-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Intel Conroe
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
robertk2012
Platinum Member
Bingo. If they say six months people will still buy new processors for the next three. Then they release conroe early. If they said it would be out in 3 why would anyone by a new system that is going to get stomped in 3 months. Apple wanted those chips early (as in now) but intel wouldnt give in. Also intel is trying to get the new 4 core processor pushed up to the end of this year. AMD is in trouble unless they have something big up their sleave.
Quinton McLeod
Senior member
Have you even seen the Quad Core pictures? It's a joke. They literally have 2 dual core dies placed in a single bed. Intel has got to be joking. It physically looks like a bottleneck. In order for the 4 cores to talk to each other, they are still going to have to go through the FSB which has yet to gain enough bandwidth to consider itself not bottlenecked.
Any person could tell that Intel was desperate and just wanted to be ahead of AMD. We don't need Quad Core right now. We're barely utilizing Dual Core!
What the heck do you think an X2 is? All it is is 2 cores linked via a higher latency crossbar. The Yonah actually has shared cache. And supposedly the Quad Core Kentsfield are 2 shared Cached dual cores. And how do you get past the FSB bottleneck? Just add more lanes.
Yea, plenty of servers out there just don't need Quad Core. I mean geez, what kind of moron would design multi-processor servers??
robertk2012
Platinum Member
He was saying it looked like a coke bottle.
Quinton McLeod
Senior member
Wow, aren't we behind on technology.
First of all, the way Intel boards are made, the lanes are Half Duplex. Meaning it can only send data in one direction at a time. Intel is not going to add another lane. You could suggest they do it all you want, but the fact to the matter is, Intel is too stubborn.
Shared Cache? Maybe... But the 4 cores aren't sharing the cache together. Only 2 cores are able to access a single cache at a time. It pretty much means that Core 3 and 4 share a cache and core 1 and 2 share a cache, but core 4 and 2 do not share a cache. Neither does Core 3 and 1. So, they will have to use the FSB to talk to each other.
Not only that, but what you don't realize is that if the cores use the cache to communicate, there's more data clogging the cache and thus causing another bottle neck. Correct me anytime ya want, buddy.
AMD's high latency crossbar switch?! The crossbar runs at CPU speed, you n00b.
HurleyBird
Platinum Member
This is getting heated.
Wow. Fanboyism to a new level.
I like AMD, I'm currently running an AMD processor and it is probably one of the best I've ever used [strike that, THE best I've ever used].
Conroe will be priced REASONABLY. There is a pricing chart showing 201 dollars for the low end model (2MB cache, 1.81Ghz, if I remember) and 510 for the high end. [2.67 w/ 4MB of cache for the high end.
Edit: Here:
Conroe E6700
2.67GHz / 1066MHz 4MB Q3'06 $530 (???)
Conroe E6600
2.40GHz / 1066MHz 4MB Q3'06 $316 (???)
Conroe E6400
2.13GHz / 1066MHz 2MB Q3'06 $241 (???)
Conroe E6300
1.86GHz / 1066MHz 2MB Q3'06 $209 (???)
209, and most likely overclockable. Looks good to me.
I don't see a speed increase from AMD (It would have to be ~3-3.2 to challenge the 2.67 Conroe) helping, nor do I see the switch to DDR2 doing much. 🙁 Shame for AMD.
Quinton McLeod
Senior member
Yes, I've heard of Dual FSB motherboards... But these motherboards were designed
to run two processors.
Wishful thinking on your part if you think that Intel will incorporate this in a quad-core system and not in their current Dual Core systems. (Which they are not doing... All they're doing is pumping their FSB)
Umm... You didn't understand what I said. Let me make it simple, ok?
1 <--> [C1] <--> 2
3 <--> [C2] <--> 4
Currently, this is what Intel's Quad Core systems look like. Core 1 and 2 share cache 1. Core 3 and 4 share cache 2. Notice how core 1 and 3 don't share a cache. Also notice how core 2 and 4 don't share a cache.
Link please?
Theres no reason to believe this wont work for 4 socket systems. Moreover, there is technology available today that alleviates the FSB bottleneck, see IBM Hurricane for Xeons.
Why do I need a link? Do the simple math. If the crossbar runs at 2.8Ghz, its latency is nowhere near the shared latency at 14ns (for Yonah).
Tangerines
Senior member
Quinton:
- Two separate pieces of silicon for once CPU doesn't mean much when it comes to CPU performance, especially Intel's, since it lacks an on-die memory controller.
- I didn't realize info had been released for Intel's quad-core processor yet. Unless you happen to work at Intel (which seems highly doubtful given your AMD bias) could you please stop passing off speculation as fact?
- Would it kill you to admit that Intel has one-upped AMD for once?
- Two separate pieces of silicon for once CPU doesn't mean much when it comes to CPU performance, especially Intel's, since it lacks an on-die memory controller.
- I didn't realize info had been released for Intel's quad-core processor yet. Unless you happen to work at Intel (which seems highly doubtful given your AMD bias) could you please stop passing off speculation as fact?
- Would it kill you to admit that Intel has one-upped AMD for once?
Quinton McLeod
Senior member
What are you talking about?
Do you even know what the quad core processor looks like?
It hasn't. There are far too many questions about the benchmark Intel gave that are unanswered. Check out this place for more info:
http://voodoopc.blogspot.com/
This thread by voodoopc CTO is quite informative.
Inte's FX60 rig is not as good, intentionally or not, by a slight margin. Still Conroe beats a "properly" configured FX60 rig from Wil Harris. If AM2 platform does not provide significant gain, Conroe is likely to be the winner.
Conroe vs FX60 vs "intel's" FX60
Plus for those doubting the benchmarks via cross-platform comparison, please understand FX60 can be quite slow sometime
Inte's FX60 rig is not as good, intentionally or not, by a slight margin. Still Conroe beats a "properly" configured FX60 rig from Wil Harris. If AM2 platform does not provide significant gain, Conroe is likely to be the winner.
Conroe vs FX60 vs "intel's" FX60
Plus for those doubting the benchmarks via cross-platform comparison, please understand FX60 can be quite slow sometime
Maximilian
Lifer
Very Interesting
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
