amd quadfather 4X4 VS intel Kentsfield

i aint going to buy either of them as at my place they will cost a fortune...but im very much interested to hear experts say their opinions about them...i have not seen any previews of the 4X4...so here are my qns plzz enlighten me on them...

1>How practial will a 4X4 be?I mean will it be directly competing with the Kentsifeld alone or is amd going to let any 2 athlon 64x2 am2 processors work as 4X4 there by competing with the core 2 duo's in terms of total cost

2>-will the FSB bottle neck the kentsfield enuf to let the 4X4 take the performance crown at the high end..is it even true that FSB will be a bottle neck to the kentsfiled

3>-can the 4X4 work as good as theoretic quad core in the sense it has total 4 cores...i.e. aint it similar to how intel has made their current first gen quadcores...

4>-will the 4X4 give the same performance of an imaginary amd quad core (supposedly the deerhound) with 2 dual cores glued together in same packet jus like intel quad cores

plz let me know ur views...thnx...looking fwd to a good discussion
270 answers Last reply
More about quadfather intel kentsfield
  1. 1. 4x4 will be almost practicle as s940 Opteron 2xx. The 4x4 is capable to work only with FX series and they are expencive. The mainboard for the 4x4 will be much more expencive and at least 4 modules of RAM are required. 4x4 will perform competetive to Kentsfield system, but will not beat it and will cost more.

    2. The FSB will bottleneck Kentsfield, but not that bad. Even with the bottlenecked FSB, it still outperforms same clocked quadcore AMD K8 system.

    3. 4x4 will scale more linear in performance than Kentsfield for multithreaded apps with the NUMA model. But it is not quite good as native quadcore where all cores are connected to the same crossbar. The adventage of two dualcore K8 CPUs are the two ODMCs, improving the total RAM bandwidth.
    Kentsfield is glued using "the old" Pentium-D technique of glueing singlecores.

    4. No, Deerhound will perform better.
  2. There are no solid answers to any of your questions, only speculative.
  3. Quote:
    There are no solid answers to any of your questions, only speculative.

    Not quite. We've allready seen what he was wondering about.
  4. Quote:
    There are no solid answers to any of your questions, only speculative.

    Not quite. We've allready seen what he was wondering about.

    What do you mean? Is there full benches for anything he was asking about? Kind of off...
    yeap. there are benchmakrs on unreleased CPUs. We've allready seen how K8 scales on 2P(4P & 8P) and how 2P Core 2.
  5. well i jus wanted to know what to expect....unbiased speculations will do fine
  6. Quote:
    There are no solid answers to any of your questions, only speculative.

    Not quite. We've allready seen what he was wondering about.

    What do you mean? Is there full benches for anything he was asking about? Kind of off...
    yeap. there are benchmakrs on unreleased CPUs. We've allready seen how K8 scales on 2P(4P & 8P) and how 2P Core 2.

    Wow, can you post a link to the full benchmarks of the amd 4x4 and kentsfield? I would like to see it and if you wouldn't mind, clear up the confusion of everybody else that doesn't seem to know what's going on either, including myself. And isn't woodcrest a lot different from kentsfield? Your comparing dual duo cores to a quad core. Your making a lot of assumptions here with no solid information. Even if it is similar... We have yet to see how 4x4 will actually work also.

    http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1527913

    perhaps not the best, but im to lazy to search on sundays
  7. Kentsfield is a quad core processor. While there have been ES releases of Kentsfield and preliminary benchmarks of its potential, there is nothing definitive.

    4x4 is not a processor, it is a high end enthusiasts platform to showcase AMD's scalability, overclockingability, and system tweakability...read this news release for more info. Contrary to what others are posting there have been no releases of 4x4 and it is impossible to get a direct comparison of a Kentsfield processor to the 4x4 platform.

    Any answers at this time are pure speculation.

    With that said...here's my two cents...
    1) 4x4 will not be practical for the average everyday gamer or web-surfer, just as SLI is not practical for he average everyday gamer/web surfer...Exactly how 4x4 will work and with what procs, aside from FX models as stated, has yet to be determined.
    2) The Kentsfield FSB will not be a cause for any bottle necks
    3) Can't answer that for sure as we haven't seen a 4x4 system, but 4 cores is 4 cores...I equate this to the old arguement of dual processor or dual core, both perform about the same
    4) Again, can't answer that for sure as we haven't seen a 4x4 system, but 4 cores is 4 cores...I equate this to the old arguement of dual processor or dual core, both perform about the same
  8. Quote:
    1. 4x4 will be almost practicle as s940 Opteron 2xx. The 4x4 is capable to work only with FX series and they are expencive. The mainboard for the 4x4 will be much more expencive and at least 4 modules of RAM are required. 4x4 will perform competetive to Kentsfield system, but will not beat it and will cost more.

    2. The FSB will bottleneck Kentsfield, but not that bad. Even with the bottlenecked FSB, it still outperforms same clocked quadcore AMD K8 system.

    3. 4x4 will scale more linear in performance than Kentsfield for multithreaded apps with the NUMA model. But it is not quite good as native quadcore where all cores are connected to the same crossbar. The adventage of two dualcore K8 CPUs are the two ODMCs, improving the total RAM bandwidth.
    Kentsfield is glued using "the old" Pentium-D technique of glueing singlecores.

    4. No, Deerhound will perform better.



    4x4 is not restricted to FX. It is not possible to restrict it. FX has one HT link, X2 has one HT link. For any chip they just need to turn on an extra link.

    There have been closed system demos where it was said to be 80% faster than one dual core.

