# Intel Planning Six-Core Processor, Will Call it 'Dunnington'



## zekrahminator (Feb 24, 2008)

Intel is planning on serving a heaping pile of pain to AMD's revenue/stock figures again in a few months, by developing a six-core juggernaut. While AMD is still tweaking on a way to merely get four cores to work in tandem, Intel is hard at work shoving two more cores on one die. This six-core monstrosity will be succeeded by the even beefier Nehalem micro-architecture, which could have up to eight cores on one die. Most of the Dunnington project is still top-secret, but some say that Intel already has most of the hard work done. 





> Intel has already put together a die, the size of a postage stamp, with three dual-core 45nm Penryn chips on it sharing a 16MB L3 cache. Allegedly, we'll see the Dunnington in either Q2 or Q3, this year


.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## beyond_amusia (Feb 24, 2008)

I want it, lol.


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 24, 2008)

Anyone know if this is 1066 fsb or 1333 fsb?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

prolly a 1600mhz fsb chip. it's gonna be a B*tch to cool that's for sure. i must have one!


----------



## Triprift (Feb 24, 2008)

This and then the nehalem amd's in for another bad year baring a miricle.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

Triprift said:


> This and then the nehalem amd's in for another bad year baring a miricle.



yeah, but i think they have nvidia cornered this yea in the graphics department.


----------



## hat (Feb 24, 2008)

So... is this gonna be a native chip I.E. one six core die?


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

hat said:


> So... is this gonna be a native chip I.E. one six core die?



HAT... 



> Intel has already put together a die, the size of a postage stamp, with three dual-core 45nm Penryn chips on it sharing a 16MB L3 cache.


----------



## Sh00t1st (Feb 24, 2008)

you all forget amd has already got a 3 core chip, so assuming they have the bugs worked out they could pull an intell and just slap two 3 core chips together. could but i don't think they will.


----------



## Sh00t1st (Feb 24, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> yeah, but i think they have nvidia cornered this yea in the graphics department.



i think your pretty much dead on right there. barring some good concepts ideas from nvidia. and lowering of price somewhat. after all they do almost have market control for now which usualy means they make the most profits so they can afford to reduce price to the consumers but have they ?


----------



## hat (Feb 24, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> HAT...


WTF, 3 dies?! So what, Nehalem will be 4 dies? Intel needs to get off thier fat lazy gold-lined asses and actually develop something new.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 24, 2008)

No one here will need this for a personal PC, this is server type stuff. Your PC will have no idea with what to do with 6 cores, 4 cores are still only functional in a small amount of apps. 

This processor will be used for servers.


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 24, 2008)

Really fast Intels development - a little bit too fast imo..


----------



## Sh00t1st (Feb 24, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> No one here will need this for a personal PC, this is server type stuff. Your PC will have no idea with what to do with 6 cores, 4 cores are still only functional in a small amount of apps.
> 
> This processor will be used for servers.



if the game industry would just jump aboard whole heartidly to the multi core concept/the cpu makers have already done it, i think it would be beneficial to us to have that extra power.


----------



## hat (Feb 24, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> Really fast Intels development - a little bit too fast imo..



They didn't DEVELOP anything, they just threw more dies on a single wafer, it seems to be thier favorite thing to do.


----------



## Sh00t1st (Feb 24, 2008)

they did progress the technology and manufacturing and core efficiancy, they also upped the number of transistors too. amd was competing but they seem to have just given up


----------



## ShadowFold (Feb 24, 2008)

1600FSB! You need a 210$ board for these new things.. uggh I hope they release cheap 1600 fsb boards soon


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> 1600FSB! You need a 210$ board for these new things.. uggh I hope they release cheap 1600 fsb boards soon



$210 if your lucky. most are upwards of $300 or more.
they guy who regulates prices should be shot in the face. and that goes for gas prices too. WTF?


----------



## Scrizz (Feb 24, 2008)

sweet benching with that thing


----------



## hat (Feb 24, 2008)

Scrizz said:


> sweet benching with that thing




most benchmarks are only single threaded


----------



## Laurijan (Feb 24, 2008)

hat said:


> most benchmarks are only single threaded



Ahh.. Now i know why prime95 doesnt untilize 100% of my Q6600 but only 25% of each core..


----------



## imperialreign (Feb 24, 2008)

As I stated in the other thread:



> Seriously, though, Intel is just beating a dead horse at this point . . . Let the C2D go, it'll be alright! No need to keep it on life support like this . . .
> 
> AMD, please, please, pretty-pretty please throw out something that will  some sense back into Intel. God knows if weren't for you we woulda seen Intel do the same thing with the Pentium 4 lineup that they're doing now with the Core 2 Duos.


