Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel following AMD's Blunder

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 9, 2007 3:20:26 AM

Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8

More about : intel amd blunder

January 9, 2007 3:25:29 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


...And the pot calling the kettle black. 8)
January 9, 2007 3:28:44 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8



Well, Well Well.

I guess BM has no reason to buy QFX now as he can double his "megatasking" capability and "platformance" right now.

How about it Baron?
Related resources
January 9, 2007 3:30:37 AM

Give AMD credit, they've started an industry trend! :lol: 

Personally, I don't have particularly high hopes for Quad FX in its current state.
That being said, I think this "V8" is dead in the water as it is if thay don't support SLI and unbuffered memory.
January 9, 2007 3:37:25 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:

Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."

Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."

:D 
January 9, 2007 3:38:28 AM

Totally agree.

With the use of FB-DIMMs, it's pointless to put out a system like this.

Didn't the PowerMac have a Dual Xeon setup already, anyway?
January 9, 2007 3:41:34 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:

Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."

Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."

:D 

Yeh, but what does it make the V8? A glued dual core double quad, a glued mobo dual quad or a glued mobo, glued dual core octocore?

God, Im confused now.
January 9, 2007 3:42:49 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


It's a proof of concept which means that if you wanted one today you could have one, but unlike amd's 4X4 joke it is not actually being sold as a platform.
January 9, 2007 3:49:52 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:

Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."

Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."

:D 

:)  What's worse is that they call the darn thing V8 ---- I mean, come on 4x4 to V8 --- what is this??? Show me a hybrid, like the Prius -- say a CPU and GPU on the same chip, now we're talkin'.


LMAO.

Maybe its a subtle marketeering tactic to get the over 50-60's hotrod demographic interested in computers
January 9, 2007 3:55:09 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:

Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."

Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."

:D 

:)  What's worse is that they call the darn thing V8 ---- I mean, come on 4x4 to V8 --- what is this??? Show me a hybrid, like the Prius -- say a CPU and GPU on the same chip, now we're talkin'.

Jack, I can positively tell you that Intel doesn't have anything called a V8 on their roadmap. This name was given by dailytech or whomever, but like I said before this is just a proof of concept. Intel is not that desperate yet.
January 9, 2007 4:37:07 AM

Great, if He Who Shall Not Be Named finds this article he's going to have a field day.
January 9, 2007 4:41:10 AM

Well, Voldemort and, um...Mr. Ph.D have alot in common.
January 9, 2007 4:54:37 AM

First: What do you have against FB-DIMM? Your DDR2 rigs are running in dual channel mode.
While Intel's server chipsets can run FB-DIMM in quad channel mode.
(For double the bandwidth I can live with a small latency hit.)

AMD can also do the quad-channel trick using 2 memory controllers on the 4x4 platform.
But they also take the latency hit if a CPU needs to access data that happens to be in the memory range of the other CPU's controller.

Second: Intel server chipsets can daisy-chain southbridges to create extra PCI-E lanes.
They already use a 3th chip between the nortbridge and soutbridge to provide PCI-X.
Since PCI, PCI-X and PCI-E are all software compatible it would not be a difficult task to create a chip that provides extra PCI-E lanes.
So they can build a mobo with multiple 16x PCI-E slots if they want to.

They only downside is the cost. FB-DIMM is expensive and so are the Intel server chipsets.
On the other side: If you are really want to use setups like this for gaming, does the cost really matter to you?
January 9, 2007 5:01:55 AM

Quote:
First: What do you have against FB-DIMM?
More expensive, isn't available in 800MHz version yet, too power-hungry. :?
January 9, 2007 5:02:08 AM

Quote:
First: What do you have against FB-DIMM? Your DDR2 rigs are running in dual channel mode.
While Intel's server chipsets can run FB-DIMM in quad channel mode.
(For double the bandwidth I can live with a small latency hit.)


How about.. FB-DIMM is hotter AND slower than DDR2!
January 9, 2007 5:08:43 AM

Quote:
its just for compairison. after you compair it to 4x4 you see 4x4 sucks compaired to it


They only need a Q6600 to show that. The benefit's of this system for games are almost zero. Its also probably slower since they use FB-DIMM's. I'm glad they didn't have to waste any research on this though.
January 9, 2007 5:35:53 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


I think you need to understand this a little better before you post. Trying reading Tom's article..

http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/09/ces2007_intel_eight_c...