    Kentsfield will be fast but it is said it will use 125W+ so 4x4 can compete power wise. K8L will kill them both though, BUT FX is supposed to get the K8L core at the end of next year, maybe sooner.
  9. Baron, whats the deal dude? What happened to you to be so staunchy pro-AMD? There a good company but, jeez do you owe em money? Did Intel run over your dog or something? :( core 2>k8>netburst thats just way it is right now. When K8L comes out itll be great im sure. Why hype it so much? Arent a64's good enough all ready? every time i read your posts its 'K8L STOMPS EVERYHTING!! ITS TEH ROXXORS IT PWNS YOUR MAMA AND ITS OUT NEXT WEEK!!! YAY!!!!'

    Everytime i read one of your posts, its blatent lies. I dont think you believe the BS you spout on here. What gives man?
  10. It's 178W, not 158W.
  11. I think that the 4x4 is like SLI. If the mobo supporting it costs about the same as one that doesn't, and the CPUs with 2 HT links are also priced about the same as those with one - then the 4x4 platform would make a good choice if you're building an AMD system.

    As long as you can run it with just one CPU, then I would base a AMD build on this platform since you could just pop in another CPU later to upgrade performance.

    Again, this is supposing that the components are about the same price as the non-4x4 ones, and that you are going to build a AMD system anyway.
  12. Here's a 2P woodcrest vs 2P Opteron
    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2772&p=1

    Not exactly kentsfield vs 4x4 but close. Results show woodcrest wins by a mile.

    Here's a comparison of 4 core Woodcrest vs 2 core woodcrest on a Mac Pro

    http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=4

    4-core processors are about as useful as a Ferrari on a residential street. Software today barely take advantage of dual core much less quad core. It will be at least 2-3 years before we see any quad core advantage over dual core.
  13. are there any benchmark of revG quadcore AMD K8 ?
  14. Jack,

    I appreciate what you do, but some causes are lost even before a person begins the fight. You know even if Hector were to come out himself and admit Intel currently beat AMD in every category, The Horde would simply jump in with some new BS competitive/comparative" category.........


    "................ In fair and unbiased comparison testing performed by Charlie Demerjian in cooperation with AMDZone, AMD retail box packaging has been shown to be %78 more visually attractive than Intel retail box packaging. This will create astronomical demand for AMD products driving the evil empire of Intel out of business"


    Peace
  15. Quote:
    1. 4x4 will be almost practicle as s940 Opteron 2xx. The 4x4 is capable to work only with FX series and they are expencive. The mainboard for the 4x4 will be much more expencive and at least 4 modules of RAM are required. 4x4 will perform competetive to Kentsfield system, but will not beat it and will cost more.

    2. The FSB will bottleneck Kentsfield, but not that bad. Even with the bottlenecked FSB, it still outperforms same clocked quadcore AMD K8 system.

    3. 4x4 will scale more linear in performance than Kentsfield for multithreaded apps with the NUMA model. But it is not quite good as native quadcore where all cores are connected to the same crossbar. The adventage of two dualcore K8 CPUs are the two ODMCs, improving the total RAM bandwidth.
    Kentsfield is glued using "the old" Pentium-D technique of glueing singlecores.

    4. No, Deerhound will perform better.



    4x4 is not restricted to FX. It is not possible to restrict it. FX has one HT link, X2 has one HT link. For any chip they just need to turn on an extra link.

    There have been closed system demos where it was said to be 80% faster than one dual core.

    Kentsfield will be fast but it is said it will use 125W+ so 4x4 can compete power wise. K8L will kill them both though, BUT FX is supposed to get the K8L core at the end of next year, maybe sooner.

    well i remember reading that 4X4 demo...but that system used registered dimms...so it was obviously opty's....and not the actual 4X4 they were testing....and abt that 80% was only while what amd calls as "MEGATASKING".....

    i have also read that each processor will have its own dimm's...so that means if its total 4DIMMS each of them gets only 2? is it true....is it gonna affect is performance eh?
  16. Quote:
    Honestly, I completely expect K8L to rock the world, it just how Baron puts it that crawls under my skin --- and he eats up the Inq 'reported 80% better' bullcrap like it's a Wolfgang Puck gormet steak. It's fun poking fun at him as it is sooooo easy.


    To be fair to the Baron, it is AMD reporting the 80% increase.

    http://www.amdzone.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=5937
  17. This was on toms page, so maybe quad core wont consume that much?

    "While Intel's Kentsfield and Clovertown processors are expected to bring a substantial increase in power consumption to a thermal designer power rating of at least 110 watts, AMD claims that its quad-cores will not consume more than today's processors."

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/01/amd_quad_core_update/
  18. That's referring to the upcoming "K8L" CPU, not the 4x4 - which is going to use 2 seperate dualcore CPUs.
  19. Quote:
    Wow, can you post a link to the full benchmarks of the amd 4x4 and kentsfield? I would like to see it and if you wouldn't mind, clear up the confusion of everybody else that doesn't seem to know what's going on either, including myself. And isn't woodcrest a lot different from kentsfield? Your comparing dual duo cores to a quad core. Your making a lot of assumptions here with no solid information. Even if it is similar... We have yet to see how 4x4 will actually work also.