----------



## JacKz5o (Feb 24, 2008)

Id rather have a very fast 4-core chip than a semi-fast 6-core... maybe thats just me :\


----------



## hat (Feb 24, 2008)

Laurijan said:


> Ahh.. Now i know why prime95 doesnt untilize 100% of my Q6600 but only 25% of each core..



Are you using the multithreaded version?
If you are, you should see 4 different Prime95 exe's in the task manager, and the all say 25% because they are all utilizing 100% of one specific core, or 25% of the total CPU power.


----------



## DonInKansas (Feb 24, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> No one here will need this for a personal PC, this is server type stuff. Your PC will have no idea with what to do with 6 cores, 4 cores are still only functional in a small amount of apps.
> 
> This processor will be used for servers.



But what about those needing e-penis extensions?  You forgot about that....

Heh,  bring it on...........


----------



## Triprift (Feb 24, 2008)

Yes like a mate no who has to have the latest and greatest king e-penis is he.


----------



## spacejunky (Feb 24, 2008)

spootity said:


> if the game industry would just jump aboard whole heartidly to the multi core concept/the cpu makers have already done it, i think it would be beneficial to us to have that extra power.



Unreal Tournament 3 takes advantage of quad core and triple core so it should be able to keep scaling.  They still don't fully utilize though.

Read a little about it here


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 24, 2008)

DonInKansas said:


> But what about those needing e-penis extensions?  You forgot about that....
> 
> Heh,  bring it on...........



Haha...Yeah lets not forget that, major props and benchmarks to a person with 6 cores (assuming they make benchmark that can bench 6 cores).


----------



## Wile E (Feb 24, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> Haha...Yeah lets not forget that, major props and benchmarks to a person with 6 cores (assuming they make benchmark that can bench 6 cores).



3DMark06


----------



## devilhood (Feb 24, 2008)

Dun dun dunn!(ington)

Today's software and games barely use up to 4-cores as it is, what on earth are we going to do with 6


----------



## Triprift (Feb 24, 2008)

Just looks more impressive serious e-penis lol. ps welcome to tpu


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 24, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> No one here will need this for a personal PC, this is server type stuff. Your PC will have no idea with what to do with 6 cores, 4 cores are still only functional in a small amount of apps.
> 
> This processor will be used for servers.



Nice how you assume everyone here does the same as you with his PC. Think of heavy multitasking, video encoding or applications like 3ds max and the likes.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 24, 2008)

Okay, this is preceding Nehalem which means it's bad timing, unless it's ported to the newer socket. The LGA 775/771 won't last till Nehalem and the timing of this chip is something I didn't like, not many people would opt for it keeping in mind the upgrade path.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 24, 2008)

Actually it just extends the life of your 775 board. It doesn't mention any Xeon (771) chips like this though. Would be nice, 12 cores. However memory bandwidth might become a serious issue here, probably better off with Nehalem.


----------



## 1c3d0g (Feb 24, 2008)

I don't like these odd-numbered cores...3, 6, maybe next year 9. Come on!  Stick with consistent doubling of each, 1, 2, 4, 8 etc. Programmers have enough trouble as it is optimizing for quad core CPU's and beyond...throwing odd ball numbers at it is only going to make it worse. :shadedshu Having said that, I'm extremely exited at the prospect of playing with an 8-core CPU. BOINC/Folding@Home stats would fly through the roof, and that is a good thing for everyone.


----------



## Disparia (Feb 24, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Actually it just extends the life of your 775 board. It doesn't mention any Xeon (771) chips like this though. Would be nice, 12 cores. However memory bandwidth might become a serious issue here, probably better off with Nehalem.



?

The original article makes it seem like they'll have Xeon 54xx and 74xx chips based off this - in fact, Xeon chips only. No s775.



> While AMD stumbles around trying to get its first errata-free Barcelona quads out two years behind Intel, Intel is off planning the launch of its six-core Dunnington microprocessor, a hex, if you will, *the last of the expected Core 2-based Xeon server chips* before it switches over to the Nehalem microarchitecture capable of supporting eight or more cores.
> 
> Dunnington, a Bangalore-designed successor to Harpertown, is still supposed to be relatively hush-hush but Intel has reportedly put three dual-core 45nm Penryn chips on a die the size of a postage stamp and sharing a 16MB L3 cache. Like other Penryns, Dunnington still uses a front-side bus.
> 
> ...



