Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 112

Thread: Intel ships 4.4 Ghz Westmere dual-cores.

  1. #1
    Xtreme Member Boissez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    371

    Intel ships 4.4 Ghz Westmere dual-cores.

    In the middle of last year, when Intel produced pre-production parts for the next refresh of Xeon 5600-series, they also made several quite interesting Xeon samples. The most distinguishing feature of these chips was very high clock frequency. Even the slowest Xeon microprocessor from that group was clocked at 4 GHz, and the fastest one reached 4.66 GHz. One of these samples made into production, and started shipping earlier this year. The processor was released as Xeon X5698, and, at 4.4 GHz, it's the fastest Intel production CPU ever.
    Intel Xeon X5698 is built on Westemere microarchitecture, and, with a couple of notable differences, shares many features with other Xeon 5600 chips. One of the differences, extremely high core frequency, we already mentioned above. This model has only two active CPU cores, and we believe that 4 other cores on the die are disabled. The processor comes with 12 MB L3 cache, HyperThreading, and works in socket 1366 motherboards. Intel X5698 has OEM part number AT80614007314AA, and S-spec number SLC32. We suspect that this SKU will be shipped only in OEM systems.
    Source
    Most likely OEM-only but Intel has now broken the 4 Ghz barrier

  2. #2
    Xtreme Member Postmodum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    272
    Uhhhh... These can be great clockers!
    Oh...your ass is grass and I've got the weed-whacker.

  3. #3
    Xtreme Addict Mech0z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Denmark / Aarhus
    Posts
    1,036
    Odd they break it on server chips, they normally run slower than consumer chips.

    For me its oppesit of what it has been for many years, its low core count and high clock.
    Desktop I5-3570k, 8GB Ram, GTX 560, Silverstone TJ08-E, Crucial M4 128GB, 750W Silver Power, ASUS P8Z77-M
    Laptop ThinkPad W520 2720QM /2 x 4 GB ram / Quadro 1000M / Crucial M4 128GB + 500Gb Hdd / FHD Screen / Intel WiFi Link 6300 AGN WLAN / 9 Cell Battery
    Laptop 2 New Macbook Pro Retina / i7 QuadCore / 650 GT / 16GB Ram / 512 GB SSD
    Server: Athlon II X4 640, ASROCK K10N78, 8GB Ram, LSI MegaRaid 8 port, 64GB Vertex 1, 5 x 1 TB WD Raid6, 3 x 3TB Seagate Raid5

  4. #4
    Xtreme Addict Chrono Detector's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,105
    About time too, too bad these are server chips. I wonder how much are these though.
    PC 1: Intel i7 5820k at 4.2Ghz | 32GB DDR4 G.Skill Ripjaws 4 2400Mhz | 2x MSI 4GB GTX 970 in SLI | Corsair AX1200 watt Power Supply | 20x LG SATA DVD+/- RW | LG BluRay/HD DVD Combo Drive| Logitech Z-5500 5.1 speakers | 55" LG 55UB8500 4K UHD TV | ASUS X99 Rampage V Extreme| Aerocool Strike-X ST Black | Cruical MX100 512GB SSD | 1x 4TB Western Digital Hard Drive | Windows 7 x64 Ultimate

  5. #5
    Xtreme Member Boissez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    371
    Quote Originally Posted by Mech0z View Post
    Odd they break it on server chips, they normally run slower than consumer chips.

    For me its oppesit of what it has been for many years, its low core count and high clock.
    It's most likely made to run software where you pay your license by the core.

  6. #6
    NooB MOD [XC] Oj101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    5,799
    That's incredibly fast, now we need 10c/20t/8p 4.66GHz Westmeres (I think that would be around 700GFlops of power in one machine )
    Xtreme SUPERCOMPUTER
    Nov 1 - Nov 8 Join Now!


