat a conroe @ 4ghz of the same price?

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33081

Quote:

---

Good numbers, odd benches

By Charlie Demerjian: Monday 17 July 2006, 11:33
WELL, THE FIRST set of AMD 4x4 numbers are starting to trickle out, and interestingly enough, they come our way running on Vista.

The three benchmarks are all amenable to heavy threading, which probably explains why they chose Vista to test them.

Our source claims they saw an 80% average increase going from two to four cores, but exact testing methodology was not disclosed. Whether or not this carries over to current games is the hot topic of the moment, none of these benches were gaming benches.

That said, the preliminary numbers are encouraging. µ

---

......

If the AMD people really start sticking to that ^^^ then they have no right to say SuperPi is unfair because it doesn't show real world gaming benches.

Yeah speculation gets us knowhere.
But I hope that $300 for CPU's also includes $100 in HSF's for BT's. :P
And e6600 may be doing around 4ghz on air, so we'll see... Oh we'll see.

I wonder how does the K8L yields, I hope it is be 65nm overclock crazy. If it remains on the same "lucky 3GHz OC" then AMD is in deep trouble

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

I seriously doubt that, my expectations from MATURE 65nm process are about 4 GHZ on air. If amd is lucky their process will be mature by the time they start making K8L

---

I'll look forward to that, insane scaling AMD's:D

But Intel took AMD's efficient clock cycle idea, made it more efficient, and overclocks like a prescott, and shoves it back up their ass, so AMD better poop out a superchip :D

where is AMD saying they have reverse HT coming out?

where is the undeniable, unrefutable evidence that AMD claims they have this techonology?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

I seriously doubt that, my expectations from MATURE 65nm process are about 4 GHZ on air. If amd is lucky their process will be mature by the time they start making K8L

---

lol 4ghz lol

look at the history, PLEASE would someone post what ghz increases and power reductions the last 2 die shrinks have gained?

and can we stop comparing conroe to 4x4(which does sound pretty good) and start comparing it to kentsfield (which sounds very good)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Sadly, AMD has delayed their 65nm process twice now. And that does not bode well to 1) the clocks they are getting out of the chips, 2) the yields, or 3) both.

---

Sadly, you don't have a clue of what you're talking about, but that's nothing new...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

kentsfield will choke on it's fsb

---

Kentsfield benches here at XS have shown it not to be very fsb limited at all... it actually scales better from 2 to 4 cores than opterons do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cMw

yet AMD announces it

---

Where have they announced it publically?

Errr...everyone seems to have missed the obvious from the 1st post.

Theres SPECULATION as to performance increase based on SPECULATIVE scaling, SPECULATIVE efficiency, SPECULATIVE CPU use (FX or not) and..oh yea!..SPECULATIVE coding (R-HT)

speculation x speculation x speculation x speculation x speculation= BS!

Any of the guys here could string together the same number of possibilities? and get told to shut the hell up. Bad link...bad thread, sorry to say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

kentsfield will choke on it's fsb

13nm K8 chips ware about 60-70W at 2.4 Ghz, E6 chips ware about 30-35W, I don't mean the numbers amd says, but actual measured consumption. The average oc on 130nm was about 2.4 Ghz - went to 3 Ghz after 90n process got mature - thats 25% clock and 50% power gain (I talk about single core chips)

but lets stay on 4x4 shall we?

---

Mate, are you sure the AVERAGE oc for 90n is 3 GHz?

I guess I am asking why do you think a 25nm shrink to 65nm is going to yield a full 1 GHz headroom while a 40nm shrink from 130 to 90 only gained about 200-400mhz average?

You see, what you are doing is finding the absolute best numbers to support your wild clames and the absolute worst to support it while ignoring the actual average.

Just for clarification I am not a "Intel fan boy" and I laughed Hartley when people tried to say the pd was superior to the x2 but now every thing has just done a 180.