Is it just me? Cuz I'm confused with just about everybody's posts in both Dunnington threads


----------



## Scrizz (Feb 24, 2008)

how is 6 odd


----------



## newconroer (Feb 24, 2008)

hat said:


> WTF, 3 dies?! So what, Nehalem will be 4 dies? Intel needs to get off thier fat lazy gold-lined asses and actually develop something new.



Have you researched what Nehalem is???


My only concern about this is that it will push Nehalem back to a later date.


----------



## Triprift (Feb 24, 2008)

I hope not i actually thought they might of released it earlier but im not sure now.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Feb 24, 2008)

Umm...  super duct tape...  3 C2Ds...


----------



## WarEagleAU (Feb 24, 2008)

Not really impressed. Those 8 cores though, that is impressive.

Id like to see Intel quit ductaping cores together and make a contiguous one.


----------



## Silverel (Feb 24, 2008)

1c3d0g said:


> I don't like these odd-numbered cores...3, 6, maybe next year 9. Come on!  Stick with consistent doubling of each, 1, 2, 4, 8 etc. Programmers have enough trouble as it is optimizing for quad core CPU's and beyond...throwing odd ball numbers at it is only going to make it worse. :shadedshu Having said that, I'm extremely exited at the prospect of playing with an 8-core CPU. BOINC/Folding@Home stats would fly through the roof, and that is a good thing for everyone.



Odd numbers of cores force the programmers to LEARN how to optimize their code the right way. It's easier for them to just split the work in half for 2 cores, and split in half again for 4 cores, but the SHOULD be dedicating each core to a certain amount of work and not dedicating certain pieces of work to each core.

That sounds confusing, but it makes sense. Figure it this way, you need to render a pie. As of now, the pie would be cut in half and fed to each core, or into quarters for 4 cores. Each core sits there and munches on it's section of pie until it's done. It would make more sense to have each core TAKE as much they can fit on their plate at the same time instead of it being assigned to them as one big chunk. If they can't finish it it one serving, then all of them should go back for another full slice simultaneously, until its gone. With this sort of methodology in place, you could have any number of cores working on any size pie, and be much more efficient.


----------



## Assimilator (Feb 24, 2008)

No software developer worth his or her salt will optimise their application for a specific number of CPUs/cores; they will just code their app to use as many threads as necessary to work in the most efficient way. Such an application would *theoretically* run faster on a 6-core CPU as opposed to a 2-core CPU, but in reality the application may show no noticeable performance difference. (As an example, consider an application that writes to 2 files simultaneously. Since it only writes to 2 files, running it on a CPU with more than 2 cores won't improve the performance at all.)

For anyone who's wondering, yes, I am a software engineer by trade.

The main problem, however, is that the vast majority of applications available today are coded to use only 2 threads (often because it's not feasible for them to use more than that - for example, a web browser). Right now, the only people who will benefit from having a quad-core CPU are the crazy multi-taskers, hardcore gamers, and manic overclockers (IMO).

Finally, does it really matter *how* Intel designs their chips, as long as they offer excellent performance? AMD tried the "native" quad-core approach and look at how badly that turned out... Intel has gone with an approach that is inelegent, but works well, and that's what the consumer cares about.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 24, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Nice how you assume everyone here does the same as you with his PC. Think of heavy multitasking, video encoding or applications like 3ds max and the likes.



I assume the majority here isn't using extreme photoshop and running 32 player game servers and doing professional video editing. 

Besides that, this can all be done easily with 4 cores and 4 GBs of ram. Unless you're a professional, you won't need them.

Later though, I do acknowledge that there will be a need for 6 cores as more and more developers begin to take multi threaded apps to the next level.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

it's called scaling. that's something the stubborn software makers have yet to actually TRY to implicate. scaling isn't really that hard. it just takes someone who will take the opportunity to implicate it. your making it sound like it's REALLY hard, when in all reality, it just takes someone who isn't a lazy ass coder and actually wants their software to scale well with multi core processors.


----------



## Scrizz (Feb 24, 2008)

Assimilator said:


> No software developer worth his or her salt will optimise their application for a specific number of CPUs/cores; they will just code their app to use as many threads as necessary to work in the most efficient way. Such an application would *theoretically* run faster on a 6-core CPU as opposed to a 2-core CPU, but in reality the application may show no noticeable performance difference. (As an example, consider an application that writes to 2 files simultaneously. Since it only writes to 2 files, running it on a CPU with more than 2 cores won't improve the performance at all.)
> 
> For anyone who's wondering, yes, I am a software engineer by trade.
> 
> ...



for real who cares about native quad if it's going to perform worse. :shadedshu


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 24, 2008)

Ravenas said:


> I assume the majority here isn't using extreme photoshop and running 32 player game servers and doing professional video editing.
> 
> Besides that, this can all be done easily with 4 cores and 4 GBs of ram. Unless you're a professional, you won't need them.
> 
> Later though, I do acknowledge that there will be a need for 6 cores as more and more developers begin to take multi threaded apps to the next level.