    I can post links, but I will not. Others allready done that.
    I think that 4x4 will perform like s940 2xx becouse their architectures are same, they have same L2, same HTT links at same freqfency, both NUMA. There is only one difference in the external architecture of the CPUs, their ODMCs and system RAM type. There is no real advantage of DDR2 on the K8. K8 is much more dependend of the RAM realtime latency(freqfency / latency) and less dependend on the RAM bandwidth. My expectations about the 4x4 is to perform just like 2P s940 2xx and in some rare cases with 0-5% advantage.
    Benchmarks on Kentsfield 2.66GHz FSB1066 ES showed that there is no "great" bottleneck as AMD fanboys yield, but it is getting bottlenecked with FSB1066 as the freqfency raises. At the end of this year there will be more apropriate chipsets supporting FSB1333 and there should be no discussion about quadcore Core2 3GHz 2x4MB L2 FSB1333. If you compare the known numbers today and scale them to the apropriate freqfency, the two overpriced 3GHz K8(the best available Q4 2006 and until H2 2007) will be defeated by 3GHz Kentsfield.
    But not everybody needs the best and not everybody will buy the most expencive. The most important factor when buying DT for most people around the world is performance/price. Kentsfield system will wipe the floor with same priced 4x4 system.
  20. Quote:
    1. 4x4 will be almost practicle as s940 Opteron 2xx. The 4x4 is capable to work only with FX series and they are expencive. The mainboard for the 4x4 will be much more expencive and at least 4 modules of RAM are required. 4x4 will perform competetive to Kentsfield system, but will not beat it and will cost more.

    2. The FSB will bottleneck Kentsfield, but not that bad. Even with the bottlenecked FSB, it still outperforms same clocked quadcore AMD K8 system.

    3. 4x4 will scale more linear in performance than Kentsfield for multithreaded apps with the NUMA model. But it is not quite good as native quadcore where all cores are connected to the same crossbar. The adventage of two dualcore K8 CPUs are the two ODMCs, improving the total RAM bandwidth.
    Kentsfield is glued using "the old" Pentium-D technique of glueing singlecores.

    4. No, Deerhound will perform better.



    4x4 is not restricted to FX. It is not possible to restrict it. FX has one HT link, X2 has one HT link. For any chip they just need to turn on an extra link.

    There have been closed system demos where it was said to be 80% faster than one dual core.

    Kentsfield will be fast but it is said it will use 125W+ so 4x4 can compete power wise. K8L will kill them both though, BUT FX is supposed to get the K8L core at the end of next year, maybe sooner.

    Ummm, nope.... you are spreading mis-information again.

    Kentsfield is positioned at 110 watts, and the exact specs are not known:
    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/17/core_2_extreme_quad_confirmed/

    4x4 will require special CPUs in special packagaging for 2 hyperlinks true, those parts have not been disclosed be it FX-62, 5000+ or what have you. As AMD is shooting for the performance crown I doubt you will see low end, but that is a wait and see. Unless AMD uses energy efficient CPUs then the 4x4 solution is a true multiply by 2 power envelope, thus the 89 watt parts will come in at 158 (correction, can't multiply by 2 it is 178) watts total, or, heaven forbid they use an FX-62 and it comes it at a whopping 250 watts total.

    Even the enthusiast sites are raising the question mark:
    Quote:
    Moving on, there were some very high powered (as in power draw) announcements. First off, AMD is pushing a new high end enthusiast platform consisting of dual socket motherboards for dual core processors combined with quad GPU solutions. In an incredibly unoriginal moment of indiscretion, this platform has been dubbed 4x4. Uninspired, yet very appropriate: the platform will very likely be large, loud, and so power hungry we will need a gas powered generator to run it. That doesn't mean we wouldn't want to own a system. We just aren't sure we'd want to pay for it.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2768&p=2

    Also, please provide the link to the benchmark data that shows K8L will kill them both.... by my recollection it has just taped out, even if that happens to even be the K8L and not just a run of the mill quad core Rev G K8 core -- which is more likely.

    AMD is very ambiguous on the K8L naming, part positioning, etc. It is not at all clear that the tapeout announcement was for K8L because AMD doesn't even call it K8L.

    @ DiGiTaLDreamZZ -- watch out for BaronMatrix, he is the forum AMD fanatic second only to 9-inch, and often attempts to prop up AMD with conclusionary statements that cannot be backed up by fact. He does not understand how computers work, how they are made, or how the market responds to yield/supply/demand issues. He is metacongatively challened to recognize his own limitations.


    Jack


    Because I am very busy I won't quote on the fact that it's almost electrically impossible for Kentsfield to have 20W less than two Core 2s (65W). The last I heard the 2.67 Kentsfield would come in around 125W. You are the one who attempts to refute facts with crap links that as you said CAN'T BE EXACT BECAUSE THE THING HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET.

    Also, AMD already has 2.6 Opterons running at 55W, so it's not amazing that the slowest iterations of 4x4 will run at the same or less than Kentsfield.
    And because people who would buy that may also buy 2xxx Opteron, how could the power consumption be so much greater?

    WHy don't you stick your head back in the chromatograph and see if you left something?

    Just like Core 2s specs said how it would perform, so do K8Ls. Ars did a real in depth look at it and just that it may be better in most things that 51xx, so that means Kentsfield and 4x4 will HAVE TO TAKE A BACKSEAT.

    Again, comments liek these are why I don't respond to you.

    A-HOLE.
  21. Quote:
    1. 4x4 will be almost practicle as s940 Opteron 2xx. The 4x4 is capable to work only with FX series and they are expencive. The mainboard for the 4x4 will be much more expencive and at least 4 modules of RAM are required. 4x4 will perform competetive to Kentsfield system, but will not beat it and will cost more.

    2. The FSB will bottleneck Kentsfield, but not that bad. Even with the bottlenecked FSB, it still outperforms same clocked quadcore AMD K8 system.

