Intel says quad core Kentsfield in Q4 2006

9 answers Last reply
More about intel quad core kentsfield 2006
  1. Well thats pretty 1337 of intel. I guess, how ever I think it will be another single core to dual core transition where as the single cores were faster in games. I think the dual cores will remain faster in games then the quad cores for around a year.
  2. Well the mobo support is there so I guess they're pulling all the stop's to please investor's this year. Hopefully they can release a desktop 1333FSB chipset otherwise Kentsfield will choke when all the cores are loaded. I cant see people buying this for any other reason than to make it a workhorse because it will be clocked at 2.4-2.6 ghz and slower than Conroe extreme for games. Best of luck to them but if I were going to buy Intel QC I would wait until their 45nm shrink and higher clocks and lower thermal output.
  3. Quote:



    Tyrou on extremesystems got some excellent numbers from Kentsfield. The only problem I see is in high end desktops where bandwidth is king. It will be alot more expensive to intro 2 dual FSBs and everyone knows that 3DMark is not an exact correlation to system perf.
  4. Well, that kind of kills the 1333MHz FSB idea. I haven't seen any movement toward that on the chip or motherboard side and Q4 is too soon/late for them to make any change now. Hopefully, they'll have a 1333MHz FSB refresh in Q2 when the next desktop chipset chipsets ship. If they had shipped in Q1, a Q2 refresh would have been too soon, but now with 2 quarters between them it's certainly possible.

    The only reason why I doubt it though is that Tigerton and Caneland coming Q2/Q3 don't appear to have 1333MHz FSB support. I have other complaints about the platform, but that's another story.
  5. Quote:
    Well, that kind of kills the 1333MHz FSB idea. I haven't seen any movement toward that on the chip or motherboard side and Q4 is too soon/late for them to make any change now. Hopefully, they'll have a 1333MHz FSB refresh in Q2 when the next desktop chipset chipsets ship. If they had shipped in Q1, a Q2 refresh would have been too soon, but now with 2 quarters between them it's certainly possible.

    The only reason why I doubt it though is that Tigerton and Caneland coming Q2/Q3 don't appear to have 1333MHz FSB support. I have other complaints about the platform, but that's another story.


    I bet you anything that the 1333MHz FSB CPUs that's coming with the appropriate chipsets and a not a slap-on quad core will be Peryn.
  6. If 1333MHz FSBs aren't coming until Penryn I am going to be very, very pissed.

    The fact of the matter is 1333MHz FSBs are easily reached on single die processors, which is why Woodcrests are produced there. The difficulty arises when you have 2 die processors like Kentsfield and Cloverton. However, even then the problems aren't insurmountable. Kentsfield has shown great overclocking room reaching 3.91GHz with a 1562MHz FSB.

    http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=103729

    My preference is for all 65nm dual die chips (Kentsfield, Cloverton, etc.) to have a 1333MHz FSB. It'll require proper chipsets, a bit more voltage, and a bit better binning, but it's doable. When 45nm arrives, it'll bring single die quad cores which means that the 3 load FSB is alleviated. The FSB then can be 1600MHz. This is certainly doable since Conroe can reach it, going 45nm on chips, and likely 65nm on chipsets will also help. Intel has said previously, that they believe 1333MHz is pretty much the maximum on a 3 load FSB system, and 1600MHz with single die. This will be enough to get them through until Nehalem and likely CSI arrives in H2 2008. Conroe can remain at 1066MHz since a dual core really doesn't need must more bandwidth.

    The thing with Penryn and 45nm is that it won't arrive until Q1 2008, late 2007 at best. This means there's no way it can coincide with the 1333MHz FSB Bearlake chipsets in Q2. That's why I'm hoping Intel gets their act together and bumps Kentsfield, Cloverton, and Tigerton up.
  7. Quote:
    Intel has said previously, that they believe 1333MHz is pretty much the maximum on a 3 load FSB system, and 1600MHz with single die.


    I think this is the main issues with Kentsfield going to 1333MHz..... Woodcrest might be fine at 1333MHz, but when you add a 3rd load to the FSB, it makes it MUCH harder to run at the same speed. Having a point to point connection has MUCH better signal integrity compared than a trace with 3 loads.
  8. Seems to do just fine to me, look at the forum tests....its actually unbeleiveably fast.

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103982&page=3
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Quad Core Intel