Intel Quad Core only really 2x dual core, or so AMD say?

severance · 21 Sep 2006 at 14:10

Read an article over at xbitlabs or anandtech in which AMD talk up their quad core systems for 2007 stating that Intel are going to have problems with quad core unless they redesign their system aorund it to other bottlenecks will appear. AMD will not suffer from this as they have this covered apparantly?

Explicit · 21 Sep 2006 at 14:36

As I understand it, Intel are just slapping two Conroes together (Pentium D style) whereas AMD's solution is quad core from the ground up

--ki-- · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:08

Extremely old news, intels native quad core part comes out 2H of 2007 and it will be of 45nm process, so cooler and higher yielding. Intel has nowt to worry about. Yes there is a bottleneck though, 2 infact firstly the current top gen of GFX and second the FSB, since the 2 die solution yes uses the fsb to communicated with each other, however because of point 1 it doesnt matter until GFX card are able the handle the data faster, by then the native quad core 45nm process version will be out so all in all AMD is blowing smoke. Although another solution to point 1 is to increase the FSB dramatically, kentsfield reacts very well to FSB increase.

locutus12 · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:19

--ki-- said:
kentsfield reacts very well to FSB increase.

i love it when people say things like this... :rolleyes:

you wouldnt know, its not out till late this year / early next year. all you do know is what youve read and that may or may not be true as anything written about kentsfield is not based on real world use. stick to what you know to be certain, not what youve accertained from an article on the web.

Tooks · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:39

That's true, but then you could say the same about anything written about the AMD quad core chips also?

Bottom line for me is who cares which is the technically superior or more elegant solution? The one that offers the most performance for the cash will get my vote!

stoofa · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:46

Neither of the first generation quad cores are getting my vote/cash.
I shall be using Conroe until at least this time next year.

Explicit · 21 Sep 2006 at 15:49

stoofa said:
Neither of the first generation quad cores are getting my vote/cash.
I shall be using Conroe until at least this time next year.

Exactly

Quad core isn't going to be cheap, not to mention the fact that most people don't really need it

pegasus1 · 21 Sep 2006 at 16:50

Explicit said:
Exactly

not to mention the fact that most people don't really need it

Most people dont actually need a CPU that runs 200mhz faster than the one they have but that wont stop them upgrading.
By the time quad core is actually a viable propersition, software may be around that makes use of it.

w3bbo · 21 Sep 2006 at 17:08

locutus12 said:
i love it when people say things like this... you wouldnt know, its not out till late this year / early next year. all you do know is what youve read and that may or may not be true as anything written about kentsfield is not based on real world use. stick to what you know to be certain, not what youve accertained from an article on the web.

I wouldn't be so sure he hasn't got one or used one. There is at least 1 member on here who HAS one and many more over at XS, they're called engineering samples (ES) and are given to trusted individuals for testing...some of these find there way out into the big wide world for $$$

Look at how many people had ES conroes...the lucky blighters

You might also want to check out his sig and wonder why he is selling an unopened xe6800

Psypher5 · 21 Sep 2006 at 17:57

I remember on xs a short while ago everyone boasting about their conroes and then the people with ES Kent's ripping up a storm

--ki-- · 21 Sep 2006 at 19:48

locutus12 said:
i love it when people say things like this... you wouldnt know, its not out till late this year / early next year. all you do know is what youve read and that may or may not be true as anything written about kentsfield is not based on real world use. stick to what you know to be certain, not what youve accertained from an article on the web.

Yup dont you just hate it when people spout crap and run their mouth about things they dont know about :rolleyes:

...

marscay · 22 Sep 2006 at 16:09

--ki-- said:
Yup dont you just hate it when people spout crap and run their mouth about things they dont know about ...

pwned

james.miller · 22 Sep 2006 at 16:14

OMG FAKE1111oneone!!!1

HighlandeR · 22 Sep 2006 at 21:56

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/22/amd_athlon_fx_4x4_roadmap/

I didnt fully understand what was written there, it says AMDs new 4x4 due this Xmas, so there saying 4X PCIexpress slots in case u want 4XGPU SLI/Crossfire and then 2 socket AM2s for 2 AMD dual core cpus to give u Quadcore (4X)

But the FXs/Dual cores from AMDS are still pants especially when AMDs best can just keep up with a £200 E6600 ?