    3. 4x4 will scale more linear in performance than Kentsfield for multithreaded apps with the NUMA model. But it is not quite good as native quadcore where all cores are connected to the same crossbar. The adventage of two dualcore K8 CPUs are the two ODMCs, improving the total RAM bandwidth.
    Kentsfield is glued using "the old" Pentium-D technique of glueing singlecores.

    4. No, Deerhound will perform better.



    4x4 is not restricted to FX. It is not possible to restrict it. FX has one HT link, X2 has one HT link. For any chip they just need to turn on an extra link.

    There have been closed system demos where it was said to be 80% faster than one dual core.

    Kentsfield will be fast but it is said it will use 125W+ so 4x4 can compete power wise. K8L will kill them both though, BUT FX is supposed to get the K8L core at the end of next year, maybe sooner.

    Ummm, nope.... you are spreading mis-information again.

    Kentsfield is positioned at 110 watts, and the exact specs are not known:
    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/17/core_2_extreme_quad_confirmed/

    4x4 will require special CPUs in special packagaging for 2 hyperlinks true, those parts have not been disclosed be it FX-62, 5000+ or what have you. As AMD is shooting for the performance crown I doubt you will see low end, but that is a wait and see. Unless AMD uses energy efficient CPUs then the 4x4 solution is a true multiply by 2 power envelope, thus the 89 watt parts will come in at 158 (correction, can't multiply by 2 it is 178) watts total, or, heaven forbid they use an FX-62 and it comes it at a whopping 250 watts total.

    Even the enthusiast sites are raising the question mark:
    Quote:
    Moving on, there were some very high powered (as in power draw) announcements. First off, AMD is pushing a new high end enthusiast platform consisting of dual socket motherboards for dual core processors combined with quad GPU solutions. In an incredibly unoriginal moment of indiscretion, this platform has been dubbed 4x4. Uninspired, yet very appropriate: the platform will very likely be large, loud, and so power hungry we will need a gas powered generator to run it. That doesn't mean we wouldn't want to own a system. We just aren't sure we'd want to pay for it.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2768&p=2

    Also, please provide the link to the benchmark data that shows K8L will kill them both.... by my recollection it has just taped out, even if that happens to even be the K8L and not just a run of the mill quad core Rev G K8 core -- which is more likely.

    AMD is very ambiguous on the K8L naming, part positioning, etc. It is not at all clear that the tapeout announcement was for K8L because AMD doesn't even call it K8L.

    @ DiGiTaLDreamZZ -- watch out for BaronMatrix, he is the forum AMD fanatic second only to 9-inch, and often attempts to prop up AMD with conclusionary statements that cannot be backed up by fact. He does not understand how computers work, how they are made, or how the market responds to yield/supply/demand issues. He is metacongatively challened to recognize his own limitations.


    Jack


    Because I am very busy I won't quote on the fact that it's almost electrically impossible for Kentsfield to have 20W less than two Core 2s (65W). The last I heard the 2.67 Kentsfield would come in around 125W. You are the one who attempts to refute facts with crap links that as you said CAN'T BE EXACT BECAUSE THE THING HASN'T BEEN RELEASED YET.

    Also, AMD already has 2.6 Opterons running at 55W, so it's not amazing that the slowest iterations of 4x4 will run at the same or less than Kentsfield.
    And because people who would buy that may also buy 2xxx Opteron, how could the power consumption be so much greater?

    WHy don't you stick your head back in the chromatograph and see if you left something?

    Just like Core 2s specs said how it would perform, so do K8Ls. Ars did a real in depth look at it and just that it may be better in most things that 51xx, so that means Kentsfield and 4x4 will HAVE TO TAKE A BACKSEAT.

    Again, comments liek these are why I don't respond to you.

    A-HOLE.


    Atleast he is providing links to back up his claim, even if you think they are "crap."

    We all know you're a pro-AMD fanatic, so why should anyone believe you? :lol:
  22. Quote:
    1. 4x4 will be almost practicle as s940 Opteron 2xx. The 4x4 is capable to work only with FX series and they are expencive. The mainboard for the 4x4 will be much more expencive and at least 4 modules of RAM are required. 4x4 will perform competetive to Kentsfield system, but will not beat it and will cost more.

    2. The FSB will bottleneck Kentsfield, but not that bad. Even with the bottlenecked FSB, it still outperforms same clocked quadcore AMD K8 system.

    3. 4x4 will scale more linear in performance than Kentsfield for multithreaded apps with the NUMA model. But it is not quite good as native quadcore where all cores are connected to the same crossbar. The adventage of two dualcore K8 CPUs are the two ODMCs, improving the total RAM bandwidth.
    Kentsfield is glued using "the old" Pentium-D technique of glueing singlecores.

    4. No, Deerhound will perform better.



    4x4 is not restricted to FX. It is not possible to restrict it. FX has one HT link, X2 has one HT link. For any chip they just need to turn on an extra link.

    There have been closed system demos where it was said to be 80% faster than one dual core.

    Kentsfield will be fast but it is said it will use 125W+ so 4x4 can compete power wise. K8L will kill them both though, BUT FX is supposed to get the K8L core at the end of next year, maybe sooner.

    well i remember reading that 4X4 demo...but that system used registered dimms...so it was obviously opty's....and not the actual 4X4 they were testing....and abt that 80% was only while what amd calls as "MEGATASKING".....

    i have also read that each processor will have its own dimm's...so that means if its total 4DIMMS each of them gets only 2? is it true....is it gonna affect is performance eh?

    Ummm, goofy, if you really read the review you would know that they REPORTED THAT THEY WERE ENGINEERING SAMPLES @ 2.8 AND THAT THE MOBO WAS USING ECC. That would be because there weren't any two socket boards that didn't use ECC. All you have to do is ADD A 940th PIN. And with AM2 you don't even have to do that. You just change the socket and temporarily enable the ECC pin.