    Quote Originally Posted by Jowy Atreides View Post
    Intel is about to get athlon'd
    Athlon64 3700+ KACAE 0605APAW @ 3455MHz 314x11 1.92v/Vapochill || Core 2 Duo E8500 Q807 @ 6060MHz 638x9.5 1.95v LN2 @ -120'c || Athlon64 FX-55 CABCE 0516WPMW @ 3916MHz 261x15 1.802v/LN2 @ -40c || DFI LP UT CFX3200-DR || DFI LP UT NF4 SLI-DR || DFI LP UT NF4 Ultra D || Sapphire X1950XT || 2x256MB Kingston HyperX BH-5 @ 290MHz 2-2-2-5 3.94v || 2x256MB G.Skill TCCD @ 350MHz 3-4-4-8 3.1v || 2x256MB Kingston HyperX BH-5 @ 294MHz 2-2-2-5 3.94v

  7. #7
    Nerdy Powerlifter [XC] Synthetickiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Down in the Bayou
    Posts
    4,524
    Don't i3s OC to this and are really stable on air as well? Just wondering...

    Seemed like this wasn't an impossible feet at all. They just pushed the chips a tad.

    Looking forward to 5ghz quads that OC to 6+!
    BP ruined my dinner and my region. (yep, I'm still pissed!)


    Current Rig: i7 2600K @ 5ghz, GTX 690 WC'd , MIVE, 840 pro 256gb / Corsair Force 3 GT 240gb SSD
    Interested in doing stuff offline?! Care to get strong? PM me about powerlifting if you want to try a fun sport.
    Heatware

  8. #8
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    what happened to the 4.66 one?
    wantttt!!! i havent been this excited about new cpus for a loooong time!
    if it supports HT and the price is nice i might get one!
    itll probably cost a lot though :/

  9. #9
    Xtreme Cruncher informal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,173
    Very nice clock speed! For those who need fastest chips for their serial workloads,these are the ones to have.

  10. #10
    Xtreme Member Halk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Posts
    464
    Best chips for gaming! I've been looking at what's slowing down games after some upgrades, and it's always always single core processes :/

  11. #11
    Xtreme Mentor bhavv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    2,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Halk View Post
    Best chips for gaming! I've been looking at what's slowing down games after some upgrades, and it's always always single core processes :/
    Arent increasingly more games making use of quad cores now though?

    4.4 - 4.66 Ghz is impressive for stock clocks, but surely they can make a quad with those speeds by now :p
    Intel I7 980 + Phanteks PH-TC14PE Red, Asus Rampage III Extreme, 12 GB Geil Ultra Series
    SLI MSI GTX 680 power edition, Creative X-Fi Titanium HD, 2x4 Tb Seagate HDD, 128 Gb Crucial M4, 512 Gb Crucial M4
    Gigabyte M8000X, Microsoft Sidewinder X4, Antec P182, Acer G24, Windows 7 Professional, XFX Proseries 850w XXX

    Keeping my mobo + CPU till they are obsolete

    Copper loop X48 build Blue X58 Build Red X58 build

  12. #12
    Xtreme Addict Mech0z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Denmark / Aarhus
    Posts
    1,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissez View Post
    It's most likely made to run software where you pay your license by the core.
    Right, forgot about that type of pricing scheme
    Desktop I5-3570k, 8GB Ram, GTX 560, Silverstone TJ08-E, Crucial M4 128GB, 750W Silver Power, ASUS P8Z77-M
    Laptop ThinkPad W520 2720QM /2 x 4 GB ram / Quadro 1000M / Crucial M4 128GB + 500Gb Hdd / FHD Screen / Intel WiFi Link 6300 AGN WLAN / 9 Cell Battery
    Laptop 2 New Macbook Pro Retina / i7 QuadCore / 650 GT / 16GB Ram / 512 GB SSD
    Server: Athlon II X4 640, ASROCK K10N78, 8GB Ram, LSI MegaRaid 8 port, 64GB Vertex 1, 5 x 1 TB WD Raid6, 3 x 3TB Seagate Raid5

  13. #13
    Xtreme Member Postmodum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    272
    Hihi imagine ... full TDP of the i7's just to use on 2 cores great

    I will imagine 5.5Ghz o'clocks to be not that hard to reach
    Oh...your ass is grass and I've got the weed-whacker.

  14. #14
    Xtreme Member Halk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
    Posts
    464
    Quote Originally Posted by bhavv View Post
    Arent increasingly more games making use of quad cores now though?

    4.4 - 4.66 Ghz is impressive for stock clocks, but surely they can make a quad with those speeds by now :p
    They do at times, but when it comes to delays while loading it seems it's often a single threaded process.

