4 cores in 1,Conroe E6600 8Mb Cache,Kentsfield result@MSI 975X

[Ad1tya]

^^ Yup.

Jan 2007 infact.

[Steensen]

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.

However, It's nice to be able to game, compress video, convert music, and have a Burner running at the same time, without thinking about bottlenecks, from other than your harddisk drives, but that will be solved, by running with 1-2 of the successor to I-RAM (can't remember the name).

[perry_78]

Do the 975/965 chipset support dual socket setups too?

I already smell the beef if dual kentsfield was the case

[g0dM@n]

Back to the Future

QFT

[savantu]

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.

Really ? How come he has a point if Conroe is the best in both worlds : single threaded and multithreaded SW ?

[e[N]eq]

Hes not referring to Conroe vs. "something else" but single vs. dual/quad core.

Granted there is a diminishing return scenario depending on what you are using the computer for. Most games doesnt gain much from multiple cores at the moment (if I recall correctly Q4 actually ran worse in SMP mode).

However you would still have some gain since most of the OS tasks can run on one CPU thus freeing some cycles for the game task (nVidias driver make use of multiple cores for instance) etc.

In the future I can see a lot of uses for multiple cores, for instance both WoW and BF2 uses scripting languages which would be better to offload to a separate core and if you do other stuff while gaming the gain is obvious.

/Q

[TrancëJay]

[i found nemo]

omg.... i thought i'd never say this .... but i don't think amd will catch up to this .... :O

[grimREEFER]

To mantain the atmosphere, the FX57 takes it in the ass from core2 cpus.

i believe it loses to the $90 pentium d 805 in quake 4...probly in prey too...and 3dmark06...well in everything multithereaded basically lol

kentsfield vs fx57 is like superman vs a crippled old man, ud have to overclock the fx57 to like 14ghz to get performance like a kentsfield.
single cores are dead!

[matt89]

man you are one lucky guy to be testing that beast

[amd opteron x2]

ohhh my god this is great.
Dios mio vaya pasada estos de intel el pepino que han hecho am2 is dead

[Burnmaster]

Brutal !! That Chip really kicks A**
Very nice.

[pcoffman]

I cant wait to see the real quad core

Kentsfield is not a dual core processor w/ HyperThreading. It has 4 REAL cores

True. However, I think he means 4 cores designed as a system, or four cores on one dice, as opposed to 2 dice--or two Core 2s stuck together--in one package.

[pcoffman]

Do the 975/965 chipset support dual socket setups too?

I think you have to use a Woodcrest (Xeon 5100 series) for DP. The DP functionality, I think, is part of the Blackford chipset. Please correct if mistaken.

[vapb400]

I think you have to use a Woodcrest (Xeon 5100 series) for DP. The DP functionality, I think, is part of the Blackford chipset. Please correct if mistaken.

You are right but I think he asked because 875 chipset suported dual processors. Asus and Iwill both had great board for 875.

I doubt they do because Blackford has the Dual FSBs, higher FSB (not actuallly a problem) and the fb-dimms. It'd be cool to see though.

[DARK SIDE]

Reading about kentsfield im starting to think.....maybe i'll pass the conroe and wait for jan. 2007. Things are speeding up rapidly with intel.Its about time!

[matt89]

but then the next big thing will be on the horizon and you will wait for that and so on and never actually get anything lol

[BlackX]

What about some comparison chart?
ex. | FX-62 / X6800 / Kentsfield | @3GHz
it would be very nice from u

[PGHammer]

it is air...its in the pics.

The friggin *stock* numbers are absolutely nucking futs; and it's shaping up to be an even more evil OC beast than Core 2 Duo (Conroe itself) was.

I can only hope that it will fit in the same boards that Conroe/Core 2 Duo does, though it will make for one scary, scary, crossgrade....

[PGHammer]

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.

However, It's nice to be able to game, compress video, convert music, and have a Burner running at the same time, without thinking about bottlenecks, from other than your harddisk drives, but that will be solved, by running with 1-2 of the successor to I-RAM (can't remember the name).

That precise issue is why Windows Task Manager *needs* a core affinity option. If multicore CPUs are going to be the standard, and if the apps can't take proper advantage, then the OS itself needs to be able to deal with it, either automatically with a manual override, or entirely manually. This would have helped out HT as well, but true multicore needs it more than HT ever did. Is there an add-in (or even a Task Manager replacement) that has a core affinity option?