My thoughts

If 4x4 can use ANY x2 then it will be a winner
If it cannot and is limited to fx then it will be crap (but still blinding fast)

And what about Kentfield?
You say it will be choked by its fsb but that is just a statement pulled from netburst days, lets look at the facts

memron is the same as Conroe

memron runs on a 667fsb and could still put a fx62 in its place

So why should kentsfield be choked by its fsb when it will be double that of the very fast memron?

I honestly think that k8l quad core will be the winner not 4x4:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

speculation x speculation x speculation x speculation x speculation= BS!

---

Awesome!

When will you people get it in your thick heads that reverse hyper threading cannot bloody exist.
Its like wishing AMD's K8L will be the first quantum chip, ridiculous. Hell actually its not even like that, cause quantum chips have a chance of existing some day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K404

@Ailleur...you`re agreeing with me, right?

---

I was agreeing with your basic equation, the rest of my comment was directed at everybody else, sorry for the confusion :)

with 4x4 you need 4 memory stick same as server motherboard?

2cpu
motherboard with 2 socket (more than 300$)
4 stick memory
psu ?
new case?
cooling ?

LOL

Thats cool..its nice to have someone agree with me for a change :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailleur

I was agreeing with your basic equation, the rest of my comment was directed at everybody else, sorry for the confusion :)

---

informal, take a chill pill mate, its not woth it. :)


dark,
I think 4x4 will allow 1 cpu to use another cpu's due to the ll ht link;

2cpu - cheap0 x2
motherboard with 2 socket (more than 300$) - premium mobos cost alot but we cant say yet
4 stick memory- could share
psu - if you dont have a decent psu now i will be suprised
new case- it could fit in atx but it would be damm tight, i got an eatx case anyway :p:
cooling - same am2 coolers? (water 4tw)

Sounds like SLI technology to me. I vowed never to go near the "now you can buy TWO" tech crowd.

Would be hell to water cool too, depending on the space between sockets. And lots of space lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oohms

Kentsfield benches here at XS have shown it not to be very fsb limited at all... it actually scales better from 2 to 4 cores than opterons do

---

can we get some links to show that the effecieny of kentsfield from core2 is better than dual dual core opterons from a single dual core opteron.


as that must be what you are speaking about considering i havent seen any benchs for quad core opterons, making it impossible for someone to claim kentsfield scales better than it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

and how do you calculate the price of the mobo? I mean the only extra thing this mobo is going to have is a second socket and some rooting btwn the two sockets, otherwise it will be a normal mobo, with one chipset, standart expansion slots and so on. A quality Am2 mobo is about 150$, the cpu socket itself is not more than 10$, put some overprice for the high end BS and youre there.

I simply don't se a point for the 4x4 mobo to cost over 300$ - for that cash you can get a server board - no need of 4x4

I also happen to think 4x4 will fit in a standart case. I had a dual pentium pro board that fits in a standart tower many many years ago. There are SFF pc's with dual socket. There will be no problems fiting 4x4 in a normaln size board, there are no extra components, cpus are directly communicating thru HT

---

This is the new trend on XS, this is Xtreme Speculation, people just throw in some random numbers and then argue about how much the next guy's numbers are utter BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LowRun

This is the new trend on XS, this is Xtreme Speculation, people just throw in some random numbers and then argue about how much the next guy's numbers are utter BS.

---

:clap:

I figure the real AMD yields will come after the 65nm migration.
Until they release a 65nm *something* I firmly reserve judgement.
Nuff said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

On my WORST day I'm better than you on your SMARTEST DAY, so put up some facts or shut up.

---

Your repetitive "show some facts" babble is ludicrous since you have no clue of what that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

The 65nm delays have been written here for MONTHS. But you have nothing better to do than troll around and thread crap.

---

Oh really? Links, facts, proof?

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/V...101840,00.html
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/attachments...zACBRFwUSQ.gif

Quote:

---

With the production ramp in Fab 36 progressing on schedule, the company intends to make 90nm production shipments in the first quarter of 2006 and begin 65nm production by the end of 2006. AMD has set a goal to be substantially converted to 65nm in Fab 36 by mid-2007.

