Kentsfield Released: Core 2 Quadro Ready to Ravage the High-End

[pschmid]

Just as the shock from the initial performance leap of Core 2 Duo wears off, Intel "leaps ahead" with a doubled-up version. Are we ready?

 

[BaronMatrix]

Just as the shock from the initial performance leap of Core 2 Duo wears off, Intel "leaps ahead" with a doubled-up version. Are we ready?

Yes, that is a good question, especially considering that this single chip solution has broken the 200W mark. The numbers are good for CIneBench, but games see no improvement and COre 2 Duo is actually faster at the same clock speed. I guess that puts to rest the FSB contention issue.

The Anand article is very thorough and shows that C2Q is not QUITE as fast as C2D in games and singlethreaded apps.
I guess the core tweaks are putting it at a core for core disadvantage.

 

[dasickninja]

The same could be said for 4x4.

 

[Aids]

Ready? Not just yet, for gamers at least. Encoders are probably going to be crying until they get one. www.hardocp.com has an excellent article with several tests run including power consumption if anyone wants to check it out. At peak performance the core 2 quad was using 304 watts to core 2 duo's 230. Prescott all over again? Nah, i doubt it, but its going to be a while before I get a quad core.

 

[nukemaster]

Just as the shock from the initial performance leap of Core 2 Duo wears off, Intel "leaps ahead" with a doubled-up version. Are we ready?

Yes, that is a good question, especially considering that this single chip solution has broken the 200W mark. The numbers are good for CIneBench, but games see no improvement and COre 2 Duo is actually faster at the same clock speed. I guess that puts to rest the FSB contention issue.

The Anand article is very thorough and shows that C2Q is not QUITE as fast as C2D in games and singlethreaded apps.
I guess the core tweaks are putting it at a core for core disadvantage.
But....but....I want one.....

Damn that would be some sweet 3d rendering and video encoding....(either one....4x4 and Quadro will kick ass here....but i have a 755 board....so well you know)

 

[Doughbuy]

Then gamers won't buy the C2Q... Intel's not particularly marketing this towards gamers anyways, and the C2D already has the gamer market pretty much beat...

Anyways, back to your normally scheduled programming.

 

[Windaria]

Did anyone actually watch that video? I mean, were it not for the very end, Intel could buy that video from Toms and run it as a commercial.

Otherwise... 7 paragraphs, 4 images, and an infomercial.

Heck... it is like Gateway sent the machine and paid for the review.

At least the processor articles used to always be worth reading at Toms...

Then they mention that AMD's first quad core release is expected in weeks... I thought it was more of a dual-dual core solution? Oh well... I really don't like the looks of the 4x4.

 

[3Ball]

Has anyone heard of any games that will utilize more than 2 cores? Just curious because there are a few that I am going to get and if they support it then I will get them...like UT2K7?!?

Best,

3Ball

 

[Frozen_Fallout]

I don't think anyone dealing with gaming is going to want to get this right now unless they have a ton of money to blow. There are people out there that can get a benifit for this right now but for 99% of people you would be better off getting a C2D. This is also going to be true about the 4x4. Games just aren't going to be coding for this for some time. Not even all the games coming out at this time are dual core coded and for the pice they are asking for the C2Q it isn't really isn't worth it at the time.

So unless you burn all the time defrage all the time, run virus scans all the time and play games all at the same time I don't really see the use at the time. This might change in 6 months or so but as of right now I would go for a C2D if you are just a gamer.

 

[o29]

I think you guys are being a little harsh on Baron.

It seems like that there's always some level of AMD vs Intel tension here, and I know that he starts a lot of it, but there was no mention of AMD here, and while his mentioning power consumption might seem to be alluding to AMD's 4x4, he didn't directly state anything. I think that the issue of power consumption is a good enough point to bring up here without having ulterior motives. The fact that he was wrong may have just been a misinterpretation.

But maybe not. Obviously I can't say for sure, but I think maybe he can be given the benefit of the doubt. Either way, there's already enough AMD/Intel debate that it doesn't need to be brought into this topic, and regardless of who brought it, I think it's best to stick with the topic at hand.

That being said, I'm not quite sure that there's really a need for 4 cores at this point, even for the enthusiast or gamer. Obviously this will be very useful for multithreaded apps, but as of now, Core 2 Duo seems to be more than adequate for almost everything. If you're doing encoding-work, I'm sure these chips have great potential, but for the average user, unless you just want to be able to run 4 instances of SuperPi, there's no real need for it yet.

