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

[TyroPyro]

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

[hyem]

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,

[hyem]

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.. sand my best regards for your lover nice dog.. !!

[Aokromes]

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

[kcc77_kuo]

Nice Try
Good Result
Coolaler

[Turtle 1]

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.

[`odin]

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

[Smy]

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

[cast5]

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.

[Your_Boss]

they will leap beyond it

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

[Nosfer@tu]

AMD would do 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

[Fir3^StorM]

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.

[dinos22]

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

virtualization

[gazzoom]

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?

[lewdvig]

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

[Fuji]

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.

[pcoffman]

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.

[pcoffman]

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

[vapb400]

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.

[coolaler]

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

[Thorburn]

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

[k0nsl]

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

-k0nsl

[Mr. Popo]

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!

[Ad1tya]

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 .

[Mr. Popo]

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 .

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