---

There you go brent, a fact...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

You know, mis-directed rage is a sign of serious mental instability. :fact:

---

You're the one who jumped on the insults... and i have mental instability why? because i don't agree with your virtual facts? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

EDIT - DoubleZero and informal have been added to my ignore list. I HIGHLY recommend everyone else do the same.

---

I think everyone with a IQ bigger then Forest Gump knows who deserves to be ignored.

Let`s stop bashing each other guys. There`s always a PM for that.
And no need to mention who`s on your ignore list and definatly no recomendations to put somebody on his list or it`s automatic 3 day ban.

Forum rules in case somebody forgot :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Last paragraph:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...207225940.html

FACTS:

---

So a xbitlabs article is a fact, AMD own words are not? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brentpresley

Initially AMD indicated that the “idea” of AMD was to begin to process 65nm in the middle of 2005 and “bring it into production in 2006”. Late in 2005 the company said it would only begin production of 65nm in late 2006.

---

Did AMD ever said that 65nm will be in production in early 2006?

So from AMD saying that will bring it into production in 2006, to being more precise and saying late 2006, xbitlabs concluded that it was a delay... and then you got Intel fanboys that only read titles but keep churning out the word facts...

"No Single-Thread Boosters for Dual-Core Chips from AMD – Sources."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...714052807.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlackX

2x FX-62 = 1600$
1x X6800 = 1300$

---

Optimistic i'd say...
European prices from Geizhals.de:
2x FX-62: 2*910€ (2*1140$)
+ 300€ board
+ 4 dimms 400€
= 2500€ (3100$+)

Edit:
After FX price cuts:
2x FX-62: 2*705€ (2*885$)
+ 300€ board
+ 4 dimms 400€
= 2110€ (2600$+)


1x C2X X6800: 960€ (1200$)
+ 200€ board
+ 2 dimms 200€
= 1360€ (1700$)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DilTech

3 little letters... F. S. B.

Intel's front side bus would choke the poor little chips to death. Kentsfield already has to talk between the 2 dies amongst the FSB, now add another 2 dies(making 4 dies total for kentsfield) and have them all communicate via that 1 fsb.

What do YOU think would happen?

---

there is no fsb bottleneck, nothing bad will actually happen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by largon

Optimistic i'd say...
European prices from Geizhals.de:
2x FX-62: 2*910€ (2*1140$)
+ 300€ board
+ 4 dimms 400€
= 2500€ (3100$+)


1x C2X X6800: 960€ (1200$)
+ 200€ board
+ 2 dimms 200€
= 1360€ (1700$)

---

Largon,what about price cuts?I think he meant those prices will be after the 24.

why you dont wait until they release it.... and about the rht lets wait until amd denies it..... please

That whole paragraph was nothing more than speculation. Anyone can speculate whatever they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by informal

Largon,what about price cuts?I think he meant those prices will be after the 24.

---

The price cuts are for the sAM2 & s939 A64 & A64-X2 with 512kB of L2 cache and Sempron.

Correct, AMD's "Counter-Conroe" price cuts won't affect the FX-series :(

Actually I just find out this article:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=633569
Acording to HKEPC, today AMD have anounced price drop for FX-62 sAM2:

Quote:

---

The final answer has come, AMD decided to drop Athlon 64 FX-62 from $999 to $799, 22.5% lower, according to the latest price list from AMD.

---

It is not 22.5%, but it is 20% price drop.
Anyway, $799 is the price for more than 1000 CPUs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gOJDO

Actually I just find out this article:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=633569
Acording to HKEPC, today AMD have anounced price drop for FX-62 sAM2:

It is not 22.5%, but it is 20% price drop.
Anyway, $799 is the price for more than 1000 CPUs.

---

Well thats exactly what i meant,so i asked Largon if he calculated the new price for FX62

i speculate that a 2.9ghz celeron is faster than a fx-62 because its speed is higher:p: but its not true! i think that it will bring amd closer but not even with one conroe plus conroe can oc well.

even at 799. the fx62 is a terrible buy compared to a x6800. if you bring 4x4 in to play, why not just buy two woodcrests? ecc ddr2 and the fxb wouldnt really stop core 2 as much as it did netburst. conroe can oc is an understatement, when was the last time a high end chip had this much headroom?

dats some confusing info..

Quote:

---

Thus we can say that theoretically, AMD’s 4x4 Platform can outperform Core 2 Extreme by 10-15 percent in a condition where Reverse Hyper Threading is implemented.

---

This is all speculation. I'll wait for the results and reviews. Also, the X6800 is $999, not $1300. Conroe overclocks soooo easily. How easy do you think it'll be for 2 AMD cpu's to reach a stable overclock? How many X2s do you see at 3Ghz? maybe 5%? Conroes go 3.6+ on air consistantly. Also, two cooling solutions. Twice the noise, etc.

*wonders if a lot of the members in this thread have seen kentsfield benches*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zabomb4163

*wonders if a lot of the members in this thread have seen kentsfield benches*

---

yeh, ive seen coolalers 4x spi 1M..

not bad.. but $$$wise.. ill pay dat $$$ if intel brings it out bottleneck free.. :)

If the FSB is really such a bottleneck, how are they beating AMD with such a big lead on most tests? This is just another of AMD's last minute "ooops we gotta do soemthing now" tactics. Twice the cpu's and only a lousy 15% lead? Seriously now! What would stop Intel from doing the same thing? If AMD can come up with this crap at the very last minute, what makes you think Intel can't? Who's to say Taiwanese mobo makers can't apply the same principle with Intel chips? Two separate CPU's? I think that's a little more inelegant than Intel's last gen dual cores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LOE

yes it will, 4 cores easily saturate the bus, just caclulate it would you? Lets say you put 800 Mhz modules - divided by 4 this is 200 Mhz per core. DDR2 at cas 4 + 200 Mhz is quite bad. And here I am concidering that the cpu uses ram only, but infact the two chips will use the very same fsb to communicate to each other, so infact the bandwidth they get will be even worse. Even at fsb and memory at 1333 mhz this is 333 Mhz per core.

---

333mhz per core is plenty no? I don't remember any single core cpu needed more than 250fsb and that's with DDR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thunderstruck!

Also, two cooling solutions. Twice the noise, etc.

---

Time for a quick lesson, if you have two fans, each making 35 decibles, the total noise would be 38 decibles, not 70. Two things of equal noise=3 decibles higher, not twice as many decibles

Anyone know the bus width of intels FSB?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lead Head

Anyone know the bus width of intels FSB?

---

64bit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lead Head

Time for a quick lesson, if you have two fans, each making 35 decibles, the total noise would be 38 decibles, not 70. Two things of equal noise=3 decibles higher, not twice as many decibles

Anyone know the bus width of intels FSB?

---

And to complete your lesson, "twice as loud" would not be 70dB but 40.
"Twice the sound pressure (where decibels are derived from)" and "twice as loud to the human ear" dont go hand in hand.
Every 10 dB increase is percieved (theres nothing mathematical about it) by the human ear as twice as loud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ailleur

And to complete your lesson, "twice as loud" would not be 70dB but 40.
"Twice the sound pressure (where decibels are derived from)" and "twice as loud to the human ear" dont go hand in hand.
Every 10 dB increase is percieved (theres nothing mathematical about it) by the human ear as twice as loud.

---

maybe you should make a thread: "Im a sound guru"

correction...it is mathematical. It's called decibel because every 10 decibels is supposed to be 2x as loud. It's using a logarithmic scale based on 10. the prefix for 10 is dec.

AMD explains 4x4 architecture.

