Intel show that they can make a 4x4 system.

[Azza]

'Intel makes 8-core processing the new playground

At CES 2007 today, Intel announced a proof-of-concept PC designed specifically to counter AMD's 4x4 platform for gamers. Dubbed the "V8" system, Intel demonstrated a system running on a pair of quad-core Kentsfield Xeon processors for a total of eight physical cores.

The system runs at 2.4GHz utilizing a 1066MHz system bus and is loaded with FB-DIMM memory. The graphics card is supported by a single NVIDIA 8800GTX. According to Intel, the "V8" system dished out a score of 6089 on 3DMark CPU bench.'


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5622


The world is going crazy.

 

[malcolm]

Firts we had 'turbo' switches, then AMD throw in the 4X4 analogy, now we get a V8. Funny no-one has invented the TDi PC!

 

[stigggeh]

i think this is something similar...

4 x quad core = 16

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4704

 

[FreeStream]

'Intel makes 8-core processing the new playground

At CES 2007 today, Intel announced a proof-of-concept PC designed specifically to counter AMD's 4x4 platform for gamers. Dubbed the "V8" system, Intel demonstrated a system running on a pair of quad-core Kentsfield Xeon processors for a total of eight physical cores.

The system runs at 2.4GHz utilizing a 1066MHz system bus and is loaded with FB-DIMM memory. The graphics card is supported by a single NVIDIA 8800GTX. According to Intel, the "V8" system dished out a score of 6089 on 3DMark CPU bench.'


http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5622


The world is going crazy.

Thats whats gonna be in the Mac Pro I bet

 

[FrankJH]

(not incl the mac )

Both systems from AMD and Intel are dreadful in one way or another imo:

1) AMD because of the "dreadful" CPU (comparatively speaking)

2) Intel made a complete hash by insisting on FB-DIMM's (more expensive and slower than standard Dimm's I believe) and only one graphics card

Ok there is also the "fact" that four cores are plausably going to be of use by the end of 2007 , but realistically 2008 before most apps make much use of them (remember both systems are aimed at high -end gamers and not encoders/3d max'ers etc) so how long before 8 cores let alone 16 are going to be of use and by then the rest of the system will probably require updating

Just a little bit pointless imho for right now

 

[Delvis]

I've built a few 8 -way DualCore Opteron systems before, ie 16 cores, so its been done before.

And that was like a year ago i think.

 

[richard smith]

Big deal. It's a dual processor machine. I can't see what the fuss is all about.

Dual, Quad, 8way... nothing new

 

[Mattus]

AIntel announced a proof-of-concept PC designed specifically to counter AMD's 4x4 platform for gamers.

ie. At the moment it's willy-waving. By the time this makes it to retail, I bet the FB-DIMM requirement will have been dropped. Intel aren't stupid enough to release it yet anyway until they've milked the quad-core cash cow for all it's worth.

 

[jaykay]

didnt intel see how amds was a failure
all these are slightly cheaper workstations marketed at desktops

 

[Energize]

8 way systems have been avalible for years don't see what is so special about this one. Practically nill games support dual core and even those don't make 100% use of it. Hell most games aren't properly optimised to run on 1 core in the 1st place.

 

[FrankJH]

8 Way servers have indeed been available for years ( even workstation boards have been rare for 8 way and above, available certainly but not in the same way this should be)

I did see it was "proof of concept" but whats the point of doing that with current tech without releasing it as is? Seems completely pointless to me if they arent even going to release it.

I know car manufacturers do it - but you spend 5 -10 times as much on cars as you do on a pc (and in comparative terms maybe more.... ie families with a £500 pc arent necessarily using a £5k car ) and car manufacturers usually look further ahead ie 5 years or more rather than 6-12 months

 

[NathanE]

8-way has been around for yonks. Back then though these types of systems would cost a company probably 5 to £10k, often more.

Intel was simply demonstrating the work of one of its partners, probably Supermicro - who knows. Intel just makes the CPUs and chipsets - it is upto the motherboard manufacturers to come up with motherboards that sell.

No doubt about it... this board will be on the market very shortly.

PS: When talking about high-end hardware like this, the word "games" should never be uttered once really.

 

[mrthingyx]

There's a review of the 'octa-core' PC on a benchmark site I visit and it really isn't that much more impressive than a single Kentsfield running at 3GHz. Yes, it does some things faster, but lots of programmes have not been optimised for four, let alone eight threads.

Most benchmakrs showed even a regular Kentsfield doing a "Big Steve from H-block" on an octa-core system clocked at around 1.86/2GHz but it can be similarly extrapolated.

The daft thing - as mentioned above - is Intel's insistence on stable yet ooooooooooh-so-slooooooooooow FBDIMMs...

 

[NathanE]

The daft thing - as mentioned above - is Intel's insistence on stable yet ooooooooooh-so-slooooooooooow FBDIMMs...

Most companies buying this type of hardware are willing to sacrifice a few percent of performance in favour of stability.