    And the CEO of VoodooPC was there along with other major companies that wouldn't take well to lies about the chip used. They do want them to support the platform after all.

    Face it, around XMas you'll be drooling over my 4x4 system with Vista Business.


    That maybe why they said it was an engineering sample. DUMMY.
  23. Quote:
    i aint going to buy either of them as at my place they will cost a fortune...but im very much interested to hear experts say their opinions about them...i have not seen any previews of the 4X4...so here are my qns plzz enlighten me on them...

    1>How practial will a 4X4 be?I mean will it be directly competing with the Kentsifeld alone or is amd going to let any 2 athlon 64x2 am2 processors work as 4X4 there by competing with the core 2 duo's in terms of total cost

    2>-will the FSB bottle neck the kentsfield enuf to let the 4X4 take the performance crown at the high end..is it even true that FSB will be a bottle neck to the kentsfiled

    3>-can the 4X4 work as good as theoretic quad core in the sense it has total 4 cores...i.e. aint it similar to how intel has made their current first gen quadcores...

    4>-will the 4X4 give the same performance of an imaginary amd quad core (supposedly the deerhound) with 2 dual cores glued together in same packet jus like intel quad cores

    plz let me know ur views...thnx...looking fwd to a good discussion



    1> 4x4 and Kentsfield will be two completly different products. One is a quadcore and other is 2 dual cores put together. Any benefits in terms of cost could only be calculated when we have the 2 systems infront of us. We can then do benchmarks, get power readings and heat produced. Please do not give any attention to current benchmarks on 4x4 or kent.

    2> Intel has always competed with AMD, with this bottleneck. It will still remain competitive.

    3> I am sure 4x4 will work just as good.

    4> I am sure there will not be much difference in performance. What i would be looking at is the difference in heat produced by the two and therfore which needs more cooling.
  24. Quote:
    Atleast he is providing links to back up his claim, even if you think they are "crap."



    If you were smart rather than clairvoyant a simple search would find the same info your slightly smarter cousin JagOff finds; like this


    4x4


    A quote:

    Quote:
    Running the company's Modo application on the 4x4 systems, Peebler saw an extreme boost in rendering capabilities. "The end result is we get 90 percent boost as we add multiple cores to handle the rendering tasks.


    Get a life.
  25. Quote:


    A quote:
    Running the company's Modo application on the 4x4 systems, Peebler saw an extreme boost in rendering capabilities. "The end result is we get 90 percent boost as we add multiple cores to handle the rendering tasks.



    AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The secret of life the universe and everything revealed!!!!!

    More cores process data faster!!!!!!

    ASTOUNDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Alert The Joint Chiefs immediatly!
  26. Quote:
    Because I am very busy I won't quote on the fact that it's almost electrically impossible for Kentsfield to have 20W less than two Core 2s (65W). The last I heard the 2.67 Kentsfield would come in around 125W.

    Not really interested in getting to involved in the thread, but I'll just say that that's not necessarily true. Even if Intel simply put 2 current B2 E6700s together in Kentsfield the TDP isn't going to be 2x65W or 130W. One of the reasons is that Kentsfield is has 1 1067MHz FSB not 2 1067MHz so the interface itself will be saving power. Also, Intel's TDP numbers are for 75% load which is in their favour since the chances of finding 4 threads that fully load all components of all 4 cores is unlikely. This means that lose sleeping transistors and work to shut down unused portions of the cores to good effect. In terms of a 100% load using all components of all 4 cores, my feeling that it'll be difficult to implement since X-Bit Labs already had to go to lengths to try to fully load (extra load really because of the 4 issue versus a regular full load geared toward 3 issue) Conroe so doing it to Kentsfield will be even harder. In a max load situation, Kentsfield would be limited by it's 1067MHz which may reduce performance potential (although the absolute performance is probably still very good), but will again mean that portions of the core will remain idle and save power.

    Now all that is assuming that you are using 2 standard E6700s. However, for one thing, Intel's 65nm process is constantly improving at the same time that they are gaining more experience with Conroe production. Between the 2, the power levels of the average E6700 will drop in the next quarter before Kentsfield launches. It's almost certain right now that the E6700 doesn't use all of it's 65W TDP anyways. For instance, the 2.67GHz 5150 Woodcrest also has a 65W TDP and it has a 1333MHz FSB vs. Conroe's 1067MHz FSB. The current E6700's TDP is probably closer to 60W, the extra 5W just means they can don't have to bin as tightly. Now by Q4 2007, the actual TDP will probably be even lower, maybe say 57-58W. Now the TDP estimates for Kentsfield are either 110W or 120W so this would make sense.

    Now, that is assuming that Kentsfield is a regular high-volume consumer part, but of course it's not and it's an Extreme Edition. That means, that they can easily bin tighter than the E6700. I can imagine that they can easily bin for 55W, which again points to a 110W TDP with room to spare. Something also to note in terms of binning is that the 2.33GHz 5148 Woodcrest with a 1333MHz FSB has a TDP of 40W. If this were to be the basis for Kentsfield, at 2.67GHz with a 1067MHz FSB a 50W TDP should be achieveable meaning that even a 110W TDP is conservative.

    The likely reason why we aren't going to see very low TDP numbers is because Intel's is planning on releasing higher clocked models so it's best to define the standards higher now so they don't have to keep revising them. This works in Intel's favour since they don't need to bin as tightly. The other reason is that Cloverton is higher volume than Kentsfield so can't bin as tightly and it wouldn't look good to have Cloverton's TDP at 120W and Kentsfield's at 95W. Still, reports are that the B1 stepping is noticeably cooler than the B0 stepping so things are looking up. Hopefully, Intel decides on a 110W TDP rather than the 120W TDP that they seem to be more recently leaning toward.

