Intel's 8-Core Desktop

2007-01-09 03:02:52

#1

<BoTM>J_Aero: Qualified Expert; +62|6923|Melbourne - Home of Football

Well you might have just got your head around Quad core systems, and be very proud of your Core 2 Duo, but at the CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas, Intel has been upping the ante again by producing a 8-core system that runs around 61% faster than AMD's Quad-FX project.

It's a prototype PC, using a 2 processor workstation board linked with a 8800 and 4GB of RAM. Benchmarking using 3D Mark06, it scored 6065, compared to the 3764 points scored by the AMD (FX-74) Quad Core system developed by AMD. Credit must go to Francois Piednoel, an engineer who works on benchmarking for Intel for the inspiration and design of the system.

Read the entire article here on THG who are reporting live from CES 2007:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/09/ces20 … ight_core/

https://www.tgdaily.com/picturegalleries/200701087/3.jpg

2007-01-09 03:05:38

#2

ssonrats: Member; +221|7103

Intel are just owning AMD atm.

2007-01-09 04:46:14

#3

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|7007|EUtopia | Austria

Well, neat coolers, real copper fins! Are these the 'real' boxed ones? ('cause Intel could well order a company to manufacture them some more potent cooling...)

BtW: Yes, Intel owns AMD - but keep in Mind that 61% isn't that much, not really much more than the FX-74 stays over the X6800 <.<

2007-01-09 05:12:20

#4

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7174

Stormscythe wrote:
BtW: Yes, Intel owns AMD - but keep in Mind that 61% isn't that much, not really much more than the FX-74 stays over the X6800 <.<

61% isn't that much? are you on fucking crack?

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2007-01-09 05:14:21

#5

Jenspm: penis; +1,716|7190|St. Andrews / Oslo

How the fuck did you get a pic of my PC?

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png

2007-01-09 05:19:02

#6

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,075|7229|PNW

Looks cumbersome and overpriced.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-01-09 05:19:11)

2007-01-09 05:23:01

#7

claor: Member; +39|6872|Australia

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Stormscythe wrote:
BtW: Yes, Intel owns AMD - but keep in Mind that 61% isn't that much, not really much more than the FX-74 stays over the X6800 <.<
61% isn't that much? are you on fucking crack?

hahah

8cores... crazy

2007-01-09 05:54:30

#8

B00MH3ADSH0T: Fresh NoobCaeks Here; +118|6848|Penrith,Nsw, Aus

claor wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Stormscythe wrote:
BtW: Yes, Intel owns AMD - but keep in Mind that 61% isn't that much, not really much more than the FX-74 stays over the X6800 <.<
61% isn't that much? are you on fucking crack?
hahah

8cores... crazy

wwwwhat isnt 2 cores considerd l337 anymore bullshit!

2007-01-09 05:56:44

#9

Fenix14: scout rush kekeke ^___^; +116|7015|Brisbane, Aus

*runs and cries in corner with 1 processor*

2007-01-09 06:46:20

#10

gene_pool: Banned; +519|7079|Gold coast, Aus.

Fenix14 wrote:
*runs and cries in corner with 1 processor*

*follows*

*remembers AMD 4600 x2 arrives on friday*

*reads OP again to realise that there is now 8x out*

*runs back to corner*

2007-01-09 07:25:25

#11

Stormscythe: Aiming for the head; +88|7007|EUtopia | Austria

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Stormscythe wrote:
BtW: Yes, Intel owns AMD - but keep in Mind that 61% isn't that much, not really much more than the FX-74 stays over the X6800 <.<
61% isn't that much? are you on fucking crack?

After all, it's still 2 processors. Noone is astonished about SLI beating a single ATI card (of the same level as one of the nVidia ones), so why would one be so mad about 61% increase by 2 processors?
And has anyone ever done the same with two FX-74 on an equivalent board?
That's what I'm thinking about, actually...