"The system was the brainchild of Francois Piednoel, an engineer with Intel's benchmarking team. He wanted to show how simple it was to make an 8-core workstation with regular parts. "We're not marketing it, but if you want it and need it, it's available."

Piednoel added that the parts weren't "crazy expensive" and could easily be purchased through online retailers like Newegg or Gamepc.com."

So unlike AMD... Intel is not actually trying to market this beast but instead is just trying to make a point about what is possible if you choose to build one.
January 9, 2007 5:52:58 AM

What's the point? Anybody who want's to spend that kind of money knows about dual socket boards. Do they need to take a shot at AMD's blunder? It's like saying "AMD can make crap products for gaming, well we can take parts of the shelf and make a rig that runs hot, costs a ton, and doesn't deliver performance too."
January 9, 2007 5:59:34 AM

I thought it was just a home-built system, that on of Intel's guys wanted to show off at CES.
January 9, 2007 6:00:38 AM

I would rather say. Look AMD's Uber-Megatasking platform can't even keep up with a simple single socket system that costs half as much.... They've already marketed it by showing it a CES. They could have done better.
January 9, 2007 6:32:26 AM

Quote:
What's the point? Anybody who want's to spend that kind of money knows about dual socket boards. Do they need to take a shot at AMD's blunder? It's like saying "AMD can make crap products for gaming, well we can take parts of the shelf and make a rig that runs hot, costs a ton, and doesn't deliver performance too."


IMO, the point or proof of concept for whats is currently possible in a multicore setup today. I don't think Intel is telling its customer, "hey checkout OUR cool MEGATASKING Platform" so go out and buy one,...like AMD is trying to do. Or maybe it's just a demo where they have some benchies thats say, hey AMD, our beast sucks less than yours and we did it with off the self items. In either case, I don't think Intel is not trying to fool anyone here with trickly marketing tactics.
January 9, 2007 6:43:44 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

JackYeah, it's like 2 kids in the playground:

Kid 1..."My dad makes more money than your dad."

Kid 2..."Yeah, well my dad can beat up your dad."

:D 
The thing to do then is to beat both kids up and ask "Who's your daddy now, bitch?"

Regarding "V8", I guess all we can do is hope that it stays a POC.
January 9, 2007 6:44:08 AM

Quote:
What's the point? Anybody who want's to spend that kind of money knows about dual socket boards. Do they need to take a shot at AMD's blunder? It's like saying "AMD can make crap products for gaming, well we can take parts of the shelf and make a rig that runs hot, costs a ton, and doesn't deliver performance too."


IMO, the point or proof of concept for whats is currently possible in a multicore setup today. I don't think Intel is telling its customer, "hey checkout OUR cool MEGATASKING Platform" so go out and buy one,...like AMD is trying to do. Or maybe it's just a demo where they have some benchies thats say, hey AMD, our beast sucks less than yours and we did it with off the self items. In either case, I don't think Intel is not trying to fool anyone here with trickly marketing tactics.


DVM
there is no reason for intel to point out the intel version of 4x4 unless they have an advantage in doing so. i doubt they want to sell it but rather point out that its not inovative and not new. the 4x4 platform is being exposed by this article, not being sold by intel. i think we all understand this. i think its funny 4x4 is more expensive.


OK.. i agree with that as i think it supports my send 2nd point.... :D 
January 9, 2007 6:49:50 AM

LOL this multi socket thing is getting out of hand.

How the heck is 'V8' geared towards the gamer with FB-DIMMs and no SLI support? :roll:

This is all PR people, nothing else.

AMD wants to have more cores than Intel by using 4x4, and Intel says 'ME TOO!'
January 9, 2007 6:50:22 AM

Quote:
hmm i dont think u get 4x4 and how it profits amd.


I dont think you get how the propaganda machine works.4x4 was designed for desktop,V8 was borrowed from a 2u server.who wants to pay for fbdimms?

cooler yet is that the intel sytem before amd catches up will friggen scream,my gawd dewd !!! its just cool all the way around to have both these loosers doing this crap.what it could turn into is awesome.

Having read a few other news releases on the CES report, it is clear that this is not something Intel will try --- so it appears to be more of a joke than anything else.

