4x4 vs. Kentsfield

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: SpeedZealot369
I don't see how anyone would benefit from 8 cores vs 4... Especially at those speeds too. I mean cmon...

Heh, at least you're future proofed.

I don't know about you, but just thinking about a 4x4 system with 8 K8L cores, 4 next gen video cards, 8 24" SED displays (if those are out by the time K8L is available), 8 gigs of RAM, and a couple terabytes of storage is juat about enough to make me orgasm

You will never use all that...never. And you'll pay out the ass for it too.

 

[HurleyBird]

Yeah, I know. Which is why I'm not getting that. I am however, thinking of getting a 4x4 system with 'only' 2 quad core K8L chips, two video cards, and four 24" SED displays though.

The most costly part of the system would be the monitors, but those won't devaluate too fast anyway; good investment.

 

[YoungGun21]

K8L was supposed to be on socket AM2, correct? Have those plans changed?

 

[HurleyBird]

K8L will initially be on AM2 and Socket F.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
Yeah, I know. Which is why I'm not getting that. I am however, thinking of getting a 4x4 system with 'only' 2 quad core K8L chips, two video cards, and four 24" SED displays though.

The most costly part of the system would be the monitors, but those won't devaluate too fast anyway; good investment.

Horrible investment when that system will be junk in 6months again. There's no reason to use all that.

 

[HurleyBird]

A system like I described would hardly be junk in sixth months. Years maybe. Besides, the most expensive part is the monitor subsystem, and that won't be 'junk' for a long time.

 

[jose]

Which everone cost about $200-300, I really don't need anything faster than a 4.0 C2D ...

 

[BlingBlingArsch]

by the time 4 cores are useful there will be a new socket and higher clocks.

 

[Cheex]

Simple.....Kentsfield....

 

[theprodigalrebel]

Originally posted by: gramboh
$1000 for FX-74 which is 2x dual core 3.0GHz A64 chips with 2MB cache each? I'll believe it when I see it. It will be pretty funny if its Socket F as well.

Me too. It actually sounds like a deal. Two 3.0 GHz A64s for roughly the same price as a 2.66GHz QX6700? If all that talk about 'Kentsfield is not native quad-core and will be limited by communicating over the FSB' turns out to be true, this might actually level the bragging rights field. Sure, the 4x4 motherboards will definitely be more expensive...but this still sounds too good to be true. Let's hope it is. We can all use a new "Who has the best platform?" flame-war in here

Of course, consumer/mainstream will still belong to the E6300/E6400s. As a matter of fact, I'm hoping Q6600 will drop E6600 prices even more. $250 for an E6600? We can all dream, eh?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird
A system like I described would hardly be junk in sixth months. Years maybe. Besides, the most expensive part is the monitor subsystem, and that won't be 'junk' for a long time.

Let me guess...it gives you a massave hard on when your friends come over and you show them your PC?

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
Let me guess...it gives you a massave hard on when your friends come over and you show them your PC?

So? that's different then 90% of this forum how?

We are hardware enthusiasts ... this is what excites us. If that's what gives him joy in life ... so be it.

Now if he stated that it's going to make gaming so much better ... Then some slight lashback and a correction would make sense. But if he's just getting joy out building it ... so be it.

For anything other then sheer joy from building it and owning it ... 4 or 8 Core gaming rigs are silly. That said, I'm planning to build a Kentsfield based gaming rig that will double as my Dev/Testing box. I see 4 cores and a boat load of RAM helping all the VMware virtual machines.

Not needing a small shelf full of systems to run fuctional testing on a distributed App... worth the premium for Kentsfield.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I have heard, from people who have ES chips that Kentsfield runs super hot. Thus overclocking may be more difficult due to this. I've been told that idle at 55c with a high end air cooler isn't uncommon before you even start to overclock.

If that means anything to you, I don't know. But it may be an issue to some.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: SpeedZealot369
I don't see how anyone would benefit from 8 cores vs 4... Especially at those speeds too. I mean cmon...

Heh, at least you're future proofed.