So because the market is smaller the product is bad? Nobody tells you to buy one, if you don't require 6 cores buy a C2D or C2Q. There are plenty of people who love to have extra processing power.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 24, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> So because the market is smaller the product is bad? Nobody tells you to buy one, if you don't require 6 cores buy a C2D or C2Q. There are plenty of people who love to have extra processing power.



Well I'm not exactly stating that the market is small, the market is HUGE on a professional scale. I would also love to have that processing power, but does that mean I'm going to pay big bucks for a processor that once I get it I realize I just dropped a bunch of money on something I'm not really going to use to its full potential.


----------



## Scrizz (Feb 24, 2008)

on a professional scale they are utilizing the hardware


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

why do people buy big ass trucks and never utilize the capacity of them? it's the same thing. 
it's pointless to have a truck unless you can make use of it's potential but people buy trucks and drive them all over the place without ever using it for its real purpose.... hauling, towing, etc. the saem goes with SUV's. most people i see driving SUV's are alone and have nothing else inside their BEAST of a automobile. 

what does that nonsense have to do with the topic of 6 core cpu's? it's the simple fact that, whether we need it or not, there is still a market for such a beast of a CPU and i KNOW a TON of people who would love to have a 6 core cpu. if it scales the same way the quads do, then the core 2 hetco will be one crazy chip.


----------



## Ravenas (Feb 24, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> why do people buy big ass trucks and never utilize the capacity of them? it's the same thing.
> it's pointless to have a truck unless you can make use of it's potential but people buy trucks and drive them all over the place without ever using it for its real purpose.... hauling, towing, etc. the saem goes with SUV's. most people i see driving SUV's are alone and have nothing else inside their BEAST of a automobile.
> 
> what does that nonsense have to do with the topic of 6 core cpu's? it's the simple fact that, whether we need it or not, there is still a market for such a beast of a CPU and i KNOW a TON of people who would love to have a 6 core cpu. if it scales the same way the quads do, then the core 2 hetco will be one crazy chip.



As you stated, just because there is a market doesn't mean they are practical. 

I'm personally happy these are coming though, the price of quads will drop significantly!


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 24, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> yeah, but i think they have nvidia cornered this yea in the graphics department.



Lol, based on what? the fact that as of today ATi has one of the top 5 fastest cards around and probably in about 6 weeks time one in the top 7 fastest cards...........

HD3870x2
8800GTS G92
8800GT G92
8800 Ultra G80
8800GTX G80

Then youu go mid/lowmid and you get......

HD3850
8800GS
9600GT

where in most things most of the time the HD3850 gets beat by the other two..............

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2154749&enterthread=y

And whats left?.................................  Couple that lot with the fact that NVidia is outselling ATi 4 cards to every ATi card!  Now please dont get me wrong.......the HD3870x2 is swwweeetttttt and I shall be getting one so genuinly my comments above are not fanboi......just dont quite see the logic in your statement is all


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

you are not thinking about the other cards ATI will be releasing this year. 

4870x2
4870
4850
4650
and so on.

none of you think about the future.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 24, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> you are not thinking about the other cards ATI will be releasing this year.
> 
> 4870x2
> 4870
> ...



I am, I just dont care to speculate which is why I didnt specifically mention the GX2............a potential A*s kicking 9800GTX, a 9800GT etc etc, dont get me wrong, I am not saying your wrong, I am saying you could well be wrong but based on the facts over the last 18 months and first half of 2008 IMO I see no reason to think the trend will change, I hope it does, I have no brand loyality, I will go for the fastest, meanest muvvaa out there whomsoever makes it (providing I dont have to sell me children for it.....wife....yes maybe )


----------



## hat (Feb 24, 2008)

Meh, Du*mm*ington. 3 dies... how the hell does that one work? Really? That's gonna be pretty hard to cool. I know Intel isn't known for making flat IHS's, so they better shape that  up.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 24, 2008)

Might work if it's about 25nm lol, I am sure there will be even more mainstream cooling solutions brought out just so we can spend some more to cool them.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

but all of nvidias offerings this year, so far, are still based off of the G92 core and everyone thinks that it will somehow magically be 5x more powerful than the same core on say a 8800gt. it's like people are too dazed in the light of the new model numbers to actually realize that the 9 series cards are just revised 8 series G92 cards with new model numbers. sure they will be great but far from the magical ultimate dominating card that everyone thinks is comming.

