AMD's Quad cores have large advantages over Kentsfield - Page 5 - Overclock.net

cgrado · 10-28-06

hm.. i can't wait for real quad cores. how far aways is that? two or three years?

Jori · 10-28-06

next year AMD is releasing a true quad core next year, Intel is releasing Kentsfield which is 2 conroes stacked on top of each other, but I guess you mean true quad core, which is next year.

Heres a good article on CSI

http://news.com.com/Intel+server+rev...3-6113507.html

splat00n · 10-28-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikey122687

lol i was about to flood all AMD's Quad cores thread about this. Its like comparing the future CPU with the CPU as of now, its pointless to compare really

most of the time, whatever the source has is true though...

beret9987 · 10-29-06

In my opinion, it sounds like intel is doing what it did with the Pentium D. It pretty much just put two Cedar Mills on the same die and call it dual-core until C2D came out. AMD, on the other hand, actually put some thought into the making of its X2 line which lead to improved performance compared to a Pentium D system. I'm definitely glad that Intel finally learned that deep pipelines and high GHz is not everything though. The next few years in processor technology will definitely get interesting.

HrnyGoat · 10-29-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Jester

Kentsfeild will choke under its own power. By using the FSB, Intel have pretty much killed it. Under full load on ALL cores, the FSB will be saturated and performance will diminish rapidly.

Ok Im starting to get really tired of this. I have said time and time again that the 1066MHz FSB on Kentsfield is not saturated. Tests have shown that there is absolutely no difference between running the FSB at 1066MHz or 1333MHz. Its not saturated, it will not kill the performance. Ill try and find some of the articles if you dont believe me. Heck, Ill even go buy a QX6700 when it comes out just to prove it.

Lt.JD · 10-29-06

Tomshardware has an article that proves it http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/...age/page8.html
sometimes the FSB1333 is slower but this is measured in seconds so there is no difference between the two FSB's the FSB 1066 is not saturated

HrnyGoat · 10-29-06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lt.JD

Tomshardware has an article that proves it http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/...age/page8.html
sometimes the FSB1333 is slower but this is measured in seconds so there is no difference between the two FSB's the FSB 1066 is not saturated

Thanks. Thats what I was looking for