Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by WilHarris, 2 Nov 2006.
Clovertown is the Xeon part. To answer your question, it's later this month.
It's nice, but come on K8L!
Just read up some more on K8L, hurry up with it AMD, i want a comparison! Has anyone got a relase Quater for the K8L?
Nice review. And nice sig Cthippo. Is that a volunteer brigade? Where do I sign up? lol
is there any reason its not QX6800, heat output or power usage? just seems odd its not 2 of the most powerful cpu's together. tho amd did the same thing clocking the fx-60 below the fx-57.
Nice review. Good job on getting all the other types of processors benchmarked too.
It seems the general conclusion is that quad core would be great if more applications were able to run with more than 2 threads. But is that really the case? I was suprised to see that so few of the applications that are supposedly multi-threaded showed little gain with the QX6700. If you open task manager are you not able to see whether or not these benchmarks make full use of all four cores?
Even though this isn't usually done, I wouldn't mind seeing some artificial benchmarks to compare the 2 core and 4 core chips when at their best. Hell, if I can make a program that supports any number of cores there must be some decent benchmarks out there that fully support multiple cores. It would be nice to see whether it is possible to gain 2x the performance, even if it's not a practical example.
We're going to be expanding the benchmarking suite with some 3D Modelling and more media encoding too. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough time to do everything to get them included here. I want to sit down and test the scaling and suitability of the other benchmarks before I start drawing conclusions from their results.
The first time I ran our benchmarks on the chip, I did use task manager to check how much the CPU was being utilised and it honestly didn't break into a sweat. Most of the applications use around 50-55% of a quad-core chip in isolation and that goes up to between 80-90% when you're running more than one threaded app in a multi-tasking scenario.
I modified the VirtualDub configurations to make use of the additional two cores, because it was stuck at 50% CPU load during the 2nd pass of the Xvid encode. Once I'd done that, it used anywhere between 55% and 65% CPU load.
See that little red button underneath people's names? That's the fire alarm. In case of flames, press that button
So if i sell my car, and my girl friend, and live in a cardboard box with a t1....
whats the heat output like with all four cores loaded to 100% with something like F@H?
Well, the good news is that if she reads this she'll leave on her own thus freeing up extra cash
So this will run on a normal Intel 975x chipset, woo, thinking of getting a core 2 duo e6700 , so if i waited and had the money i could get this instead
One question though, What rig were you running, like, RAM, Hdds and GFX cards? and how quick did Windows XP load?
Oh, thats two questions
not for me.... i want to wait for native quad core..... or to see what AMD wips out.
You can see full system specs here: http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2006/11/02/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6700/3.html
Windows XP loaded in a 'normal' amount of time - I forget off the top of my head, I usually turn something on and then come back to it a couple of minutes later. Hehe.
I will time if you want to know, but I don't think it's any quicker than a Core 2.
I don't fold, but I'll try and have a play this weekend if there's time. I've got a certain graphics card to play lots of games on
test and write about.
Hahaha, so, like last week we'll be wasting a few hours stairing at a 30" Dell looking at obscene AA levels and going "WOOOOoooooo". Im sure F@H or four lots of Pi wont hinder it too much.
Implications: 8800 DX10 part can push a 30" Dell @ obscene levels of AA @ "WOOOOoooo" FPS!
Been waiting for this forever. Already got most of my next computer planned out for 1Q next year, with one key exception, the vid card. Can't wait!
You assume too much.
I'd like to know how it compares to woodcrest... I guess this has lower latency RAM, but it also has a 267MHz slower FSB, and the Xeons get a FSB each.
It looks like Intel has chosen this "quick hack" with two Conroe cores on a single die.
And what about the core interconnect? FSB you say?
I think AMD's answer to this will be a massive punch in the face for Intel. Well, maybe not as Intel will have sold a lot of quad core CPUs by then.
AMD is for enthusiasts, Intel is for mainstream. It has always been like that and will always be like that.
Separate names with a comma.