-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Intel Shows Off 8-Core 45nm Penryn Benchmarks
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 1,317
- Location
- Somerset
Any ideas on how hot these would run?
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2006
- Posts
- 1,945
- Location
- West Bridgford
chaparral said:
One of these?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,257
Someone from Intel has stated that they won't be making any native Quad-core cpu's til next year, apparantly it ain't easy to do 
If Intel say that then you know it isn't!!
If Intel say that then you know it isn't!!
Think of it logically, however. I'm sure Intel have made native quad-core processors and that they work very well. However, there is no need for them to push the technology out the door before they need to.
Their dual-core hardware works very well, as do their 2x2 core chips, and both outperform any competition... so why bring new tech out that may well work effectively, but won't be the awesome step up people are expecting?
AMD have relied on their Hammer technology for the past three years - justifiably so - simply because it was better than everything Intel could throw at them, but they became lazy (or did somebody say underfunded?) and so didn't bring anything new to the table until Intel introduced Core2Duo. Now AMD are rushing to get their 4x4s out the door which probably won't be the best version of the chips simply because they have no other choice: lose even more market share or introduce tech that isn't 100% that can be remedied with a new spin of silicon?
Intel are in the driving seat at this point and their one competitor is not strong enough to play the waiting game. As such, they have no need to hurry up technology introductions.
And yes, the V8 platform will be available for general consumption, but it begs the question as to whether there will be any point for people who aren't sure as to whether they need one? I KNOW there will be forums users who, in about six months time, will pop up on here and ask if there is any game that uses eight cores as they've just dropped £5k on a system and want to show it off.
But that's not going to stop any number of idiots (yes, I said idiots) buying this hardware to play games with where any benefits will be outweighed by the FBDIMMs' lack of performance, the insane cost of the whole system and the ridiculous power consumption.
The design 'masterstrokes' (we're in the realms of comparison, here) of AMD's QuadFX hardware are that it uses regular DDR2 and will happily work with two 'regular' processors to produce a quad-core effect (or even octo-core for that matter). The idiocy behind it was that the platform was just two NForce 590 platforms stuck together, using processors that weren't as fast as the competition and used twice as much power. As a design showcase, it was brilliant. As a practical platform, it was silly.
The Intel V8 platform is the other way around. Practically, for those who genuinely need the power, it will be brilliant. As a design showcase, it's rubbish, as it's nothing more than two quad-core Xeons in a workstation motherboard... a design principle that is not particularly new.
Their dual-core hardware works very well, as do their 2x2 core chips, and both outperform any competition... so why bring new tech out that may well work effectively, but won't be the awesome step up people are expecting?
AMD have relied on their Hammer technology for the past three years - justifiably so - simply because it was better than everything Intel could throw at them, but they became lazy (or did somebody say underfunded?) and so didn't bring anything new to the table until Intel introduced Core2Duo. Now AMD are rushing to get their 4x4s out the door which probably won't be the best version of the chips simply because they have no other choice: lose even more market share or introduce tech that isn't 100% that can be remedied with a new spin of silicon?
Intel are in the driving seat at this point and their one competitor is not strong enough to play the waiting game. As such, they have no need to hurry up technology introductions.
And yes, the V8 platform will be available for general consumption, but it begs the question as to whether there will be any point for people who aren't sure as to whether they need one? I KNOW there will be forums users who, in about six months time, will pop up on here and ask if there is any game that uses eight cores as they've just dropped £5k on a system and want to show it off.
But that's not going to stop any number of idiots (yes, I said idiots) buying this hardware to play games with where any benefits will be outweighed by the FBDIMMs' lack of performance, the insane cost of the whole system and the ridiculous power consumption.
The design 'masterstrokes' (we're in the realms of comparison, here) of AMD's QuadFX hardware are that it uses regular DDR2 and will happily work with two 'regular' processors to produce a quad-core effect (or even octo-core for that matter). The idiocy behind it was that the platform was just two NForce 590 platforms stuck together, using processors that weren't as fast as the competition and used twice as much power. As a design showcase, it was brilliant. As a practical platform, it was silly.
The Intel V8 platform is the other way around. Practically, for those who genuinely need the power, it will be brilliant. As a design showcase, it's rubbish, as it's nothing more than two quad-core Xeons in a workstation motherboard... a design principle that is not particularly new.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 5,583
- Location
- London
feg off, you cant be serious? surely it will take double the power off 1 45nm quad
How is a cpu outputting tons of heat going to be any good in a server environment where low heat output is critical?
Still pointless for rendering because you can just connect two quad pc's together and install pvm giving you 8 cores. While using less power. I don't believe it's 800W power usage because 800W / 1.5v = 400Amps, which somehow I can't see being the case...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's gonna have to come with one hell of a cooler! 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,257
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,257
I always loved the Batman ones
Are they available for pre-order?
800W... A Skulltrail (V8) system doesnt use 800W unless your running at least SLI or Crossfire, and it will be the graphics cards eating the power.
Ok, Skulltrail uses fully buffered dimms, so probably around 25W more power required for the memory, the Penryn quads are 95W and 130W depending on clock speed. We're only talking around an extra 155W or so to run a twin CPU system. (And thats MAX... anytime the cores are idle they use a lot less power obviously)
The main (if not only) reason Skulltrail & V8 setups use 800-1200W PSU's is because they are pretty much the only PSU's which include two CPU power connectors. Skulltrail + 1 GPU your probably talking between 300 - 450W load depending on CPU and GPU selection. And those big 1kw psu's are still often hitting the 80+ efficiency point, and are just as efficient at 200W as they are at 900W+
In a server, its likely to be configured with an even smaller GPU, these days power efficiency is a high priority for most data centres, and multi-cpu system are generally more power efficient than running two single cpu servers.