[PGHammer]

Let's see, specifically why you don't need a quad core for the average system... Well, on a gaming rig, what you are really interested in is doing one thing very very fast -- playing that game. Like it or not, almost no games, even in this day and age, use SMP. So unless your OS can manage SMP of programs on its own (which it does, to some extent, but it's not very good at it), a single, faster core will run games better than a multicore system that is slower. A server is generally designed to use SMP, but it uses it in a specific way.

A server will run more than a single program in that clock tick. Servers need to offer many services concurrently without any of these services taking down the whole machine. This makes SMP very valuable for servers. If you have ever tried to run a very nasty SQL query on a server that also provides other services you need, you really appreciate those other processing cores, because it means both things can happen without taking the entire day.

4 cores are useless much less 2. Your no better off since your just running at the same clock speed of one core. In reality 2 or even 4 cores are not going to be any faster then 1. It may seem like it in benchmarks ofcorse. But they are made to take advantave of dual and quad cores. Again almost no programs at all do this and are still single threaded 95% of them. Very nasty problem. Sure you can make the cpu run 4 different tasks at once but in raw speed, nothing is gained.

You don't get more power, only more multi tasking. So this is just pointless unless your crazy mad about having the latest junk and like to show off, or your really going to use it in a server for a perpous. Really as long as programs are single threaded its like saying your 4 core cpu is no better then mine give or take a small % of real speed gane here like 10 or 15%. Afterall the fastest CPU clock per clock is a FX-57 at 4.2ghz single core not a dual core. Now thats how you show off. If you compare one core2 solo to a FX-57, the FX-57 rapes any CPU at that speed. Just because you have 2 cpus doesn't mean you get some special 50% speed boost. The speed is always the same, your abillity to do 2 things at once is not. But programs people. So this junk is just hype. The real performance difference is only a convenionce of about 15% at most. Won't help me any.

The tech is useless if no program can use its advantages is a fact. Maybe great in 2010 but until then your gaining nothing but a nice utility bill. lol

That is precisely why operating systems need core-affinity tools (in Windows' case, it should be built into Task Manager). Until recently (in fact, until the original Core Duo) the assumption (which made sense) grounded with all programmers was that the target system had one physical core (even though virtual multicore processors, such as Intel HT, have been widely available for the past two years). This was a solid assumption because of lower-end processors that *didn't* support any sort of multicore (Celeron/Sempron, for example).

However, even with Core 2 Duo coming on deck this year (and Kentsfield next year), there will *still* be a rather large amount of single-core processors in service. It will take a while before multicore outnumbers single-core in the field, even with Intel dropping prices like so many cluster munitions. Until multicore outnumbers single-core, programmers have literally no reason to assume a multicore target (even for games); therefore, the programmers will continue to (correctly) program for the majority processor: single-core. At the OS level, task-monitoring tools (such as Windows Task Manager) are, however, where the ground floor for multicore support can be added rather easily. Windows Task Manager can *already* detect multiple cores (either physical or virtual); what it lacks (on the desktop side) is core-affinity management for underlying tasks. (This is where Windows Server 2003 differs dramatically, as Task Manager in WS 2003 allows for core affinity or even specifically running an application on a specific numbered core, though the default is for core affinity. I don't know if Windows Vista's Task Manager keeps the core affinity tools that WS 2003 has.)

[DARK SIDE]

but then the next big thing will be on the horizon and you will wait for that and so on and never actually get anything lol

yeah,but conroe release date and kentsfield release date is not quite far.

[Scyphe]

Awsome scores.
I'm getting all excitet! :o

But Serge84 has a SMALL point: Until there is some more games/programs that is coded for multithreating, there is not mutch gain from dual/quad cores.

Well, latest info is that RHT is indeed part of every AM2-chip and will be enabled with a driver update (probably around the time Conroe goes major retail). If that's true, we'll see AMD's chips use both cores to run single threaded apps by the time the Conroe goes retail en masse.

[Donnie27]

i believe it loses to the $90 pentium d 805 in quake 4...probly in prey too...and 3dmark06...well in everything multithereaded basically lol

kentsfield vs fx57 is like superman vs a crippled old man, ud have to overclock the fx57 to like 14ghz to get performance like a kentsfield.
single cores are dead!

QFT!

[InternalStorm]

Hmm... what socket/board revisions will Kentsfield need? Would it work in a Conroe 975x or 965 chipset board? I was also wondering, since the new FSB will be 1066, and 1333 is upcoming, will the new boards be able to handle the new 1333 FSB CPU's?

And then comes DDR3. I am guessing I'll need an entirely new board for DDR3 as well...