i am in no way partial to either company. i just feel that ATI will surpass or at least be on a leval playing field as nvidia this year.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 24, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> but all of nvidias offerings this year, so far, are still based off of the G92 core and everyone thinks that it will somehow magically be 5x more powerful than the same core on say a 8800gt. it's like people are too dazed in the light of the new model numbers to actually realize that the 9 series cards are just revised 8 series G92 cards with new model numbers. sure they will be great but far from the magical ultimate dominating card that everyone thinks is comming.
> 
> i am in no way partial to either company. i just feel that ATI will surpass or at least be on a leval playing field as nvidia this year.



Everyone seems to say that but thats not my interpretation of it, the mid ranged 9000 series will be G92, what "facts" are available and I appreciate just like the HD4000 series that it may not pan out like this but take a look at this, then compare it with G92 and you may come to the conclusion that with double the SP's of the 8800GTS G92, double the ROP's, an extra 50% of TMU's, 55nm die shrink and a 512bit memory bus and more than double the transistors it could be a serious card, whether it turns out like that I would be the first to admit......is another matter..............

http://forum.overclock3d.net/showthread.php?t=20521

It's just because of this that I hate speculation, I happen to think that the top end of the HD4000 series looks very tasty but just like the link above, whether it pans like that is another matter.  Ohhh and the 9800GTX is codenamed G100????


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 24, 2008)

but nvidia has released the info in the cards that clearly states the magical g100 chip is nowhere to be found on any 9 series card. i do believe the hd4000 cards will be pretty good although i am still skeptical as usual. i not saying i totally disagree with you, just that most people fail to actually read the info that was provided and jump to conclusions about things. 

http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-02-22/geforce.PNG


----------



## imperialreign (Feb 25, 2008)

I'm kinda fence-posted between the two arguments - I can see where both y'all are coming from.

nVidia tend to be very vocal about any kick-ass product that is about to roll out the doors, they only tend to be more reserved when they're not entirelly sure how their new hardware will pony-up, but, on the other hand, when they know their up and coming products will keep their crown - they usually don't have a problem fielding the internet with their own benchies . . .

On the other hand, ATI tend to be very tight lipped about their kick-ass products, all the way up to release.  Although the HD4000 series has been leaked, ATI still haven't officially said anything - and keeping in mind that the R700 GPU is supposed to be right around the bend (I think rumors are calling for late this year - would probably be the GPU used on the HD5000 series).

The way it's looking right now, IMO, ATI is quickly catching up to nVidia's performance level - and nVidia having been complacent up to this point haven't really gone to a lot of effort to design "new" hardware to keep their distance; which, IMO, is why it appears they're releasing a "panic" product in response to ATI's most recent offerings.  They felt that they _had_ to move forward with a new series to appear "new and up to date" but they're not really offering much over what their 8 series did.  If ATI were still far behind, I'd bet that nVidia would continue the 8 series with newer models instead of going into the 9 series.


----------



## OrbitzXT (Feb 25, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> yeah, but i think they have nvidia cornered this yea in the graphics department.



Since when did most of the people on this site turn into professional marketing analysts? Just because ATI finally has a decent product doesn't mean they suddenly dominate nVidia and have them "cornered". I'm glad ATI has a good product finally, its always better for the consumer when you have 2 competing companies. Anyway, it's very early in the year and I think its a foolish and/or wishful thinking to say that ATI will lead in GPUs the rest of the year when we don't know pricing and future products performance in months to come.


----------



## Triprift (Feb 25, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> Not really impressed. Those 8 cores though, that is impressive.
> 
> Id like to see Intel quit ductaping cores together and make a contiguous one.



Theres nothing stickytape cant do


----------



## kwchang007 (Feb 25, 2008)

hat said:


> Meh, Du*mm*ington. 3 dies... how the hell does that one work? Really? That's gonna be pretty hard to cool. I know Intel isn't known for making flat IHS's, so they better shape that  up.



Well 45 nm has got to help the heat out alot.  And don't the extremes have better hsf's?  So maybe they'll include those.


----------



## Fitseries3 (Feb 25, 2008)

kwchang007 said:


> Well 45 nm has got to help the heat out alot.  And don't the extremes have better hsf's?  So maybe they'll include those.



who do you know that buy's a $1000 CPU and uses a stock cooler on it? 

that's like washing a Ferrari with dish soap. that's just wrong. :shadedshu


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 25, 2008)

Intel Leap ahead ^^


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 25, 2008)

kwchang007 said:


> Well 45 nm has got to help the heat out alot.  And don't the extremes have better hsf's?  So maybe they'll include those.