Quote:

---

AMD has had a small "coming out party" for it's new 4X4 architecture. AMD recognizes that in order for true multitasking, you need two things, processor cores and high memory bandwidth. And so, AMD takes two A64 X2 chips, enables ccHT so the processors can talk to each other, allowing for extremely high memory bandwidth and four processor cores. At AMD's "coming out party", they showed 4x4 technology running multi-threaded applications very well, as well as two very intense applications running side by side. Assuming that a process is multi-threaded, 4x4 technology also allows for combining of the 4 cores to run one process, as seen in 3Dmark06.


http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/4...dmark06zs1.jpg


The monitor on the left represents an FX62, and the monitor on the right represents 4x4. The FX62 started first, and the 4x4 finished first. While 4x4 architecture won't exactly take the performance crown back from Conroe, it will certainly keep AMD in the game.

http://www.theinq.com/default.aspx?article=33268

---

3dmark? could have sworn some people went off on me for saying 3dmark was a valid test for measuring cpu performance... If AMD chooses to show off their performance in this manner then whats wrong with comparing kentsfield to it using 3dmark 06 test?

" Below, you can see the 3DMark06 CPU tests".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by situman

333mhz per core is plenty no? I don't remember any single core cpu needed more than 250fsb and that's with DDR.

---

$hit 333 mhz is a $hit load, I dont remeber any 386-40 needing fast memory at all. Matter a fact, I dont think they rated 386 memory back in the day...

Just because CPU's back in the day didnt need it, doesnt mean that they dont these days... 250mhz is $hit these days... As efficiency goes up, and up.. bandwidth needs to go up with it. you dont want to push a tennis ball through a garden hose.

~Mike

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DoubleZero

and then you got Intel fanboys that only read titles but keep churning out the word facts...

---

LOL..... :fact:

So AMD decides to go for dual-CPU systems for desktops. Dual FX62's get a 15% performance increase over a Conroe X6800. Intel releases a Conroe X6900 at 10*333MHz = 3.33GHz or at 11*333MHz = 3.67GHz.

Than AMD would shut up until K8L. AMD has no chance to get the performance crown in this round, and saying that they do is just pathetic.

They may do well in games tho.... in "real" world benchmarking tho, maybe a different story.

~Mike

There is a slight oversight in AMD's upcoming 4x4 move and that is.

Overall if they can even "match" the Conroe solution with there upcoming 4x4 technology they will have an advantage. Simply because the 4x4 will provide users with more processing power in comparisson and this will provide workstation and power users(enthusiasts) with the ability to run close to and beyond Conroe 2 performances overall.

If the 4x4 can provide users within 5% of Conroe's performance in overall performance and gaming plus the added power of four or eight cores in high end applications and multi-threaded performance would produce some happy campers imo. Especially if they bring all this at comparable prices to a Conroe setup.

I have read many complaints about the added socket and it really makes me wonder, who here has ever complained about a more powerful looking machine? this is the Xtreme forums and most of us here go through great lengths to get our systems to Xtreme levels. If the thought of two sockets makes you uncomfortable then I really have to question why you even come here. imo. the added socket on a motherboard has always been a statement of power let alone a dual water cooling setup and lets not forget the additional power that comes with it!

How much does this equate in terms of profitable performance?
Only time will tell but if AMD can produce an efficient multi-core setup they might just end up with the most powerful system on the block, again... and this is an major factor considering Intel has just delivered there new 65nm technology on the market.

Things will definitely get interesting very soon as AMD readies there new 4x4 and 8x8 solutions, especially considering they will most likely extend this technology into K8 territory which sends shivers down my spine.

ATM, dual-core processors offer very little improvement over single-core procesoors in current games. How can adding MORE cores (4x4, Kentsfield) improve performance in current games?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smalltimer

Things will definitely get interesting very soon as AMD readies there new 4x4 and 8x8 solutions, especially considering they will most likely extend this technology into K8 territory which sends shivers down my spine.

---

I imagine you mean K8L, which I agree...as K8L (especially at 45nm) should be on a much more level playing field with Kent/Bloom/Nehalem than K8 is with Conroe, and that could end up being pretty kick-ass if the platform succeeds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shimq1

ATM, dual-core processors offer very little improvement over single-core procesoors in current games. How can adding MORE cores (4x4, Kentsfield) improve performance in current games?