    Anyways, I seem to have splurged, which I was not meaning to do, but I haven't posted here recently so I guess I'm making up for it.
  27. Quote:
    Get a life.

    Clowny troll,
    Why are you trolling to everybody to get a life when you are the one missing it?
    And please, STFU and go FYS with your 4x4, u smelly piece of $H!+
  28. Quote:

    A-HOLE.


    Interesting, very intelligent.

    Jack
    That's the best BaronBS can. You know, his respect....
    Jack, why are you trying to polite with a grown up stupid child?
    The relationships between people are bilateral process. It is very hard to build them and very easy to destroy them. All I can see is your effort trying to talk with BBS like talking with a man. On the other side is the stupid little child just arguing to waste his time(which probably has no dimension for him in his world). Does he deserves your treatment?
  29. Quote:
    Because I am very busy I won't quote on the fact that it's almost electrically impossible for Kentsfield to have 20W less than two Core 2s (65W). The last I heard the 2.67 Kentsfield would come in around 125W.

    Not really interested in getting to involved in the thread, but I'll just say that that's not necessarily true. Even if Intel simply put 2 current B2 E6700s together in Kentsfield the TDP isn't going to be 2x65W or 130W. One of the reasons is that Kentsfield is has 1 1067MHz FSB not 2 1067MHz so the interface itself will be saving power. Also, Intel's TDP numbers are for 75% load which is in their favour since the chances of finding 4 threads that fully load all components of all 4 cores is unlikely. This means that lose sleeping transistors and work to shut down unused portions of the cores to good effect. In terms of a 100% load using all components of all 4 cores, my feeling that it'll be difficult to implement since X-Bit Labs already had to go to lengths to try to fully load (extra load really because of the 4 issue versus a regular full load geared toward 3 issue) Conroe so doing it to Kentsfield will be even harder. In a max load situation, Kentsfield would be limited by it's 1067MHz which may reduce performance potential (although the absolute performance is probably still very good), but will again mean that portions of the core will remain idle and save power.

    Now all that is assuming that you are using 2 standard E6700s. However, for one thing, Intel's 65nm process is constantly improving at the same time that they are gaining more experience with Conroe production. Between the 2, the power levels of the average E6700 will drop in the next quarter before Kentsfield launches. It's almost certain right now that the E6700 doesn't use all of it's 65W TDP anyways. For instance, the 2.67GHz 5150 Woodcrest also has a 65W TDP and it has a 1333MHz FSB vs. Conroe's 1067MHz FSB. The current E6700's TDP is probably closer to 60W, the extra 5W just means they can don't have to bin as tightly. Now by Q4 2007, the actual TDP will probably be even lower, maybe say 57-58W. Now the TDP estimates for Kentsfield are either 110W or 120W so this would make sense.

    Now, that is assuming that Kentsfield is a regular high-volume consumer part, but of course it's not and it's an Extreme Edition. That means, that they can easily bin tighter than the E6700. I can imagine that they can easily bin for 55W, which again points to a 110W TDP with room to spare. Something also to note in terms of binning is that the 2.33GHz 5148 Woodcrest with a 1333MHz FSB has a TDP of 40W. If this were to be the basis for Kentsfield, at 2.67GHz with a 1067MHz FSB a 50W TDP should be achieveable meaning that even a 110W TDP is conservative.

    The likely reason why we aren't going to see very low TDP numbers is because Intel's is planning on releasing higher clocked models so it's best to define the standards higher now so they don't have to keep revising them. This works in Intel's favour since they don't need to bin as tightly. The other reason is that Cloverton is higher volume than Kentsfield so can't bin as tightly and it wouldn't look good to have Cloverton's TDP at 120W and Kentsfield's at 95W. Still, reports are that the B1 stepping is noticeably cooler than the B0 stepping so things are looking up. Hopefully, Intel decides on a 110W TDP rather than the 120W TDP that they seem to be more recently leaning toward.

    Anyways, I seem to have splurged, which I was not meaning to do, but I haven't posted here recently so I guess I'm making up for it.

    Thank you ! I enjoyed that one very informative and what not :)
  30. Quote:
    Baron is obviously playing dumb. If he can get it wrong almost every single time, he can get it right. Your the dumb one wasting your time trying to correct him. What a hypocrite, a child responding to a child with an added tantrum to it. Although one is just playing stupid, and the other one lacks any capacity to realize that, not sure which one is worse. By this time you should be ignoring him already. Nice one...

    I know that what ever he gets it is BS. What I don't like is him trolling around. BBS is capable to destroy every intellegent discussion, and not everybody can do that. At the begining I tried to discuss with BBS, than I tried to ignore him. But both methods gived no results and BBS was trolling hardcore BS further. The only way is destroy BBS or he will destroy everything valuable around his fat stupid ass.
  31. Quote:
    This was on toms page, so maybe quad core wont consume that much?

    "While Intel's Kentsfield and Clovertown processors are expected to bring a substantial increase in power consumption to a thermal designer power rating of at least 110 watts, AMD claims that its quad-cores will not consume more than today's processors."

    http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/01/amd_quad_core_update/


    AMD is working on some nifty technology for their quad core solution, in which case the cores will dynamically and independently adjust clock and voltage to keep power under control.

    This, however, is different from the 4x4. The 4x4 is a dual socket MB with 2 dual core CPUs in each socket to yield 4 execution cores.