I mean get it... V8, 'Wow, I could of had a V8' ;) It might have been cheaper for Intel to copy AMD's other tactic, and hand out a "2P Desktop's For Dummies" pamphlet. :p  :tongue: hehehe
January 9, 2007 6:58:33 AM

Quote:
I mean get it... V8, 'Wow, I could of had a V8' ;)
***smacks self in the forehead*** :D 
January 9, 2007 7:03:31 AM

I'd much rather have a V12, but requires more Maintenance then.
January 9, 2007 8:45:23 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

Jack
It looks like the're pretty affraid from the 4x4, more than all of us certainly, as much as they took the thing seriously enough to make a counterpart :roll: I'm confused!
However, this thing uses registered RAM and there's not a socket interconnection,.... makes me think they're not that ready with the 45nm, otherwise the path native quad -> dual die octo would be the most reasonable. That thing is not ready for the enthusiast market, even if it uses 16 cores in end of 2008, I wonder why they shot this.
January 9, 2007 9:48:33 AM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8
I'd like to say something like: "at least AMD made some changes targeting the enthusiast market", but then I remember how bad 4x4 actually is.
January 9, 2007 11:27:04 AM

wow a proof of concept build has generated a lot of heat. You have exactly did what Intel would want and that is discussion about it.
January 9, 2007 11:31:25 AM

Wow. This machine offers more than two times the megatasking platformance than an AMD Quad FX could offer.

Intel had the right idea to impliment the wrong thing(if that makes sense). Don't WASTE a bunch of R&D money to re-invent the wheel. Just take a server platform and give it some marketing name and presto! Eight cores!

Although I do believe AMD and Intel are heading into the wrong direction here. Gamers don't want eight cores right now. Maybe they know something about upcoming games that I don't, but I just don't think there will be a benefit beyond dual or quad core for games. As it stands right now I don't even own a single multi-threaded game. I'm still waiting for CS:S to go multi-core.
January 9, 2007 11:32:18 AM

So.... 8 processors based on four dual-core processors all on one FSB with high latency memory and no SLI... yeah... sounds a great gaming machine. :roll:
Where's the benchmarks for this expensive hunk?
January 9, 2007 11:33:51 AM

Stop me if I'm wrong, but AMD's K8 includes a memory controller on-die, which is geared towards multi-CPU systems since it started; see, Opteron 8xx models.

Moreover, due to memory being accessed directly by the CPU, AMD's latency hit in such a setup is actually lower than Intel's: there is no extra latency added by memory control protocols, only 'raw' data.

As such, the latency hit an AMD system gets in a multi-CPU system is actually a bit lower than Intel's (there is a reason why AMD is still king of the multi-CPU server), and the 4x4 is, indeed, able to work SLI systems and unregistered/unchecked RAM.

The 4x4 AMD made is the first consumer-oriented multi-socket mobo; you could build a bi-CPU system with AMD hardware much sooner than 4x4.

Still, this 'hybrid' Intel system can sure crunch the numbers!
January 9, 2007 12:19:56 PM

Quote:
Wow. This machine offers more than two times the megatasking platformance than an AMD Quad FX could offer.



8O How did you come out with that? Intel said 61%
By the way, anyone knows what is performance increase from 2x x2 Opteron (4 core) to eight core system?
January 9, 2007 1:01:27 PM

Don't have time at the moment to read the whole thread, but Another "mistake" Intel is going to make:

Bringing out a *lot* of new sockets, so that the old 775 will indeed go bye-bye (re drop-in upgrades, sooner than some have thought).

This isn't really remarkable to me, but some here have tried to suggest AMD was doing wrong in this regard, and Intel was the correct model.

So much for that.
January 9, 2007 1:07:46 PM

Intel did great with Socket 775. It covers a lot of computer ground. Just like AMD did great with Socket A and Socket 939, both of those were awesome sockets. I'm not to impressed with the AM2 outlook. It looks like it will be replaced sooner than later.

I do wish these companies would focus more on upgradability.
January 9, 2007 1:29:38 PM

I figured out an inexpensive AM2 to Am3 upgrade process I liked. Did you see that?

In brief: starting with an AM2 now, you'd buy one new motherboard in 15 ro 20 months (an AM3), and you'd do 2 cpu upgrades in about 3-4 years, with low costs and top 20% system performance all the while. You put an AM2+quad into the AM2, and later the same cpu re-used(save $) into an am3 board (which allows other component upgrades then to be future-proofed with the Am3). You avoid the higher price Am3 cpus for a while, letting them come down, etc.
January 9, 2007 1:40:32 PM

I guess its about not being nominally behind.
2S is for WORK, was for WORK and will always be for WORK.
No home user on this earth will ever need more than 1 CPU, but AMD doesnt understand that.
Intel shouldnt have done the same, but sadly they did.
2S for private use is just a waste of good professional hardware (IMHO).
January 9, 2007 1:41:57 PM

Part of this may just be to show that Intel can scale well enough to 8 cores in two sockets. With the 45nm stuff on the horizon, "V16" could be less than a year away.