---

It will probably be negligable. Multi-threading is the near future though for gaming and applications, and imagining a situation where a game is using 2 cores and the user is also running another intensive ap, like video-encoding which also might also utilize 1 or more cores at the same time isn't that far-fetched.

ok... so 4 slow cores are a little faster than 2 fast cores? hahahah... Kentsfield is already floating around here... AMD is literally 1 year behind CHIPZILLA!

C

Its gonna own for me, I fold rosetta all day and run Maj 12 also, But this pc was built first and foremost for gaming, which I do almost constantly Id say about atleast 12-18 hrs a day while folding etc etc etc..

More cores equals more processing power for me, and headroom for a few more fps while gaming, which is always a plus..

The way I see it, it cant be a bad thing, as long as the heat doesnt raise overall ambients too much, and if they can OC together with 2 diff memcontrollers , and Id also like to see how well the rams gonna perform, only time will tell, but Im def waiting for this wagon, conroe is nice and all, but Im an amd fanboi 4 life and im sticking with the green team...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlie

ok... so 4 slow cores are a little faster than 2 fast cores? hahahah... Kentsfield is already floating around here... AMD is literally 1 year behind CHIPZILLA!

C

---

Yep, 1 to 1 and 1/2 years depending on most things.

You can't deny 8 (2x4) cores will be interesting though, slower or not, especially when multithreading takes over, especially on K8L.

Agreed though, in the short-term it looks pretty weak, unless you want to multi-task up the ass and can't wait for Kentsfield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by charlie

ok... so 4 slow cores are a little faster than 2 fast cores? hahahah... Kentsfield is already floating around here... AMD is literally 1 year behind CHIPZILLA!

C

---

ZING :exclaim:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by turtle

Yep, 1 to 1 and 1/2 years depending on most things.

You can't deny 8 (2x4) cores will be interesting though, slower or not, especially when multithreading takes over, especially on K8L.

Agreed though, in the short-term it looks pretty weak, unless you want to multi-task up the ass and can't wait for Kentsfield.

---

Your saying that "multithreading takes over" in the next year or two as though it were fact. The only apps so far that's just now becoming visible on the horizon that may see a significant performance advantage from multithreading is Unreal3 engine games (Huxley, UT2K7, and Gears of War.) In fact, many crunching apps would see no advantage or even be slowed if multithreaded due to the complexities involved in multithreading.

Multitasking is a different animal entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xenolith

Your saying that "multithreading takes over" in the next year or two as though it were fact. The only apps so far that's just now becoming visible on the horizon that may see a significant performance advantage from multithreading is Unreal3 engine games (Huxley, UT2K7, and Gears of War.) In fact, many crunching apps would see no advantage or even be slowed if multithreaded due to the complexities involved in multithreading.

Multitasking is a different animal entirely.

---

Can you please indicate what fact you are refering to when saying no crunching app. would benefit from additional processing threads?

I run high end software on my workstation so I can relate to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smalltimer

I have read many complaints about the added socket and it really makes me wonder, who here has ever complained about a more powerful looking machine? this is the Xtreme forums and most of us here go through great lengths to get our systems to Xtreme levels. If the thought of two sockets makes you uncomfortable then I really have to question why you even come here. imo. the added socket on a motherboard has always been a statement of power let alone a dual water cooling setup and lets not forget the additional power that comes with it!

---

I think the theory goes, probably quite rightly, that when you start making things more complex things cannot be overclocked as far. Better to have a single quad core than 2 dual cores with two cooling systems and more complex motherboard. Things "looking powerful" is not a reason people come here at all I would say.

Regards
Andy

Ok this is a fairy tale article, based in absolutely nothing, but it's funny how all the Intel fanboys are taking it as reality.

Oh ok, 4x4 with a average 80% of performance increase plus the non-existant reverse hyper-threading on top would only be 15% faster then conroe? lol how dumb and in denial can one be? :slapass:


http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33081