But, I rather don't guess, Vista would support 8 cores anyway. I mean, c'mon... Is there really any need for such multi tasking? I don't even see my single core P4 challenged with OS and all the other tasks that come with it, including voip, audio, firewall, antivir proggy and more.
And still, in about two years, most of us will look back laughing at single core cpu's, possibly awaiting "Core 3 Hexadeci~whatever" ^^

2007-01-09 08:53:57

#12

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|7039|SE London

Stormscythe wrote:
cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Stormscythe wrote:
BtW: Yes, Intel owns AMD - but keep in Mind that 61% isn't that much, not really much more than the FX-74 stays over the X6800 <.<
61% isn't that much? are you on fucking crack?
After all, it's still 2 processors. Noone is astonished about SLI beating a single ATI card (of the same level as one of the nVidia ones), so why would one be so mad about 61% increase by 2 processors?
And has anyone ever done the same with two FX-74 on an equivalent board?
That's what I'm thinking about, actually...

But, I rather don't guess, Vista would support 8 cores anyway. I mean, c'mon... Is there really any need for such multi tasking? I don't even see my single core P4 challenged with OS and all the other tasks that come with it, including voip, audio, firewall, antivir proggy and more.
And still, in about two years, most of us will look back laughing at single core cpu's, possibly awaiting "Core 3 Hexadeci~whatever" ^^

I'm pretty sure (*edit*certain) it means a performance increase of 61% on 2x FX-74.

Intel claims that the system trumps AMD's fastest Quad-FX by 61%

The whole AMD 4x4 quad core system works around two dual core CPUs. Most benchmarks you find comparing the QX6700 and the FX-74 compare the QX6700 to the FX-74 in quad mode.

The FX-74 looks pretty crap at the moment. I see nothing to recommend it to anyone. It may work well with Vista, since Vista can distinguish between different cores and different physical CPUs, which will probably give them a performance boost. How much of a performance boost remains to be seen.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-09 08:57:26)

2007-01-09 14:51:31

#13

younggun: Member; +28|7101

Yeh this looks awesome!

And to whoever asked... FX-74 is 2 dual core processors.

2007-01-09 14:53:10

#14

r'Eeee: That's how I roll, BITCH!; +311|6906

wtf I got 2x8 cores... JK(bad joke eh?). I wonder if the number of cores really helps in the overall performance or is it a total bs xD

2007-01-10 00:50:07

#15

JdeFalconr: Lex Luthor, King of Australia; +72|7000|Sammamish, WA

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Well you might have just got your head around Quad core systems, and be very proud of your Core 2 Duo, but at the CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas, Intel has been upping the ante again by producing a 8-core system that runs around 61% faster than AMD's Quad-FX project.

It's a prototype PC, using a 2 processor workstation board linked with a 8800 and 4GB of RAM. Benchmarking using 3D Mark06, it scored 6065, compared to the 3764 points scored by the AMD (FX-74) Quad Core system developed by AMD. Credit must go to Francois Piednoel, an engineer who works on benchmarking for Intel for the inspiration and design of the system.

Read the entire article here on THG who are reporting live from CES 2007:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/09/ces20 … ight_core/

http://www.tgdaily.com/picturegalleries/200701087/3.jpg

Wait an engineer whose specialty is benchmarking created a PC that scores obnoxiously high on a benchmark? Does that sound funny to anyone else? Of course this guy knows how to get a high benchmark score out of a computer. And of course he'd know how to build and tune the thing to score high. I would be more interested in FPS measurement comparisons between the FX-74 and this thing in, say, 2142 or some other real-world application.

But as it stands this means nothing to me. Intel wouldn't be the first company to artificially inflate benchmark scores.

2007-01-10 03:01:52

#16

MagikTrik: yes.....but your still gay; +138|6828|Pittsburgh, PA USA

That's just sick.....

*runs to the corner & cries with Fenix14 & gene_pool*

2007-01-10 07:31:24

#17

[TUF]Whiskey_Oktober: mmmm...Toasty!; +91|7180|Oregon

wow....th ey need to do benchmarks with Pentium 4's. im sure that mine could kick its ass!! HyperThreading baby!

2007-01-10 07:35:44

#18

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|7174

JdeFalconr wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Well you might have just got your head around Quad core systems, and be very proud of your Core 2 Duo, but at the CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas, Intel has been upping the ante again by producing a 8-core system that runs around 61% faster than AMD's Quad-FX project.

It's a prototype PC, using a 2 processor workstation board linked with a 8800 and 4GB of RAM. Benchmarking using 3D Mark06, it scored 6065, compared to the 3764 points scored by the AMD (FX-74) Quad Core system developed by AMD. Credit must go to Francois Piednoel, an engineer who works on benchmarking for Intel for the inspiration and design of the system.

