What does this mean for Quad CPU's

[stewart.r@ntlwo]

To be fixed with a new revision

Imagine our surprise when we learned that the current E8x00 series of Penryn has a bug that would prevent this dual-core to work in a Quad-core.

Traditionally, Intel’s quad-core is two dual-cores stitched together; but currently they cannot do it, as they don’t want to talk to each other.

Intel is supposed to have a new core revision that will solve this problem, and we have already heard that the first systems with 45nm mainstream Yorkfield should hit the market by the end of the month.

They almost get away with it.



What does this mean? are all new quad core rubbish?

 

[PinkFloyd]

Got a source for this?

Sounds a bit odd to me.

 

[stewart.r@ntlwo]

http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6185&Itemid=54


Sorry here is the link

 

[-iceblade^]

i don't see how that makes much of a difference. the current quads are doing fine; not like AMD can really match intel when it comes to quad power...

prolly just a rumopr for Intel to use to milk out the rest of the money from the current king, the q6600

 

[matt100]

well known soource of utter rubbish that tbh.

 

[stewart.r@ntlwo]

I'm buying a new system and unlike you guys who would know about this i would be using it not knowing its not on quad!

So nothing in it then.

 

[matt100]

I doubt very much intel would release something flawed.

If you're worried just get a Q6600, the new designs seem to hit an FSB wall in the high 400s which for a Q6600 wouldn't be an issue but for the new ones with the higher default FSB and lower multi it makes a big difference.

I've just notched my Q6600 to 3.6ghz by putting the vcore at 1.5125 and sticking the multi at 8 and the fsb at 450. Easy peasy, took about 5 minutes.

 

[stewart.r@ntlwo]

Thats my point, never oc a pc at all, it's too much an outlay for me to blow up lol so was interested buying a better Cpu than the rather good Q6600.

 

[crazyDAJT]

you cant blow these chips up, the old school days have long since gone, the chip and MB will shut down before you can actually damage them.

 

[-iceblade^]

these days, to not OC is, IMo, suicide... takes the fun out of buildin your own pc... plus, if you use a budget chip , what's so bad about replacing it?

i can understand not OCing a quad... but something like an E2160?

anyways, all that is just my opinion; you of course have your own reasons for thinking the way you do...

 

[stewart.r@ntlwo]

I know my mate has a newer system and its two clicks to safe OC it by software, but i was hoping to get new chip and keep it stock or at most oc very little.

This news thing just made me think what is that all about if ture as you say.

 

[matt100]

I've been at this for years now and I'm pretty reckless, I've bust loads of stuff with watercooling but I've never bust anything fromt clocking.

Well, maybe a mobo or 2 but that was only from phase change and massive overvolting.

To get a Q6600 to 3.2ghz isn't what I'd call clocking, its just running it at proper spec just notch the vcore up a little but well within safe limits.

Seriously you won't break anything.

 

[stewart.r@ntlwo]

so you get all four cores at 3.2ghz....if i was going to go down the Q6600 i was going to get the oc version done by oc..mad i know to some a bit like ******* £40 up a wall..

 

[BlairH]

What about the QX9650? It's been on the market for a few months, and presumably would suffer from this flaw.

 

[matt100]

so you get all four cores at 3.2ghz....if i was going to go down the Q6600 i was going to get the oc version done by oc..mad i know to some a bit like ******* £40 up a wall..

especially considering the cpu is just a standard 2.4ghz G0 with a bunch of instructions to clock it you could get for free off this forum...

THAT'S how easy these things are to clock.

 

[platinum87]

.mad i know to some a bit like ******* £40 up a wall..

i dont get it..

and getting pre oc chip is really pointless.. takes 5 min.. i jumped from 2.4ghz to 3ghz, with no change in volts, just kept the ram at or under 800mhz... increase of like 1600 3D marks, (if anyone cares about that anyway)

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

so you get all four cores at 3.2ghz....if i was going to go down the Q6600 i was going to get the oc version done by oc..mad i know to some a bit like ******* £40 up a wall..

Exactly like doing that, buy the normal one and rejoice at the money you've saved.
It's still you that has to overclock the CPU, you'd just be paying a premium for a chip that everyone else is getting for cheaper and clocking to the same levels.

 

[Corasik]

Fudzilla is a waste of bandwidth. The news it prints is normally rubbish. Penryn quads have been available in the quad form as the QX9650 and its working just fine.

There is a known errata in the quad which is why it was delayed from being released in the Q9xxx series, but I assume that when its released it will have already been corrected.

I wouldnt even pay any attention the that kind of news from fudzilla. PS if it proves to be true, which is unlikely intel would have to replace any faulty quads with an updated model at their expense. Just like the original floating point flaw in Pentium. Intel replaced the chips free of charge.

 

[matty114]

I doubt very much intel would release something flawed.

If you're worried just get a Q6600, the new designs seem to hit an FSB wall in the high 400s which for a Q6600 wouldn't be an issue but for the new ones with the higher default FSB and lower multi it makes a big difference.

I've just notched my Q6600 to 3.6ghz by putting the vcore at 1.5125 and sticking the multi at 8 and the fsb at 450. Easy peasy, took about 5 minutes.

1.5 sounds a liitle high to me. I got mine at 3.6(450 x 8) at 1.4 and 9 hours prime stable

 

[HeX]

1.5 sounds a liitle high to me. I got mine at 3.6(450 x 8) at 1.4 and 9 hours prime stable

All CPU's are not equal.