That Skulltrail system is incredibly expensive! Imagine how many PlayStation 3 consoles you can get for it's cost.
And today, most games are designed for dual core CPUs. Even games designed for quad core CPUs are an exception. Which means one processor in Skulltrail is going to just sit idle while you game on the computer.
Skulltrail is too far ahead of its time. There are too few applications that can take advantage of Skulltrail's mammoth processing power.
Message edited by kittyhawk on 04-03-2008 at 05:30:29 AM
Sadly it's a 4 core with their new version of Hyper-threading "Simultaneous multi-threading" so it looks like an eight core. It seems to have impressive performance. The video of it working is: http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/36726/135 Now I think it's impressive... does someone actually do this type of simulation and provide an informed opinion?
Message edited by foste on 04-03-2008 at 05:54:27 AM
Nice. I am at work but when I get home will watch the video. From what I have read it is putting a big impression on people. Maybe Nehalem is that good?
With all of this hyperthreading hype, Nehalem sounds like the new Prescott to me.
You need to go to Intels site and watch thier videos. The SMT is not the biggest part. And BTW HT came out on the Pentium 4 Northwood line and was dropped in the late Prescott line.
But in terms of power Phenom uses more than anything right now and we have yet to see Nehalems stats on thermals.
I do know that Northwood had HT but Prescott was supposed to have uber HT improvements and they ended up being just about the same performer.
I know I will get burned at the stake for this blasphemy but I am going to hold off on the Nehalem craze until numbers come from places other than the chip creator.
My comment above was directed at the hype. Nehalem is being considered a success already just based on hype circulation. Watching a fire burn in wire frame mode doesn't provide that much information.
I do know that Northwood had HT but Prescott was supposed to have uber HT improvements and they ended up being just about the same performer.
I know I will get burned at the stake for this blasphemy but I am going to hold off on the Nehalem craze until numbers come from places other than the chip creator.
My comment above was directed at the hype. Nehalem is being considered a success already just based on hype circulation. Watching a fire burn in wire frame mode doesn't provide that much information.
I agree with you but give intel the benefit of the doubt. The last time they stated a certain CPU would perform this well was with the release of Core2. And that made everyone happy.
But I am waiting until release. I just keep thinking of a 8 core CPU w/SMT & tri channel DDR3.
As much as Im a AMD fanboy over the years, this may take the cake!
Cant wait to see games take advantage of 8 cores, jeez!
Me neither, but we'll be waiting another 12 months at least I feel. The only claimant to the many cores crown would be sup.com. with a 7 a.i. player skirmish game going.
The E8500 is the leader of the pack when it comes to the game performance at the moment. If not at stock, definitely when OCd. Dualies have been out for quite a while now. Quad are just now starting to meet and surpass the E8500 performance. How exactly are the 8 core gaming days upon us when 4 core days are just arriving?
Gawd... I haven't got my quad yet, I haven't even got a solid state HD, and I can't seem to get any more speed out of my floppy drive... . o O (okay.. I lied I don't use/have a floppy drive, but it sound right)
Message edited by Grimmy on 04-03-2008 at 06:42:17 PM
I know I will get burned at the stake for this blasphemy but I am going to hold off on the Nehalem craze until numbers come from places other than the chip creator.
My comment above was directed at the hype. Nehalem is being considered a success already just based on hype circulation. Watching a fire burn in wire frame mode doesn't provide that much information.
Much like AMD's "40% improvement over a wide variety of workloads" hype for Barcy . Although both companies have indulged in some PR hype, AMD's top execs were spouting this just a year ago, and that is what stuck in people's minds when the actual benchmarks showed far, far less. Hopefully upper management learned a lesson and is a bit more cautious with their projected performance increases..
Unreal Tournament 3 can use all of those CPU threads so the days of 8 core games are all ready upon as.
MS Simulator X would love it no?
---------------
The computer allows you to make mistakes faster than any other invention, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila- Mitch Ratcliffe
I personally just don't think it'll be any better than a 8500 or qx9650 for gaming. If people are recommending 8400's for gaming, then were still some time away from 45nm quads being utilised properly (which we are), which means were still a long long time away from 6 or 8 cores being used properly. Theres alot of excitement around nehalem, but from a gaming perspective I just don't believe it's justified, at the end of this year, or at the end of the next. Crysis, the most advanced game in the world, was supposed to be something that would really benefit from multiple cores, but we'll have to wait for next gen cards to push cpus more to really show if that is indeed the case. Yes with 3 or 4 way multi-card setups a top-notch quad can make a difference, but thats purely because sli and crossfire have their own substantial cpu overhead, not because the game per se is filling up all the cores.
. o O (okay.. I lied I don't use/have a floppy drive, but it sound right)
. Although both companies have indulged in some PR hype, AMD's top execs were spouting this just a year ago, and that is what stuck in people's minds when the actual benchmarks showed far, far less. Hopefully upper management learned a lesson and is a bit more cautious with their projected performance increases..