Read the entire article here on THG who are reporting live from CES 2007:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/09/ces20 … ight_core/

http://www.tgdaily.com/picturegalleries/200701087/3.jpg
Wait an engineer whose specialty is benchmarking created a PC that scores obnoxiously high on a benchmark? Does that sound funny to anyone else? Of course this guy knows how to get a high benchmark score out of a computer. And of course he'd know how to build and tune the thing to score high. I would be more interested in FPS measurement comparisons between the FX-74 and this thing in, say, 2142 or some other real-world application.

But as it stands this means nothing to me. Intel wouldn't be the first company to artificially inflate benchmark scores.

Just like how they faked the core 2 benchmarks

2007-01-10 07:37:48

#19

daffytag: cheese-it!; +104|7033

Thats all very well, but I think hardware is growing way too fast for clients to keep up.

2007-01-10 08:10:36

#20

Pete: Member; +3|6998

Something tells me my old athlon is going to cry soon me finks me need new compooter 2 bad a dont know shit about computerz

2007-01-10 08:52:33

#21

Shadow893: lel; +75|7150|England

Fenix14 wrote:
*runs and cries in corner with 1 processor*

2007-01-10 18:17:31

#22

GR34: Member; +215|7003|ALBERTA> CANADA

SOB now AMD with make a 16 core processor just be beat Intel's in the mobo will have have 4 processer slots 4 core per processor or it will have 8 duel core

2007-01-10 18:25:07

#23

younggun: Member; +28|7101

daffytag wrote:
Thats all very well, but I think hardware is growing way too fast for clients to keep up.

QFT

Nobody needs 8 cores.... Dual core is where its at.

2007-01-10 19:01:07

#24

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7164|67.222.138.85

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
JdeFalconr wrote:
<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:
Well you might have just got your head around Quad core systems, and be very proud of your Core 2 Duo, but at the CES (Consumer Electronics Show) in Las Vegas, Intel has been upping the ante again by producing a 8-core system that runs around 61% faster than AMD's Quad-FX project.

It's a prototype PC, using a 2 processor workstation board linked with a 8800 and 4GB of RAM. Benchmarking using 3D Mark06, it scored 6065, compared to the 3764 points scored by the AMD (FX-74) Quad Core system developed by AMD. Credit must go to Francois Piednoel, an engineer who works on benchmarking for Intel for the inspiration and design of the system.

Read the entire article here on THG who are reporting live from CES 2007:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/09/ces20 … ight_core/

http://www.tgdaily.com/picturegalleries/200701087/3.jpg
Wait an engineer whose specialty is benchmarking created a PC that scores obnoxiously high on a benchmark? Does that sound funny to anyone else? Of course this guy knows how to get a high benchmark score out of a computer. And of course he'd know how to build and tune the thing to score high. I would be more interested in FPS measurement comparisons between the FX-74 and this thing in, say, 2142 or some other real-world application.

But as it stands this means nothing to me. Intel wouldn't be the first company to artificially inflate benchmark scores.
Just like how they faked the core 2 benchmarks

Obviously core 2 has proven itself, but there is a lot of truth in what this guy said. I'm sure Intel will probably come out on top again, AMD is still playing a little catch-up, but I wouldn't be so cocky about it. It will mean much more when it is tested either by AMD reps or in something like Crysis or Alan Wake together.

2007-01-10 19:05:51

#25

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7223|Cambridge (UK)

younggun wrote:
daffytag wrote:
Thats all very well, but I think hardware is growing way too fast for clients to keep up.
QFT

Nobody needs 8 cores.... Dual core is where its at.

I disagree, more cores the better. It's not in terms of multiple single apps where we will see the benefits of multi-core. It's within individual apps themselves. Multiple cores brings the ability to do two or more things at the same time, within a single app.

BF2S Forums Intel's 8-Core Desktop

Stormscythe wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

claor wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

Fenix14 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

JdeFalconr wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

Fenix14 wrote:

daffytag wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

JdeFalconr wrote:

<BoTM>J_Aero wrote:

younggun wrote:

daffytag wrote:

Board footer