4x4 vs. Kentsfield

[Cooler]

If I had to choose then I would get a Kentsfield as it would be easier to OC.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: Regs
Neither. They're both horrible products IMO.

I agree about 60%. Let me explain what i mean. On one hand Intel is trying to gather the gamers and enthusiasts back to them from AMD who has had quite a lead in the market with the A64 vs PD. Now, what they did here is take the best CPU and slap 2 of them on one chip and call it new and fancy. Then they market it as if everything needs it. Not everyone does. Then AMD panics...comes up with something on the fly, probably too cost prohibitive and not powerful enough to compete with Intel. Intel still holds quite some ground on AMD with pure CPU performance. This isn't lost with kentsfield, but at the same time it seems rushed in it's own way. It would seem to me, that Intel simply wants to slap AMD as much as possible before AMD can release it's next CPU. This attitude has caused 2 problems. One is forcing their multicore necessity marketing down people's throats, and two increased heat buildup because of the CPU basically being 2 C2Ds glued on the same circuit.

well its not like intel is trying to ram this down your throat. valve and the unreal tournament people do say that eventually 4 cores will be useful.

besides, intel even expects only 3% of core cpus to use this. i think its a nice upgrade anyway, since its socket compatible but you dont have to buy it. i mean if a quad core is say $250 in the future i would have to consider it in say 8-9 months . i think its a nice option this time for people who could actually use it.. such as

people do actually domedia encoding and such , and it will really help make some inexpensive workstation boxes (it really solves a problem with that, as a lot of people did not want to buy a xeon woodcrest workstation with fb-dimms just to get 2 x 2 cores... not you can get a fairly cheap single socket 4 core workstationt hat uses normal ram) . people who work with a lot of virtualized stuff also could benefit, as it would be a drop in upgrade for many.


obviously the AMD solution could also do all those things, but it basically would just cost more, make more heat, and probably be slower too. i mean it would be easy to see if it is slower or not. theres plenty of dual dual core opteron server boards out there, a website just needs to test a setup like that vs the single socket quad core. it wouuld likely definitely put intel far in the lead.

all the advantagse amd's system has is because IT IS a server cpu. saying that you could upgrade to dual quad core later seeing as that will cost a huge amount of money and you already bought the extra expensive motherboard is like saying if someone bought 5gb of fbdimms and a dual woodcrest board now, they could upgrade to dual clovertons anyway as well. so thats also more or less equivalent for equivalent money. anyone with a mac dual dual core right now can already say that.