We compare the performance of the dual-socket Skulltrail system to that of a Core 2 Extreme QX9770 and a Core 2 Extreme QX9650. While all three devices are Penryns and share identical features, the test results were not what we expected.
 
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/0 [...] index.html

Skulltrail = QuadFX
 
Quad FX = Failure
 
Therefore:
 
Skulltrail = Failure

"Currently, Intel is not under any kind of pressure from the competition--it has already proved that it makes the fastest CPUs in the market. So why create such a dubious platform?"
 
 
 
It amazes me how one day you're being criticized for sitting back and milking the performance throne, and the next you're looked down upon by the same people for continuing to make advancements while on said throne.  WTF do you people want?!  If you got the money, do it.  I think AMD was at their mountain-top when they were developing 4x4 and probably seemed like a great idea, but Intel came around and bit them in the arse pretty hard.  Looking back it just seems like bad luck for AMD.  Intel has much more to work with so if AMD decides to come back with something good Intel probably won't be in such a bind :-/
 
I say let the technology mature.  It could be amazing

 
  . o O (But but but.... which is the best failure???)
 
. o O (I dunno why I'm asking that question)

 
Good logic, but first we must prove that Skulltrail = QuadFX.  

What's with ut2k4... :\ at least use ut3
Drop the old games for 3d gaming performance review..

 
Well, actually, some of us still like to go back and play old games.  I'm currently playing Morrowind (no, not Oblivion), for example.  So yeah, it kinda does matter how older games perform.

I think some of the other posters who have been crying about an Intel bias in the writing at Toms should read this article.

 
Quad FX had slower non Core-2 processors, but better RAM.
 
Skulltrail has awesome CPUs, but sucky RAM.
 
Pick your poison!
 
 
However, it still all comes down to the total LACK of the need for 8 cores for most consumers.
 
 
If you need a multi socket system, get a server.
 

 
I agree. In server apps this might be a great setup but in reality we need DDR2/3. I still stand that this is the entry into Intels double socket end user platform and will be developing a chipset specifically for it for DDR3. A quad channel setup of DDR3 would be nice.  

 
They won't.  Nobody cares about information that disproves their own prejudices.

IMO It looks like somebody needs to figure out ways to benchmark thats not off the shelf push-button software.
 
ex:
pick a mp3 encoder, pick a wav file
start 8 copies of the mp3 encoder, to run in parallel.
 
Time the process on the skulltrail and on a regular quad core box.
publish results.
 
end of argument

 
Intel likely came out with DDR3 support in order to get DDR3 into the market in time for its own on-die memory controller.  By the time they developed a new chipset for current-technology dual-processor desktop systems it would already be outdated, not to mention that all that development cost would need to be recovered through the sales of a relatively small number of prohibitively expensive boards.

Can we rename it?
 
Skulltrail -> SkullF***
 
?

 
Kittle has a point about finding more multitasking benchmarks, it would be amazing if I could transcode a DVD on my second drive, do a virus scan on my main drive, and run a recent game at high resolutions simultaneously.
 
I hate it when I'm doing something and some program starts up that drags my other programs to a crawl.

 
You see, i wasn't criticizing old games for the sake of they being old, but mostly because i would like to see some "new blood" in games and how they perform here in this particular plataform.
Just for the record, i play very often unreal tournament from 1999 and quake 3 arena.

So... where are the QuadFX phenom comparisons? I mean intel may have a new toy and powerful too but I am yet to see any QuadFX benchmarks be it 2x 2core or 2x 4core. Not that I think they'll be a match for intel but still all I hear is bash bash bash and no bench...

 
QuadFX is abandonware.  It has officially been dropped by AMD.  You can't go 2x4 on it because they never made quads for that socket (even though they said they would and all the fanboys bought that crap so they could have "megatasking platformance" ).
 
Benchmarking a year+ old failure and comparing it to an even bigger failure but current (yes, I say that because of the FB RAM) is an exercise in futility.
 
 
Hey, that reminds me.  After giving all that "advice" Baron never actually got a QuadFX system; after saying he would!

I tend to agree with the multitasking arguments here - run a game, virus app or other "normal" windows scenario together and see how the system goes, or for that matter, encode a dozen wmv files simultaneously. Encoding and copying video files to your psp or video ipod is a pain enough, but if you can do 8 of those in the same time it would take you to do one... now there I could see the potential in multi-core power.
 
Disappointment is an understatement. Intel simply had an unoriginal but interesting idea and went down the wrong road with it. Considering the emergence of enthusiast UATX and 10-slot designs, Intel should have used it's R&D to instead work on a CHIPSET - something that would allow enthusiasts/gamers to use just a single quad-core CPU, overclock the heck out of it, and combine quad-channel DDR3 memory and an ATI/nVidia capable quad-GPU 64-lane PCI express graphics solution within the Ultra-ATX form factor. Future-proof, if you know what I mean.
 
We all know the direction enthusiast/gamers are going, give us the hardware we need, and you will eventually get software that takes advantage of it.