Of course, I think within the next few months we'll start to see the need grow. As of now, it seems like we're just waiting on the software industry to do some catching up with multithreading.

But really I think these chips benefit everyone. It certainly isn't hurting anything to have quad-core CPU's on the market, other than maybe a few wallets.

I just hope everyone understands the practical application of these chips. I'm sure there will be a few disappointed consumers who end up buying a Core 2 Quadro thinking it will improve their Quake 4 FPS or something, and then wonder why their Core 2 Extreme seemed faster.

 

[o29]

The game that's sort of in the quad-core spotlight right now is Allen Wake. Supposedly it will utilize all four cores, assigning a specific task to each core. I don't remember exactly, but I think they said one core will run the physics, one runs the AI, one runs the basic code, and the other runs...background applications? Again, I don't remember exactly.

Supposedly at least having a dual-core will be a minimum requirement for the game, but a quad-core CPU is ideal.

Or, you know, you could just get it for the 360, perhaps at the cost of a slight loss of eye candy.

 

[Frozen_Fallout]

I agree that there has been allot of tension right now over the AMD vs Intel debate. I have seen way to many flame wars popping up all over the Forumz. I feel that people need to sit back and take a few breaths and from what I have seen allot of the flame wars have started for no good reason with people using very harsh language (allot that I feel personally is very inappropriate) that just isn't need. Allot of what Baron posts are really false just worded incorrectly.

Anyway I hope the flaming wars will slow down coming up but seeing whats coming in the future it looks like the Intel vs AMD Flame wars will only get worse unless people can find a way to better communicate with each other on this forum.

 

[Crashman]

This was just a release-day recap of the September preview. Both Intel's and upcomming AMD solutions are dual-dual core. Perhaps you would have been happier if the term "4-core solution" was used.

 

[BaronMatrix]

However you 200 watt remark is FUD, off base, and misleading to say the least. This is disappointing, Baron, as you often show signs of getting better.

I'm not in a good mood today but since you called FUD:

Linkage!

It clearly shows system power over 200W. I expect 4x4 to be that high also. It wasn't a barb but an observation, but of course you little sensitive Intel b!tch boys read what you want.

BTW,

You know what to do.

 

[BaronMatrix]

I think you guys are being a little harsh on Baron.

It seems like that there's always some level of AMD vs Intel tension here, and I know that he starts a lot of it, but there was no mention of AMD here, and while his mentioning power consumption might seem to be alluding to AMD's 4x4, he didn't directly state anything. I think that the issue of power consumption is a good enough point to bring up here without having ulterior motives. The fact that he was wrong may have just been a misinterpretation.

But maybe not. Obviously I can't say for sure, but I think maybe he can be given the benefit of the doubt. Either way, there's already enough AMD/Intel debate that it doesn't need to be brought into this topic, and regardless of who brought it, I think it's best to stick with the topic at hand.

That being said, I'm not quite sure that there's really a need for 4 cores at this point, even for the enthusiast or gamer. Obviously this will be very useful for multithreaded apps, but as of now, Core 2 Duo seems to be more than adequate for almost everything. If you're doing encoding-work, I'm sure these chips have great potential, but unless you just want to be able to run 4 instances of SuperPi, there's no real need for it yet.

Of course, I think within the next few months we'll start to see the need grow. As of now, it seems like we're just waiting on the software industry to do some catching up with multithreading.

But really I think these chips benefit everyone. It certainly isn't hurting anything to have quad-core CPU's on the market, other than maybe a few wallets.

I just hope everyone understands the practical application of these chips. I'm sure there will be a few disappointed consumers who end up buying them thinking it will improve their Quake 4 FPS or something, and then wonder why their Core 2 Extreme seemed faster.

I have been extremely harsh on Baron in the past, and when he is reasonable I am complimentary and make decent disucssion with him.... but when he posts such items out of context with inuendos to conclude the contrary, then I call him on it. It happens often enough that, while initially I was softer on my wording, that anytime it happens I will forcefully assert the complete contrary to what the his conclusion is in contrast to the correct conclusion/comparision.

It is unforatunate, but we have had a few Baron-like posters running amuck -- most were so fanatical that they have been banned, for good reason. Others, like Parrot (aka 9-inch) simply do not understand and as such I usually take these very strong positions. It is unfortunate because there is quite abit of intersting debate that may occur, objective and civil.... these occur quite often, if you notice, when there is a lull or lack of posting by the forum antagonists, it is only when these antagonist get involved that we fail to acheive the appropriate level of intellecutal discussion.... and, as a result, forces me to take a position that is often misconstrued.