  15. #15
    Banned -Sweeper_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    580
    7 years after netburst they finally broke the 4ghz barrier on x86 CPUs

  16. #16
    Xtreme Enthusiast Mafio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    516
    holy moly, i want one - ok, more than one - of these beast

  17. #17
    Xtreme Enthusiast DTU_XaVier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by -Sweeper_ View Post
    7 years after netburst they finally broke the 4ghz barrier on x86 CPUs
    Only a wee bit of way to go to the 10 GHz barrier then
    Silverstone RAVEN RV02|
    Core i5 2500K@4.4GHz, 1,300V|
    Corsair A70|ASUS P67 Sabertooth|Creative X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty|
    Corsair Dominator DDR1600 4x4096MB@DDR3-1600@1.65V|Sapphire HD7970 3GB 1075/1475MHz|
    Corsair Force F120 120GB SSD SATA-II, WD Caviar Black 2x1TB SATA-II 32mb, Hitatchi 320GB SATA-II 16mb|Silverstone DA750 750w PSU|

  18. #18
    Xtreme Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    913
    Ehh you can break 4.8ghz on 2600k with ease and most do well over 5ghz with 4 cores and hyperthreading for 325. Bucks

  19. #19
    Xtreme Member DarthShader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    399
    Only two cores of the six are active??

  20. #20
    Xtreme X.I.P.
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Shipai
    Posts
    34,647
    Quote Originally Posted by bhavv View Post
    Arent increasingly more games making use of quad cores now though?

    4.4 - 4.66 Ghz is impressive for stock clocks, but surely they can make a quad with those speeds by now :p
    its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more? either its playable already or it isnt and then extra cores dont help...

    besides, more cores help average and max fps, i havent seen them improve min fps...
    from single to dual you get a slight boost in min fps, but thats it...
    if you care about min fps then 2 fast cores = lord
    Last edited by saaya; 03-13-2011 at 05:44 PM.

  21. #21
    Xtreme Addict Falkentyne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    West Covina. CA
    Posts
    1,301
    If you disable 2 cores on a 2600k, you can run VERY low voltage at 4.4 ghz. Try it.

  22. #22
    Xtreme Mentor BababooeyHTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,552
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more? either its playable already or it isnt and then extra cores dont help...

    besides, more cores help average and max fps, i havent seen them improve min fps...
    from single to dual you get a slight boost in min fps, but thats it...
    if you care about min fps then 2 fast cores = lord
    I've seen you claim a lot of stuff like that about gaming. Quads don't help, overclocking is unnecessary, etc. According to your posts you don't need anything more than an E5300 for an optimal gaming experience.

  23. #23
    Xtreme Cruncher
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more? either its playable already or it isnt and then extra cores dont help...

    besides, more cores help average and max fps, i havent seen them improve min fps...
    from single to dual you get a slight boost in min fps, but thats it...
    if you care about min fps then 2 fast cores = lord
    Valve's multi-core support on TF2/L4D/L4D2 made quite the difference for me. Before I'd have to run at 1080p with 0 aa when only using 1 core. Using all 4 I can throw the AA to 8x-16x and still get just as much performance than I did with one core. Should it's "only" aa, but it improves the experience, and ontop of that i still get higher min/avg/max frames.

    Wish Blizzard would get on that kind of train, sc2 using only 2 cores kills me in customs/3v3/4v4 battles. Sure these games aren't Crysis or anything, but they are fun to me, and have proven to me that core count and multi threading gaming makes a difference in performance across the board from eye candy to frame rates.

  24. #24
    Xtreme Member DarthShader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    399
    Quote Originally Posted by saaya View Post
    its more like games CAN use 2-4 cores now... doesnt mean it makes it a lot faster... i havent seen any game scale above 2 cores in a way that would make it justified to go for a quad if all you do is game... 5% extra performance, maybe 10%... hows that worth upgrading or paying more?
    Even in GTA4? Starcraft2?

  25. #25
    Xtreme Mentor BababooeyHTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,552
    Sayaa isn't a big gamer. It's not the first time that he has made a comment about how a fast cpu, or more cores don't make a difference with gaming. I'm not going to list the games that do benefit from a quad but its no small list anymore and it is growing. You don't have to look too far to find some benchmarks to see that either. Pcgameshardware even mentions like ten games the benefit from a hexcore.

Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •