Wow thats how hot my thunderbird used to run at stock, read my previous post for its temps now. Make sure the fan and heatsink is clean, mine was full of dust and when i used compressed air to clean it my temps dropped by like 10C. Changing the thermal paste (or pad i think it used originally, some square pink stuff that was as hard as a rock) helps alot too.

I WANT MY 60 SECONDS BACK!

AMD 4X4 is not the answer to Conroe or Kentsfield. Kentsfield samples are already out and it is a very impressive processor and 4X4 will not be able to touch it!!! We will find out how far AMD is behind or ahead when K8L launches mid next year.



You sure know nothing intel fanboy kentsfield has a problem with the fSB

compare to a Hypertransport

Why wont you read this article from extremesystem


Kentsfield suffers bandwidth woes


Xtremesystems have been showing off a sample of Intel’s Kentsfield Quad Core processor, presumably made available early to manufacturers in order to validate their motherboards.

At default speed, the 2.4GHz part impressively outperforms the Conroe, even one running at 4GHz in multithreaded apps, such as Cinebench, and overclocks to 3.2GHz without problems – one hell of an achievement for an early sample, especially since all four CPU cores have to be capable of running at this speed.

However looking at the benchmarks reveals evidence of the dreaded bus saturation – AMD’s justification for direct connect. With two cores, the two products are fed with similar amounts of data, but moving up to four cores AMD’s solution scales up better.

Even with the logistical nightmare of AMD’s architecture (you need at least four DIMMs to deliver the best performance) it is a big advantage.

Compare Kentsfield to AMD's 4x4: on a 1066MHz bus the Intel socket has 8.5GB/s available. This isn’t a problem for dual core chips, but stick two Conroes onto a module, then bandwidth drops to a miserly 2.1GB/s per core – the equivalent of just one stick of DDR266, and with higher latency!

So here’s the killer – each 4x4 core will receive over three times the bandwidth of its Kentsfield equivalent.

The evidence of this is in the performance of SuperPi 1M, seen as a benchmark that largely fits in 2MB cache and doesn’t depend heavily on bandwidth. Run four copies, though, and each takes 20% longer than if two copies had been run on a Conroe of the same speed: 25.3 seconds compared to 21 seconds.

So what’s causing this problem? Our theory is that a strength of the core, the intelligent prefetchers, are getting in each other’s way, saturating the bus, and increasing the latency to RAM. Move to a more bandwidth-hungry application and the problem will surely just get worse.

This is a problem not shared by a Conroe as there is only one bus interface (including the pre-fetcher), shared between the two cores. Likewise a dual Woodcrest doesn’t suffer, because of the two independent buses.

But in context, this is still very impressive stuff. While AMD’s 4x4 platform will certainly offer an advantage in this area it may not be enough to hand the ultimate quad core performance crown to the boys in green until rev H hits, but if many other apps are 20 per cent slower per thread on Kentsfield than on Conroe, then it will make things a lot closer. µ


Now You know xtremesystem said 4x4 is the winner How will you beat that intel loser

Yes, because "xtremesystem" is the Bible, the Koran, and Nostradamus all rolled into one. They've always been right, always are right, and always will be right. We should bow down to their heavenly knowledge, for we mere plebians cannot hope but to beg for forgiveness in the pervading light of their tech knowledge. Purrleeeease.


Synergy6

You forgot to add --- and Hector Ruiz, Dirk Meyer, and Henri Richards is the CPU/holy trinity, Fab36 is heaven, any Intel fab is Hell and Turion X2 is the latest miracle. According to the high priest 9-inch, who communes with them often.

You forgot to add --- and Hector Ruiz, Dirk Meyer, and Henri Richards is the CPU/holy trinity, Fab36 is heaven, any Intel fab is Hell and Turion X2 is the latest miracle. According to the high priest 9-inch, who communes with them often.

either half of you work for intel and the other half for amd or im in elementary school again. This is waisted breath guys. Who cares, they both make great products for us to enjoy, why cant we take that for what its worth.

Some of the best desktops run on Opterons.. come on how many gamers out there have opts.. plenty. Getting the same performance but for less than the FX series.

AMD was the one to pioneer the native dual core product where intel either failed or didnt try.

a few other shining points why i respect AMD more currently

AMD did develop the 32/64 bit processor where Intel failed or didnt try once again. Which really would have ran the market if MS got its OS out as it said it was going to.

AMD is the one developing open sockets for 3rd part developers on motherboards.

AMD advances processors without changing the pin configurations everytime making it more cost effective to upgrade for users.

AMD also proved that better performance didnt rely on faster mhz. Even tho Intel tried brainwashing the consumer to believe so.

AMD in general to me has been much more innovative than Intel so far. I am however very impressed with the Core 2 so far. If I was in the market I would definately buy one. I'd even suggest it to others that are upgrading without a doubt. I'm glad they released a solid product with real improvements instead of the hype I've seen in the past. Maybe I'll upgrade this next year to a Core 2 Duo or wait for the next step and see who comes out ahead.

I know I'm getting in late.

Two things. First, AMD didn't bring the first true dual-core. Intel brought the first dual-core (Pentium840). It also, if look at from a purist point of view, brought the first "true" dual-core with Core-Duo laptop cpu because of their share L2 cache, which permit both core to work hand-in-hand better than any cpu with split cache. And that's true even with Direct Connect Architecture. On this point tough, I'm not worried for AMD, K8L (if that code-name really exist) will fix that and add some .

Second, RAM price is absolutely the same for both AMD and Intel since both use the same DDR2 memory. So no advantage to anybody here.

Now, true, AMD kicked Intel butt for quite a while since A64 came out. But it look like verybody forgot about the Northwood-800fsb that preceeed it and that had the Barton cpu licking their feet in most application, including most games at the time, for close to a whole year. True also, I have a feeling that AMD might gain back the performances crown with the K8L next year, just not by a margin as wide as the one Core2Duo have now.
But with NEHALEM following a year after it, it'll be all over again and so on.

Add to this that it look like both Intel and AMD (through ATI) will apparently join the VPU arena, and we might very well see the trend keep on forever. It is a well known fact that graphic innovation is much faster than the cpu one. I guess both Intel and AMD will learn a lesson there, and might add a few page to their design book on how to accelerate cpu devellopement. I know both are very different, but the simple fact that both ATI and NVidia managed to bring a new major revision of their VPU every year, and a "complete" redisign every 24-30 months or so is amazing in itself. With Dx10 bringing VPU only a blow away from CPU in their flexibility, I think that company like Intel will stand quite a good chance to do competitive (if not dominating) product in that area.

Interesting years lay ahead.....

My 2 cents.

True, but my point was that you can't say you pay more for memory on one side of the fence like it was when Intel first introduce the DDR2 memory chipset.

But you're right, here's another turn of the table. While some time ago you had to have the fastest memory on Intel side and the slowest access time on AMD's one, now it look like Intel is finally where AMD was back then. I have no article proving my point, but I strongly feel Core2Duo would have more to gain from fast access time since it's 1,06 GHz fsb can't really make full use of DDR2-800 on dual-channel mode. Anybody has a link to prove (or counter) this?