    AMD will not have a quad core chip (4 core on the same die or in the same package) on a new architecture until mid 2007. The rumor is that AMD has quad core rev G designed and will be released earlier --- the rumor is unsubstantiated and it started with the Inquirer -- some forum members who claim to work at Best Buy confirmed that AMD has told them expect quad core in stores by x-mas or something like that. AMD is very ambiguous what it is that taped out and what the timings are in general.

    It is hard to tell. What is currently confirmed and what we do know is that Intel will release Kentsfield in Q4 2006, AMD will also launch 4x4 by the end of the year. Kentsfield looks to be about 110 watt 4 core part at 2.67 GHz, AMD has not said what CPUs will fit into the 4x4. This will be tough for AMD in general as it will take a full 2.8 GHz part on all 4 cores to come even close to matching any kind of performance metric, these are 125 watt parts so a 4 core Intel system will run you 110 watts and 4 core AMD system (on the 4x4 platform) will run you 250 watts as it stand. This could all change of course.

    Jack

    8) Thanks for clearing that up for me.
  32. Quote:


    There have been closed system demos where it was said to be 80% faster than one dual core.


    After what AMD pulled in ( I forget which country) and said k8's where better then C2D and messed with a bunch of benchmarks scores. I don't trust anything that comes out of there mouth anymore. They lost all credit in my books with that stunt. Intel has did the same, but we have seen the C2D has proformed just as much as they said it would.

    Like most are saying we'll have to wait and see. Nothing is for 100% yet and even tho we have seen a bit from Kentsfield. It was a first stage CPU. In lines of the 4x4 we haven't seen anything yet. But we can look at the K8's right now and get a good idea of what can happen.
  33. Quote:
    Atleast he is providing links to back up his claim, even if you think they are "crap."



    If you were smart rather than clairvoyant a simple search would find the same info your slightly smarter cousin JagOff finds; like this


    4x4


    A quote:

    Quote:
    Running the company's Modo application on the 4x4 systems, Peebler saw an extreme boost in rendering capabilities. "The end result is we get 90 percent boost as we add multiple cores to handle the rendering tasks.


    Get a life.


    It's alright Barron, Hector Ruiz will kiss your bubu. I know you will like that.
  34. Quote:

    A-HOLE.


    Interesting, very intelligent.

    Jack
    That's the best BaronBS can. You know, his respect....
    Jack, why are you trying to polite with a grown up stupid child?
    The relationships between people are bilateral process. It is very hard to build them and very easy to destroy them. All I can see is your effort trying to talk with BBS like talking with a man. On the other side is the stupid little child just arguing to waste his time(which probably has no dimension for him in his world). Does he deserves your treatment?

    Baron is obviously playing dumb. If he can get it wrong almost every single time, he can get it right. Your the dumb one wasting your time trying to correct him. What a hypocrite, a child responding to a child with an added tantrum to it. Although one is just playing stupid, and the other one lacks any capacity to realize that, not sure which one is worse. By this time you should be ignoring him already. Nice one...

    Im sorry, but you are mistaken. You've been around long enough to know BM is not playing dumb. He truly believes what he spews.

    The problem is he believes himself so strongly, that he creates fictional notions to support himself. Most of the time, he cannot provide data to support the himself as it does not exist. When data is available which counters his claims, he will say it is biased, or change his theory and manipulate the data to match, then claim "I was right, thats what Ive been saying all along". In short, he is incapable of admiting when he is wrong.

    If you watched the who Core 2 debate starting back in Jan/Feb, then you know Baron makes stuff up as he goes along to support his own agenda. The consistancy of his contrary nature disproves the idea that he is just playing dumb.

    I know I really dont care that BM lives in a fantasy world. What I and a few others care about is that BM spreads his BS to people who lack the knowledge/information to know better.

    In BMs defense, he does have some good things to say, buts he's like the boy who cried wolf. He's spewed so much BS, that often a person will miss the good simply because they're so used to the BS that they wont even bother reading what he has to say.
  35. The 4x4 will most probably perform better than a theoretical Quad core K8 arc.

    My guess... The 4x4 will not perform better than a Kentsfield. Though I think 4x4 will b able to perform the same as Kentsfield in most applications.

    AMDs K8L will b the killer!
  36. Quote:
    The 4x4 will most probably perform better than a theoretical Quad core K8 arc.

    My guess... The 4x4 will not perform better than a Kentsfield. Though I think 4x4 will b able to perform the same as Kentsfield in most applications.

    AMDs K8L will b the killer!


    jus when i was beginnin to have doubts of what my query actually was...:o
    the above is a relief....seems that the topic of discussion had changed to BM...hey bro ur quiet famous around here.... :lol:
  37. Quote:
    The 4x4 will most probably perform better than a theoretical Quad core K8 arc.

    I think that you are wrong. All 4 cores on the quadcore will be connected much more efficient using the crossbar, rather than the HTT link. When reworking the crossbar, they will add something they allready have. For example shared L3. The bandwidth of the 128bit IMC and the 800MHz DDR2 RAM will be more than enough to feed the quad K8. 4x4 will waste more silicon than the quad K8.
  38. Quote:

    You sure he wasn't just putting people's ignorance on display? So, your basically implying he's crazy I see... Hmmm, alright, in that case, I won't argue.


    Nope, I’m not saying he's crazy, not at all.
    JJ suspects its metacognative recognition, that BM lacks the intellectual capacity to recognize when he is mistaken.

    I suspect it’s a little deeper than that. That it is an emotional personal perspective issue.

    Ultimately, the point is moot as the causal factors do not change the end result. So let’s just take the middle ground and say he's stubborn. Nothing crazy about that.

