4 cores in one, E6600 with 8mb cache live and in colour

I've seen that, it's pretty amazing.

The only downside I see is with the slow FSB of only 1066Mhz. You can easily see the impact it has when running 4 instances of superPi, since he only got around 25s, compared to 21s with just one instance running. I sure hope Intel does something to fix the FSB issue before they ship!
 
well with over 6 months till release im sure they will be working on it a little more to tweak any issues
 
tweaker said:
Holy.. :eek:

I believe AMD got some rough time ahead.
Click to expand...
I think so to, however if they dont fix the FSB issue then AMD's 4x4 may be a much closer performer than Intel may hope.
 
alright, how many threads about the kentsfield have i made in the past 3 months??? like 5


Edit: btw, it isn't 4 cores in one, it is 2 cores in 2... (what i mean is that it is 2 dual-core conroe processors in one package...)
 
Last edited:
Encore4More said:
Edit: btw, it isn't 4 cores in one, it is 2 cores in 2... (what i mean is that it is 2 dual-core conroe processors in one package...)
jimmymac said:
and?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

that means its not a quad core like 4x4 k8l from amd, think about it, a two dual processor system still has many problems to work through, like the fsb, effective memory controlling, cache split. its a repeat of the current amd/intel era. look at the similarities in dual core processors, intel has much higher pure processing power but much less effective fsb and memory controller, so even amd chips with much lower Ghz power perform better than intel in benchmarks
 
personally... i think it looks like processors are splitting up performance wise the way gpu's did awhile ago... for instance, intel's FSB is going to bottleneck it... and now the athlon 64 doesnt perform the most work per clock anymore. of course, their hypertransport lets them expand and keep up with faster memory speeds, and it will therefore be better for massive memory dependant applications. of course, when it comes to applications that require pure processing power, the new core 2 chip will simply outperform if the fsb doesnt bottleneck it.
likewise ATI stopped making more pixel pipelines (still at 16 with the x1900xtx with the same count as the x800 series) in their GPU's, and expanded to 48 vertex shaders with the x1900 series... and nvidia expanded to 20 and 24 pixel pipelines, leaving their vertex shader at a max of what.. 8? this isn't just one chip being better than the other really anymore... despite the 7900gtx being newer with higher clocks, the x1900 series still seems to outperform it in a few areas quite easily.. most likely due to its 48 vertex shaders.
when applications become more memory hungry (as they always do)... athlon 64's will begin to outperform by a lot if intel doesnt do something about it... and AMD will have to improve their architecture. kind of how nvidia will not truly take the crown of the ultimate perform in all games until they add more vertex shaders... or ATI if they dont add more pixel pipelines.
 
fruscai said:
that means its not a quad core like 4x4 k8l from amd, think about it, a two dual processor system still has many problems to work through, like the fsb, effective memory controlling, cache split. its a repeat of the current amd/intel era. look at the similarities in dual core processors, intel has much higher pure processing power but much less effective fsb and memory controller, so even amd chips with much lower Ghz power perform better than intel in benchmarks
Click to expand...


the and? bit was for the first bit posted, not the edit afterwards but cheers for the info anyway :D
 
baballin328 said:
sorry wuts amd 4x4?? i haven't heard of it yet
Click to expand...
It's AMD's new plan that has two sockets next to each other, and will allow you to use two dual-core processors together, such as two FX's.
 
jimmymac said:
the and? bit was for the first bit posted, not the edit afterwards but cheers for the info anyway :D
Click to expand...

hahaha, oh well, at least i got to sound intelligent for a post
 
Let's correct and clarify some of the things you said:
fade2green514 said:
48 vertex shaders with the x1900 series... and nvidia expanded to 20 and 24 pixel pipelines, leaving their vertex shader at a max of what.. 8?
Click to expand...
The X1900XTX has 48 pixel shader processors, and 8 vertex shader processors (not 48 vertex like you said).

The 7900GTX has 24 pixel shader processors, and 8 vertex shader processors, which puts it on par with the X1900XTX for number of VSP's.
 
whats's more important though, the memory, or the pixel pipelines, the x1800xt has 512mb memory and it costs the same price, what would be the actual, realistic performance difference between a gt and the xt?
 
fruscai said:
whats's more important though, the memory, or the pixel pipelines, the x1800xt has 512mb memory and it costs the same price, what would be the actual, realistic performance difference between a gt and the xt?
Click to expand...
There are 512MB versions of the 7900 too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top