• 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.

Question on -EX

ilkhan

ilkhan

Golden Member
So beckton is supposed to be on s1567 (# IIRC) to accommodate the memory and extra QPI links it needs. If Intel wanted to, could be easily cut off the extra memory controllers and QPI links and sell those 8 core wonders on s1366?
 
I'm sure it could be done, the dual-socket capable -EP is single-socket compatible and the extra QPI sits unused.

But if Dunnington is an example of Intel's intentions of "forced" market segmentation by a product's physical specifications then I would argue that -EX will not be touching single-socket systems, which means no s1366.
 
ASUS has had dual-socket 1366 boards out for some time. Why don't you just go that route if you want 8 cores? sure, you have to buy xeon bloomfields. but uh if you were willing to pay for beckton parts...
 
I was actually thinking of just trying to get more cores on a single socket than gulftown will provide. Theoretical exercise, really.
 
Originally posted by: alyarb
in the 3ghz region i would expect lower performance per watt with beckton because it's a 45nm part that's going to be larger than tukwila, yet wikipedia lists the same 130w TDP while tukwila is closer to 200w. how can this be?

http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/...009/0212/kaigai_4l.gif
Click to expand...

wiki for cpu specs on unreleased hardware is pretty unreliable.

But as for how Tukwilla could be higher TDP than beckton...what is the cache/logic xtor ratio for the two?

130W for Beckton...clockspeed must be pretty low when 16 threads are running to make that happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top