On a side note, V8 makes a lot more sense than 4x4 as far as naming conventions go. AMD's 4x4 has misnomer written all over it.

On another side note, all this multi-core escalation is probably keeping those database vendors up at night (since many of them base their pricing on CPU count).
January 9, 2007 1:46:41 PM

Quote:
First: What do you have against FB-DIMM? Your DDR2 rigs are running in dual channel mode.
While Intel's server chipsets can run FB-DIMM in quad channel mode.
(For double the bandwidth I can live with a small latency hit.)


How about.. FB-DIMM is hotter AND slower than DDR2!

:)  :)  :) .... TechReport has named QuadFX 2006's biggest flop :)  :)  :) 

http://www.techreport.com/etc/2007q1/bestof2006/index.x...

:D 

:cry:  <= He who must not be named
January 9, 2007 2:14:58 PM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

Couldn't agree more. Obviously its just to keep AMD from claiming some advantage through market-speak over Intel.

Its still sort of sad to see them waste time on something like this but I can see the business reasons I suppose.

Jack
January 9, 2007 2:15:20 PM

it will be just another useless spaceheater for DT/WS.
January 9, 2007 2:23:14 PM

4x4 a misnomer: not exactly, since they intend to pack at most 4 cores in a single CPU, making 4 cores intercrossed with 4 cores (4x4).

They seem to point towards more versatility in the sockets themselves too: a socket for a CPU, another for a GPU (or extremely powerful FPU), or both for CPUs... I think the 'coprocessor' scheme hinted at in Fusion does have some merit, and 4x4 would be an early prototype for that.

Time will tell: architecture-wise, Intel is still stuck with the 25 years-old FSB. AMD does have the merit of trying to innovate.
January 9, 2007 2:25:46 PM

Quote:
4x4 a misnomer: not exactly, since they intend to pack at most 4 cores in a single CPU, making 4 cores intercrossed with 4 cores (4x4).


Then it should have been called 4+4.

4+4 = 8 cores
4x4 = 16

16 of what? I don't know...
January 9, 2007 2:32:01 PM

Quote:
AMD does have the merit of trying to innovate.

you mean to copy?
January 9, 2007 2:36:41 PM

Quote:
AMD does have the merit of trying to innovate.

you mean to copy?

Not exactly fair, they both copy each other where it makes sense (and even sometimes when it doesn't). Someone has to take the lead at each step, and until someone else takes the lead, everyone else is copying.

Which begs the question... is an "innovation" in CPU technology that leads to a slower system really an innovation? Your answer to that may just say a lot about your perspective on life.
January 9, 2007 2:43:58 PM

Quote:
Intel is rebranding a 2-socket server as a gaming machine. Except they didn't change a thing (no sli, FB-Dimm). I suppose the engineering costs are zip.

Intel V8


Funny!!!! No one will buy it..... I wonder what overwhelming success they saw in the QuadFX that prompted them to 'answer this'???

Actually, I think it is to stay with or ahead of the curve --- i.e. without it, AMD could start touting octa-core before Intel could....

This just gets more comical by the week.

Jack
IMO this is great. Both companys working against each other to fix the latency problems of the dual socket motherboards may come to ahead. This could bring down the cost of the workstation grade boards in the short run. The long term impact should be a better upgrade path.

Intel looks in good shape to combat the Agena-FX so prices should fall on CPU's due to competition in the quad market. I dont see Agena cores beating a revised kentsfield by much if at all so both companys will continue to come with better products.

Now if we could do something with high priced high latancy memory. :D 
January 9, 2007 2:44:38 PM

the 'X' is probably intended to be seen as a representation of the memory lines intercrossing (or the CPU exchanges), more than as a mathematical operation.

After all, a 4x4 is a '4 Wheel drive' car, not a 16 wheel car...
January 9, 2007 2:46:30 PM

I was gonna say, from what I read the "V8" was just to show that intel has a possible solution for an 8 core system now. They're not marketing it or anything, just something they threw together to say, "Hey, look what we have available if you want it."

Sorry for not reading pages 2/3. LOL
January 9, 2007 2:47:08 PM

I think this was more so they could show the *could* do it if they wanted to...I don't think they'd be dumb enough to try and market this....
!