Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Quad core Woodcrests ... Clovertown ... benchmarks

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 11, 2006 3:37:39 AM

Two quad core CPUs on one mobo ... 8 cores:

http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331648.jpg

And this in only at a 2.4 Ghz clock :) 
Half the price of an equivalent Opteron setup, twice the performance.


From: http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/
September 11, 2006 3:49:00 AM

Quote:
Two quad core CPUs on one mobo ... 8 cores:

http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331648.jpg

And this in only at a 2.4 Ghz clock :) 
Half the price of an equivalent Opteron setup, twice the performance.


From: http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/


And where is that CPU from or 2 CPUs as you say? Core2 Duo looks like the best performer for now. More than 4 cores is a WASTE OF MONEY right now. In a few years we'll talk again. :p 
September 11, 2006 4:07:47 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong
Clovertown is a native quad-core processor right?
I mean... in the IDF pictures Clovertown has only one die in the package
Related resources
September 11, 2006 11:02:23 PM

Quote:
This is incorrect, clovertown is a dual die package just like Kentsfield. Quad-core single die from Intel will come with 45 nm.

Jack


Thank you Jack
I'm your fan by the way
September 12, 2006 1:29:20 AM

Isn't that quad-core supossed to be called like Penryn or is that the desktop versoin?
September 12, 2006 1:37:53 AM

Quote:
Isn't that quad-core supossed to be called like Penryn or is that the desktop versoin?


Penryn is going to be the 45nm shrink of the Merom.
Quote:
But Penryn is a dual-core 45-nanometer chip specifically designed for notebooks, sources said. Wolfdale is the name of the dual-core 45nm chip that will be slated for desktops in that time frame. Penryn is essentially a smaller version of Merom, which is due in August, while Wolfdale is a smaller version of Conroe, scheduled for a July launch.

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6071046.html
September 12, 2006 1:41:02 AM

Quote:
Two quad core CPUs on one mobo ... 8 cores:

http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331648.jpg

And this in only at a 2.4 Ghz clock :) 
Half the price of an equivalent Opteron setup, twice the performance.


From: http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/


That just means they'll make less than AMD does for Opteron. Not the normal way of introing new processors, especially ones that really "Leap Ahead." Especially ahead of their own processors.
September 12, 2006 1:50:08 AM

Its already been noted though that they may package the C2Q as the new enthusiast model and use the C2D as the mainstream model. And possibly after a certian amount of time they'll switch completly to the C2Q (possibly when developers get off their @$$ and write software that fully utilizes the function of a multicore processor).
Intel can afford to sell its processors for far cheaper that AMD would ever dream of doing because theey know that they:
a) have the market share and
b) have the money to drop prices (a la C2D intro)
and by the way... STFU
September 12, 2006 1:52:02 AM

Quote:
Two quad core CPUs on one mobo ... 8 cores:

http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/img/1155331648.jpg

And this in only at a 2.4 Ghz clock :) 
Half the price of an equivalent Opteron setup, twice the performance.


From: http://blue.ap.teacup.com/kaz622/


That just means they'll make less than AMD does for Opteron. Not the normal way of introing new processors, especially ones that really "Leap Ahead." Especially ahead of their own processors.

If the price is 1/2 of Opteron, and cost less than Opteron to produce, and can help regain some market share in the server sector, then I see no issues.

If anything, it will make AMD have to either 1) lower their prices for their Opteron offerings, or 2) stay quiet and hope no one really cares if the chip is cheaper, especially in multi-socket platforms.
a c 99 à CPUs
September 12, 2006 12:53:08 PM

How many cores your system can use depends on what you do. Games use maybe one or two threads. Encoders can use at least four. Some compilers like GCC can use a lot (>10 in my experience.) I'd get a dual quad-core or better when I get my next machine as I am sure that I will put all of the cores to work (I run Gentoo and thus compile a lot of stuff with GCC.)
September 12, 2006 1:32:49 PM

I forgot how many years I've been following computers, probably around 10 or so by now, but its always been that hardware leads software. No company is going to write programs with multi-core support if there are no multi-cores. The point of getting a quad-core right now isin't for the performance gain which we most likely won't see too much of as of now, but for when the programs come that will harness the true power.

Although, I do have to admit, the software for computer games far exceeds hardware these days, but I would have to attribute that to inefficent coding and just so much more things going on...
!