    Regardless of what the truth is, the end result is that he provides incorrect information. This is the problem in a nut shell. The false information he is providing may be misleading to individuals who come here seeking knowledge. Those people simply lack the knowledge to recognize false information.

    Now, if as you theorize, BM is doing this deliberately, then I would say he was crazy, as there is no logical or socially acceptable reason to be deliberately deceptive.

    But, we should seriously consider getting back on topic before we get this thread locked. Since I helped perpetuate this little "side note", I will now cease.

    Peace
  39. Wont the 2 IMC in the 2 different Dual cores have any effect on performance?
    This is the reason why i said->
    Quote:
    The 4x4 will most probably perform better than a theoretical Quad core K8 arc
  40. Thanks 4 ur reply.

    I thought the 2 IMC would have some other advantages too, but I was wrong.

    The 4x4 may have some tweaks, but I dont think thats enough to beat Intels Kentsfield!
  41. Quote:
    The problem is he believes himself so strongly, that he creates fictional notions to support himself.

    (...)

    The consistancy of his contrary nature disproves the idea that he is just playing dumb.

    (...)

    What I and a few others care about is that BM spreads his BS to people who lack the knowledge/information to know better.

    (...)

    In BMs defense, he does have some good things to say, buts he's like the boy who cried wolf.


    Those are all really good points; but, even those good points are not enough to define 'the one behind the screen'; even insults can be fun, sometimes. At the end, it might all come down to how you do it. That, is the hard way. :wink:


    Cheers!
  42. Quote:
    Anyways, I seem to have splurged, which I was not meaning to do, but I haven't posted here recently so I guess I'm making up for it.


    That was a most pertinent "splurge", indeed!


    Cheers!
  43. We shouldn't worry about the FSB on kentsfield too much, I mean we have core2's doing 400-500 mhz fsb(1600-2000 total fsb). Now if they are running stronger chipsets when kentsfield comes out we may go even higher.

    My E6300 had no problem at all hitting 400 fsb from 266. not pushing it anymore untill I get permenent active cooling on northbridge.( brought it back down to 320 untill then).

    Seems that when kentsfield comes out we should be able to push it farther.
  44. Quote:
    We shouldn't worry about the FSB on kentsfield too much, I mean we have core2's doing 400-500 mhz fsb(1600-2000 total fsb). Now if they are running stronger chipsets when kentsfield comes out we may go even higher.

    My E6300 had no problem at all hitting 400 fsb from 266. not pushing it anymore untill I get permenent active cooling on northbridge.( brought it back down to 320 untill then).

    Seems that when kentsfield comes out we should be able to push it farther.


    I agree with the faster FSB thing I just got done reading an anandtech article they had the FSB of a 6300 pushed up to 532mhz !!! Crazy I tell you :)

    http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2822&p=3
  45. Quote:


    A quote:
    Running the company's Modo application on the 4x4 systems, Peebler saw an extreme boost in rendering capabilities. "The end result is we get 90 percent boost as we add multiple cores to handle the rendering tasks.



    AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The secret of life the universe and everything revealed!!!!!

    More cores process data faster!!!!!!

    ASTOUNDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Alert The Joint Chiefs immediatly!


    So now links don't prove anything?

    Yeah, right!!!
    :twisted:
  46. Quote:
    Atleast he is providing links to back up his claim, even if you think they are "crap."



    If you were smart rather than clairvoyant a simple search would find the same info your slightly smarter cousin JagOff finds; like this


    4x4


    A quote:

    Quote:
    Running the company's Modo application on the 4x4 systems, Peebler saw an extreme boost in rendering capabilities. "The end result is we get 90 percent boost as we add multiple cores to handle the rendering tasks.


    Get a life.


    It's alright Barron, Hector Ruiz will kiss your bubu. I know you will like that.


    There's your link, fa@boy. Now what?
    :twisted:
  47. Quote:
    Actually, I think JJ said that he lacks the ability to know he has limits or something as such. A bit twisted on that one, nowhere near accurate at the most part. I guess he's just a pawn that got used for fun and PWNED! Oh well, I don't know why people make fun of him. Doesn't show anything except that they want to feel better about themselves. Unless they were really trying to stop him from deliberately spreading false information. I doubt that though, he would have just been banned if that was the case and point.



    I think you're lacking a spine.
  48. Quote:
    Anyways, I seem to have splurged, which I was not meaning to do, but I haven't posted here recently so I guess I'm making up for it.


    That was a most pertinent "splurge", indeed!


    Cheers!

    "almost electrically impossible"

    Unless of course they do some kind of VRM trick that doesn't run 100% of the chip when idle. I would be interested to see what load power is. I would bet that 4x4 will do as well or better than 2xx or 2xxx.

    I hope Kentsfield doesn't suck, but I think that two 2.0GHz+ AM2 chips will FINALLY unlock the bandwidth potential of K8 the way Opteron does.
  49. Quote:


    A quote:
    Running the company's Modo application on the 4x4 systems, Peebler saw an extreme boost in rendering capabilities. "The end result is we get 90 percent boost as we add multiple cores to handle the rendering tasks.



    AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The secret of life the universe and everything revealed!!!!!

    More cores process data faster!!!!!!

    ASTOUNDING!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Alert The Joint Chiefs immediatly!


    So now links don't prove anything?

    Yeah, right!!!
    :twisted:


    Not what Im saying the BM. Not even remotely. By any stretch of the imagination. Normal, warped or otherwise.

    Let me explain it for ya.

    Pointing out that more cores process data faster places you squarely in the catagory:

Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Product