Well thats the trouble, it does not really.....why? because if you take the Yorkfield for example, with the 1333FSB the stock clocks are higher and that uses up the overclocking/heat headroom, did you know that the TDP rating of the 45nm Yorkfield quads are 95W.......thats the same as the Q6600 G0.


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 25, 2008)

emm 45nm more transistors then 65nm...
95watt of heat for me is like nothing..


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 25, 2008)

hat said:


> Meh, Du*mm*ington. 3 dies... how the hell does that one work? Really? That's gonna be pretty hard to cool. I know Intel isn't known for making flat IHS's, so they better shape that  up.



Considering a Clovertown LV has a 50W TDP and this hexa core is basically a dieshrink of it and runs at a higher clock I see no reason why TDP should be that high.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 25, 2008)

Morgoth said:


> emm 45nm more transistors then 65nm...
> 95watt of heat for me is like nothing..



Well it tells me that it will run as hot as a Q6600 and they get pretty warm.


----------



## tiys (Feb 25, 2008)

hat said:


> They didn't DEVELOP anything, they just threw more dies on a single wafer, it seems to be thier favorite thing to do.



If you say they don't develop anything, then why are they ahead of AMD?


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 25, 2008)

ahead they are because cheap tricks they use, cores ducktape togather they do, faster it is, but bad design it is also,  will lead to epic fail think i do..

see i hope to, burning traces on 775 boards, funny that will be, data overload.....fail epic it will be.


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 25, 2008)

MagnusEgallo said:


> ahead they are because cheap tricks they use, cores ducktape togather they do, faster it is, but bad design it is also,  will lead to epic fail think i do..
> 
> see i hope to, burning traces on 775 boards, funny that will be, data overload.....fail epic it will be.



Well they have been around for long enuff already and still going strong so thus far..........success........epic they are!


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 25, 2008)

775 wil die soon and be replaced with LGA 1366 and other 2 version of it lol


----------



## Wile E (Feb 25, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Well they have been around for long enuff already and still going strong so thus far..........success........epic they are!



Yep. It's just as I keep saying. It doesn't matter how they do it, all that matters is the end result.


----------



## hat (Feb 25, 2008)

tiys said:


> If you say they don't develop anything, then why are they ahead of AMD?



I know you're banned but for the sake of others...
Intel only developed the Core 2 arch cause AMD totally pwned them in the A-XP/P4 fight. So Intel is forced to develop Core 2. Since then they've just been doing die shrinks (which isn't really developing anything) and taping dies togeather on one wafer (again, no real development). What I said was for this particular case.


----------



## erocker (Feb 25, 2008)

Wile E said:


> Yep. It's just as I keep saying. It doesn't matter how they do it, all that matters is the end result.



Absolutely.  If Intel came out and said dump this goo on your socket, it'll run at 6ghz, I'll do it.  Goo core?


----------



## trt740 (Feb 25, 2008)

AMD better pull out whatever big guns they have now or ding dong the witch is dead.


----------



## trt740 (Feb 25, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Lol, based on what? the fact that as of today ATi has one of the top 5 fastest cards around and probably in about 6 weeks time one in the top 7 fastest cards...........
> 
> HD3870x2
> 8800GTS G92
> ...



should be 8800gs
             9600 gt
             hd 3850  
with AA on and AF this card cannot match either of these cards not even a 3870 can unless you turn them down or off


Look at the benches the eye candy is turned off or down. The ATi cards cannot do AA well at all and A/F is not good either until you get to a 3870x2


----------



## trt740 (Feb 26, 2008)

fitseries3 said:


> yeah, but i think they have nvidia cornered this yea in the graphics department.



I agree with this the 3870x2 is unreal and the new chip are reported to run double their speed. That was a statement from ATI to its stock holders so I would think it is true.


----------



## hat (Feb 26, 2008)

trt740 said:


> AMD better pull out whatever big guns they have now or ding dong the witch is dead.



Yeah, a super soaker


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 26, 2008)

trt740 said:


> should be 8800gs
> 9600 gt
> hd 3850
> with AA on and AF this card cannot match either of these cards not even a 3870 can unless you turn them down or off
> ...



Yeah but I did not list in any particular order so I was not saying the first on the list was better than the 2nd or 3rd.