But you aren't anybody. So you like to impress idiots with big CPU process words. That doesn't make you anyone who decides who is "running amok." Maybe you should move to China and become familiar with a country that doesn't allow free speech.

 

[evilr00t]

Just ONE of your beloved 4x4 FX series chips chews up over 200W in a system

 

[Spitfire_x86]

I'm not in a good mood today but since you called FUD:

Linkage!

It clearly shows system power over 200W. I expect 4x4 to be that high also. It wasn't a barb but an observation, but of course you little sensitive Intel b!tch boys read what you want.

BTW,

You know what to do.

You never said "total system power" in your original post, instead you used the word "single chip solution".

Heres's Xbitlabs charts (CPU Power consumption, not total system power consumption)

Core 2 Quad consumes significantly less power than FX-62 on load, and equal on idle.

From these charts we can assume that under full load a 4x4 system will consume over 200W for CPUs alone, while the Core 2 Quad consumes only 110W.

 

[gomerpile]

Nice write up but the picture is so geeky, good god man get a better pic of yourself dude.

 

[Navstar]

Only a German can get by wearing those Frappacino glasses.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Just ONE of your beloved 4x4 FX series chips chews up over 200W in a system

I have yet to see FX62 go over 200W system power unles there was SLI or RAID. 4x4 is rated at 125W but will rarely see that much as it's MAX power not average.

They will both be hungry, but C2Q is ONE socket which means heat dissipation is raised a lot for the socket.

4x4 won't use much more power than 2xOpteron @ 2.6GHz. I guess all of you have forgotten that most high clocked Opterons (2xxx/8xxx) are rated at 95W and I don't hear of any 2P buyers complaining and those boards have many more features to burn power.

Give it up. They will both use A LOT more power than the single versions. They will both bring new levels of perf for multihtreaded apps.

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!!!

 

[Action_Man]

Why are the pretty ones always so dumb.

 

[evilr00t]

They will both be hungry, but C2Q is ONE socket which means heat dissipation is raised a lot for the socket.

A watt is a watt. :roll:
Doesn't matter whether it's in one socket or not.

 

[Action_Man]

4x4 is rated at 125W but will rarely see that much as it's MAX power not average.

Scroll up a few posts and you'll see the FX 62 is over its MAX power under load.

 

[gOJDO]

I have yet to see FX62 go over 200W system power unles there was SLI or RAID.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/08/02/thg_tuning_test/page4.html

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2668&p=1

4x4 is rated at 125W but will rarely see that much as it's MAX power not average.

Are you talking about the mainboards for 4x4?

http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=112&page=8

They will both be hungry, but C2Q is ONE socket which means heat dissipation is raised a lot for the socket.

Intel Kentsfield Power Consumption
Core 2 Extreme X6800
Idle: 154W
Load: 202W
Core 2 Quadro Q6600
Idle: 198W
Load: 223W

http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/156/156988.shtml
100% * 223W / 202W = 110.39%

QX6700 Kentsfield w/ Bad Axe 2 Hits Over 3.7GHz On Reference Cooler!

4x4 won't use much more power than 2xOpteron @ 2.6GHz.

http://www.2cpu.com/review.php?id=112&page=8

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/Default.aspx

ADAFX62IAA6CS ADAFX62CSBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 FX FX-62 2800Mhz Socket AM2 125W
ADAFX60DAA6CD ADAFX60CDBOX AMD Athlon™ 64 FX FX-60 2600Mhz Socket 939 110W

110W > 95W & 125W > 95W

I guess all of you have forgotten that most high clocked Opterons (2xxx/8xxx) are rated at 95W and I don't hear of any 2P buyers complaining and those boards have many more features to burn power.

http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/Default.aspx

OSY2220GAA6CQ Next-Generation AMD Opteron™ 2220 SE 2.8Ghz Socket F (1207) 119.2W 2 MB .09 micron SOI
OSY8220CQWOF Next-Generation AMD Opteron™ 8220 SE 2.8Ghz Socket F (1207) 119.2W 2 MB .09 micron SOI

95W != 119.2W & 119.2W > 95W

Give it up. They will both use A LOT more power than the single versions. They will both bring new levels of perf for multihtreaded apps.

:trophy: :roll:

ALL HAIL THE DUOPOLY!!!

http://bullshit.inc.free.fr/

 

[Frozen_Fallout]

woow that is a smack in Baron's Face.