I don't know about you, but just thinking about a 4x4 system with 8 K8L cores, 4 next gen video cards, 8 24" SED displays (if those are out by the time K8L is available), 8 gigs of RAM, and a couple terabytes of storage is juat about enough to make me orgasm

You will never use all that...never. And you'll pay out the ass for it too.

wait 5 years. that'll be lo0w end then

 

[SparkyJJO]

I'm not going to get either because I would have no use for 4 cores - heck I'm still using a single core - and I couldn't afford either of them anyway. I'll NEVER spend close to $1K on just a CPU, that's insane.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO
I'm not going to get either because I would have no use for 4 cores - heck I'm still using a single core - and I couldn't afford either of them anyway. I'll NEVER spend close to $1K on just a CPU, that's insane.

i agree. 1k can get you a pretty fast system these days. spending that much on a cpu alone is CRAZY. but i guess AT forums is made of crazy ppl....

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: SpeedZealot369
I don't see how anyone would benefit from 8 cores vs 4... Especially at those speeds too. I mean cmon...

Heh, at least you're future proofed.

I don't know about you, but just thinking about a 4x4 system with 8 K8L cores, 4 next gen video cards, 8 24" SED displays (if those are out by the time K8L is available), 8 gigs of RAM, and a couple terabytes of storage is juat about enough to make me orgasm

I agree that I will be getting neither one, but a quick correction...
4x4 can use 16GB of ram (8 slots x 2GB sticks), so if you really want to drool...

 

[coldpower27]

Originally posted by: HurleyBird

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
I was under the impression that $1k was the price for the FX-70 package, not the FX-74 package btw.

That's what the pricing was originally planned at, but now it's the FX-74 which will end up costing $1K.

Where did you read this? I want a link as confirmation.

 

[Viditor]

it's 2:45 AM on Friday and I shouldn't drink and post...apologies...

 

[VooDooAddict]

Unlocked Quad core CPU is the ONLY cpu that I would spend close to $1000 on.

If you can take advantage of the extra cores... then you are buying signifigantly more CPU power.

The previous line of "Extreme Edition" and FX CPUs never could justify such a large price point.

Not saying I wouldn't rather see a Quad core CPU sub-$300. It's just spending more then $300 on any CPU ussualy seems unnessesary.

 

[The-Noid]

4x4 will flop fast. Mark my word. It is going to be too costly and use way to much power. This is a solution AMD threw together in hours to combat Goliath. If they would have had something better to release on the table they would have, this is just simply a rush job.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: Yoxxy
4x4 will flop fast. Mark my word. It is going to be too costly and use way to much power. This is a solution AMD threw together in hours to combat Goliath. If they would have had something better to release on the table they would have, this is just simply a rush job.

Another reason why I'm pro-Kentsfield.

Intel's solution works in most 965 and 975 boards. You don't need an expensive motherboard that will probably be released in limited quantities, brands, and models because of it's nitche nature.

4x4 is simply too late. Had it been available shortly after the launch of the AMD X2 then I think it would have been a successful nitch product. As it is a nitch product is difficult to be sucessful when there's a more mainstream solution.

The only thing that could really save 4x4 would be some amazing physics demonstrations thanks to 3-4 GPUs.

 

[Regs]

Neither. They're both horrible products IMO.

 

[hans007]

i would get the core 2 quad if i was going to get one.

first off the opteron socket F boards will cost like $400. and support for 4 video cards shouldn't be a feature of 4x4. thats a chipset feature. intel could do the samething with say an nvidia chipset. a g80 8800gtx cant even be maxed out by a core 2 q6700 so i figure a single slot mobo would even do to max out either of these setups. you'd also probably need an EPS12v super expensive PSU for the 4x4 for even more cost.

the qx6700 probably will run on any PSU that a pentium D 960 would run on.


first off 3ghz on 2 cpus max load would be probably twice what a core 2 quad would put out and it would be slower.

i mean i would honestly not get one, but a relatively reasonable budget for a super gaming system, would be an $850 qx6600 a p965 board for $150 or so like a ds3, and a $600 8800gtx.

that would probably actually be somewhat reasonable, and the qx6600 can probably be o/cd just as high as the 6700 or very close. you could even get a 8800gt and save a few hundred more.

i am fairly certain nothing could really load up dual g80s anyway, so why bother with quad video. why would anyone need it?

 

[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.