----------



## trt740 (Feb 26, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Yeah but I did not list in any particular order so I was not saying the first on the list was better than the 2nd or 3rd.



still AMD hit it out of the park with the 3870x2 as Nvidia did with the 8800gt, 9600gt and 8800gs


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 26, 2008)

trt740 said:


> still AMD hit it out of the park with the 3870x2 as Nvidia did with the 8800gt, 9600gt and 8800gs



Agreed but one out of the top 5 isnt very good although I am seriously considering getting a x2 but TBH am going through (amazingly) a period of extreme boredom with overclocking/benching.......having said that, I am looking at the Q9550 on it's release


----------



## Wile E (Feb 26, 2008)

Tatty_One said:


> Agreed but one out of the top 5 isnt very good although I am seriously considering getting a x2 but TBH am going through (amazingly) a period of extreme boredom with overclocking/benching.......having said that, I am looking at the Q9550 on it's release


Me too Tatty (on the boredom). I think it's because we both hit a lull, where we already know our hardware's max. Getting the Vmod going should perk us back up. lol.


----------



## tiys (Feb 26, 2008)

blah blah...I bet after this comes out, you'll see a 6 core AMD.

Intel goes dual, next up is AMD going dual
Intel goes quad, next up is AMD going quad
Intel is going hex, next up is AMD going hex.

It's quite funny to think about it.


----------



## Wile E (Feb 27, 2008)

tiys said:


> blah blah...I bet after this comes out, you'll see a 6 core AMD.
> 
> Intel goes dual, next up is AMD going dual
> Intel goes quad, next up is AMD going quad
> ...


Actually, AMD was developing Dual well before Intel. Intel just rushed pD out the door right before X2's release, to try and steal a little of AMD's thunder.


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 27, 2008)

true dat, true dat.

tiys: your facts you must get strait, amd the first true dual core did make, count does not the pentium-d, it was/is but 2 p4's with duct tape attaching.

octacore could amd go if follow intels duct taping method they used, but poor lazy design does amd not favor, FYI intel quads are not native, duct tape 2 core2duos they did togather as 1.

WileE, thunder did they try and steal, fail did they, poor design=poor performance=netburst core that they used.

tiys next will say amd steals and copys 64bit x86 extentions they use, when invented them amd did.......


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 27, 2008)

MagnusEgallo said:


> true dat, true dat.
> 
> tiys: your facts you must get strait, amd the first true dual core did make, count does not the pentium-d, it was/is but 2 p4's with duct tape attaching.
> 
> ...



The discussion is old, the way 2 (or more) cores are bundled is completely irrelevant. A Pentium D is as much a dual core as an X2 or C2D. Saying things like "duct tape" is just popular/fanboy talk. As you know C2Q still outperforms Phenom  X4, and since you say "duct taping" is a poor lazy design per se and poor design = poor performance you're obviously wrong somewhere.

AMD already said the cheaper and faster method Intel uses is the better one months ago. Making a native quad core didn't do AMD any good, they got behind and it didn't perform as planned.

Additionally Netburst isn't a poor design, on paper it was good. Problem was heat, Intel planned to clock them far higher which would do them good. It was more a failed design than a poor one.

I think you don't have your facts straight either. Then again yours are mostly based on fanboyish arguments while I have no clue where tiys got his.


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 27, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> The discussion is old, the way 2 (or more) cores are bundled is completely irrelevant. A Pentium D is as much a dual core as an X2 or C2D. Saying things like "duct tape" is just popular/fanboy talk. As you know C2Q still outperforms Phenom  X4, and since you say "duct taping" is a poor lazy design per se and poor design = poor performance you're obviously wrong somewhere.
> 
> AMD already said the cheaper and faster method Intel uses is the better one months ago. Making a native quad core didn't do AMD any good, they got behind and it didn't perform as planned.
> 
> ...



if a poor design netburst was not, then why fail did it?

good on paper and in practice are to very diffrent things, yes......

effectivly admited netburst was a bad move has intel.

phenom a bad move for enthusist market was, shines in the server market does it, price for performance much more cost effective is it, performs higher in spicific server related tasks it does when compared with like clocked xeons it does.

links i would like to amd wrong saying they where.

only a fanboi would say a good idea/design was netburst when prooven epic fail it was compared to older designs, when having admited a wrong move was it have its own creators.

no point in argueing is there, can see i that the dark path you have taken.....


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 27, 2008)

4*1=4
2*2=4
1*4=4

same thing, i dont care how it works intel makes it work.

why yall so conerned bout "duct taping" its the duct tape going to fall off and you have to go service it?

or we log onto tpu on day and look in the news section 

"Core2Duo's recalled as duct tape falls off before end of 3 year warranty"?

i guess not, stop being silly and harping on things that dont matter.


----------



## btarunr (Feb 27, 2008)

MagnusEgallo said:


> if a poor design netburst was not, then why fail did it?.....