Is it me or is does it appear Intels Quadcore E6600 would be better?

pegasus1 · 22 Sep 2006 at 22:08

Only pants in comparason, AMD X2 are as good at doing what they did 6 months ago.
I prefere to wait for what appears but then again i dont pray to the hardware rumour god

Explicit · 22 Sep 2006 at 23:27

HighlandeR said:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/22/amd_athlon_fx_4x4_roadmap/

I didnt fully understand what was written there, it says AMDs new 4x4 due this Xmas, so there saying 4X PCIexpress slots in case u want 4XGPU SLI/Crossfire and then 2 socket AM2s for 2 AMD dual core cpus to give u Quadcore (4X)

But the FXs/Dual cores from AMDS are still pants especially when AMDs best can just keep up with a £200 E6600 ?

Is it me or is does it appear Intels Quadcore E6600 would be better?

Well, you have confused yourself. 4x4 is completely different to K8L.

Have a read of this interesting article which explains everything you need to know.

http://www.pureoverclock.com/review.php?id=37&page=1

4x4 is more of a stop-gap solution to take our minds off Conroe, whereas K8L is a new architecture.

KL8 has been designed from the ground up to be quad-core. It is a true quad-core design, not two dual-cores glued together. It will be the first processor to come off the modular design wheel discussed earlier in this article. K8L is optimized for the 65nm die process, but there was talk of 45nm parts in the future, though you'll have to wait until mid-2008 for those.

Now, just imagine...two quad-core K8L's on a 4x4 mobo = Octo-core powerhouse :eek:

HighlandeR · 23 Sep 2006 at 14:18

thx good link and info yeah it does sound like the 1st 4x4 soloutions really a "take your mind of Conroe" for now shame Intels quadcore might still proove a better option this Xmas, possible the mightly E6600 may still own !

still it boils down to the support in games/software, I got a nasty feeling we wont see any benifit from Quadcore or Octocore till 2008/9+

Kamakazie! · 23 Sep 2006 at 18:02

HighlandeR said:
thx good link and info yeah it does sound like the 1st 4x4 soloutions really a "take your mind of Conroe" for now shame Intels quadcore might still proove a better option this Xmas, possible the mightly E6600 may still own !

still it boils down to the support in games/software, I got a nasty feeling we wont see any benifit from Quadcore or Octocore till 2008/9+

Since the FSB limitation of the Kentsfield doesn't seem to be too much of a hinderence currently, i would say that it is a dead cert that the E6600 is going to be a better performer/option than anything stuck in a 4x4 mobo atleast until K8L is out. Afterall, it is basically 2 C2Ds vs 2 X2s and we already know the winner of that. This is for normal enthusiast use.
I am not sure how it would do with a very memory intensive task as the FSB might get seriously clogged up. Probably have to ask someone that has used one.

maddness · 23 Sep 2006 at 22:06

Kamakazie! said:
Since the FSB limitation of the Kentsfield doesn't seem to be too much of a hinderence currently, i would say that it is a dead cert that the E6600 is going to be a better performer/option than anything stuck in a 4x4 mobo atleast until K8L is out. Afterall, it is basically 2 C2Ds vs 2 X2s and we already know the winner of that. This is for normal enthusiast use.
I am not sure how it would do with a very memory intensive task as the FSB might get seriously clogged up. Probably have to ask someone that has used one.

define "very memory intensive task"

i dont mind running a few tests

locutus12 · 23 Sep 2006 at 23:06

--ki-- said:
Yup dont you just hate it when people spout crap and run their mouth about things they dont know about ...

well i do hate it when people spout crap, a pime example above. i didnt personally attack you i stated that you should stick to what you know as opposed to what you have been reading, given your lack of notation on your source how is anyone supposed to know if your speaking from actual use of the product unless they are phsychic.

next time instead of trying to be a clever dick, if your commenting on something thats not general knowledge try noting why you know this information and where you know it from. people may be more inclined to immediatly believe you.

i will also say i can barely make out the picture but i get the general idea and i now understand what you meant initially.