Really would like some info as i'm not sure whether it would be worth waiting for the Penryn quads to come out or getting a Q6600 now!
He might be referring to 1600 FSB.
Ahh yes, i've heard about that. Is it me or is a bus that high totally pointless, even for a quad core? I read an article somewhere that showed 1066FSB is nowhere near fully utilized by the Q6700.
I reckon the 1600FSB is there to just spite overclockers like myself
Really would like some info as i'm not sure whether it would be worth waiting for the Penryn quads to come out or getting a Q6600 now!
He might be referring to 1600 FSB.
Ahh yes, i've heard about that. Is it me or is a bus that high totally pointless, even for a quad core? I read an article somewhere that showed 1066FSB is nowhere near fully utilized by the Q6700.
I reckon the 1600FSB is there to just spite overclockers like myself Well, from what i understood, they were keeping the 1600FSB for server, and 1333 for DT. I guess the 1600FSB may show a slight advantage in server apps, requiring the higher bandwidth....but would be wasted on DT. :?
Edit: Yeah, a 1600FSB(stock) will put a crimp in overclockers efforts......might be part of the idea.
Does anyone know/have any links to what the clockspeed increases Intel has forecast for it's next generation shrink?
One more thing, does anyone know how much power consumption will be reduced by?
No, but mark my word: "It'll all depend on Barcelona performances". If it's as incredible as what AMD suggested in it's press release, Intel will surely even get out a special 120+Watts (150?) Extreme Edition model. If Barcelona doesn't deliver, then it'll most probably be 3.33GHZ, or just enough to surpass AMD while reducing power used.
No flaming please, but feel free to say you think otherwise .
That's exactly what Intel should do... there's no reason for Intel to hand us a 10 petahertz processor when they've already got something that is better than the competition can produce. The underdog will be the one pushing us forward... so anyone hoping for AMD's demise had better think twice about that.
That's exactly what Intel should do... there's no reason for Intel to hand us a 10 petahertz processor when they've already got something that is better than the competition can produce. The underdog will be the one pushing us forward... so anyone hoping for AMD's demise had better think twice about that.
I don't think that any of us(with the exception of a few idiotic Intel fanboys) are hoping for AMD's demise.....we're just not being naive. Just because AMD going BK will give Intel free-reign with prices/innovation, doesn't mean that not wanting that will keep AMD alive. It's up to AMD to dig themselves out of this whole....nobody else(fanboys included),or all the wishful thinking in the world, can.
It is planned to go to 1600Mhz FSB. How and when it will be utilized is another matter. 1333mhz is the starting point so scaling to that level and beyond is entirely feesable.
I like the read on mikeshardware, but there are no sources that I could find. What is the credibility of the site? People are starting to bash quoting wikipedia, but at least there there's often a reference for the information (you should quote the reference, not wikipeida I beleive is the lesson).
It would be great to see a dual-core running at a stock speed of 4 GHz. It's crazy to think that the Core uarch is more likely to hit 4 GHz than NetBurst ever was. NetBurst was designed for high clocks, but Core was designed for high IPC, so getting higher clocks is fantastic. I think we're seeing a 4x increase in computational power (factoring in the quad-cores) in less than two years.
Probably not more than the current 3.33 GHz samples.
Intel doesnt need to jump AMDs throat any more, they will just let AMD bleed and recover themselves.
Oh, however, thats just for QC, DC will likely clock higher (maybe 2 steps ahead, so 4 GHz)
4ghz Dual Core CPUs at 75 W TDP would certaintly be something! Even as little as 2 years ago if you showed that someone they would've burnt you at the stake for witchcraft!
4ghz Dual Core CPUs at 75 W TDP would certaintly be something! Even as little as 2 years ago if you showed that someone they would've burnt you at the stake for witchcraft!
4ghz Dual Core CPUs at 75 W TDP would certaintly be something! Even as little as 2 years ago if you showed that someone they would've burnt you at the stake for witchcraft!
Damn... I'm building a new rig in June, but I don't really want to wait the extra couple months for these bad boys to hit the market. I guess I'll go with an e6600 in the meantime.. They're priced pretty reasonably these days. I just hope AMD can compete with these numbers, not because I plan on buying from them, but because the competetion will keep the prices fair and new developments coming.
It's a good time to be a computer geek