Fail it didn't because it be made to compete with AMD K7 not K8, and compete it did and did well. 



MagnusEgallo said:


> good on paper and in practice are to very diffrent things, yes......
> 
> effectivly admited netburst was a bad move has intel.
> 
> phenom a bad move for enthusist market was, shines in the server market does it, price for performance much more cost effective is it, performs higher in spicific server related tasks it does when compared with like clocked xeons it does.



Bad move Netburst was not. Successful it was against the generation it belonged to and the competitors' architecture it was made to compete with.... succeed it did. Phenom a bad move is true. Opteron quad an equally bad move is true too. Sway it has none of over Intel's designs, thermal envelope it had but so did Intel's Low-power Xeon lineup. Performance edge it had none.



MagnusEgallo said:


> links i would like to amd wrong saying they where.
> 
> only a fanboi would say a good idea/design was netburst when prooven epic fail it was compared to older designs, when having admited a wrong move was it have its own creators.
> 
> no point in argueing is there, can see i that the dark path you have taken.....



Netburst was bad say fanboys. It wasn't bad at its time say people with rational thinking.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Feb 27, 2008)

MagnusEgallo said:


> if a poor design netburst was not, then why fail did it?
> 
> good on paper and in practice are to very diffrent things, yes......
> 
> ...



Like I said, unexpected amount of heat. Besides typing really annoying you don't read either it seems. Please type normally, I doubt many people will have a serious discussion with you otherwise. I from this point won't, until you bother to type normally.


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 27, 2008)

bad was netburst for its day, p3 tualatin faster was, based off of p3 tualatin is core2, netburst one point had, chips selling to the dumb who think/thought that clock=performance, complain intel fanboi's do about athlon running hot in those days, but forget presHOT they do, 90c common was with preshot, athlon classic and socket A those temps never did reach.

a success only was netburst selling to noobs was because "2.8 ghz must be faster then 1.8ghz" yet failed to realise did noobs and fanboi's alike, 9ICP(athlon) greater then 6ICP (netburst) so lower clocks mattered did not.

One good use did netburst have, encoding........

tryed have you to run 64bit windows on netburst cores?  unbaribly slow it is, turtles stampeeding thru peanut butter it reminds me of......slower then even the worst semperon 64 it is......


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 27, 2008)

actually my socket A runs far hotter than my 478 ...


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 27, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Like I said, unexpected amount of heat. Besides typing really annoying you don't read either it seems. Please type normally, I doubt many people will have a serious discussion with you otherwise. I from this point won't, until you bother to type normally.



then talk to me do not, my feelings it will not hurt, the darkside i avoid, darth banjoman you are.


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 27, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> actually my socket A runs far hotter than my 478 ...



depends on cooling and core revision this does, amd retail cooling form back then epic fail was....EPIC!!!

a preshot i had, retail intel cooling i used, 90c temps it would reach, my palimino those temps never have reached, even on epic fail retail amd coolers.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 27, 2008)

MagnusEgallo said:


> depends on cooling and core revision this does, amd retail cooling form back then epic fail was....EPIC!!!
> 
> a preshot i had, retail intel cooling i used, 90c temps it would reach, my palimino those temps never have reached, even on epic fail retail amd coolers.



my intel stayed a 45 degrees all the time and never moved .. currently my athlon serer is warming my room @ 50-63 degrees depending on load

also my intel was very slow, like cold mollasses on a winter morn ...

For an entertaining conversation force-speak makes.


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 27, 2008)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> my intel stayed a 45 degrees all the time and never moved .. currently my athlon serer is warming my room @ 50-63 degrees depending on load
> 
> also my intel was very slow, like cold mollasses on a winter morn ...
> 
> *For an entertaining conversation force-speak makes.*



agree do i, 


as stated above, epic fail in those days was amd retail cooling, large sinks then intel did use, with high speed fans many times, and slow they where, have had a few netburst rigs have i, slower then mollasses on a winter morn where they all, 3.4gz with HT did not help......glad cheaply i got it, EPIC fail it was......(had ddr2 800 did it and slower it was then 754 3700+ clawhammer, sad was i.....made good $ selling a friend to i did, intel fanboi was he, payed more then i spent on it did he


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 27, 2008)

hey starwars fanboy type normal !
Netbrust is still good for what i do!
cant wait for my first native quad core from intel ^^ named bloomfield 

You Underestimate My Power!!


----------



## Azazel (Feb 27, 2008)

no need for it at this moment in time...2-4 cores are enough for this moment in time


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 27, 2008)

who gives a crap, for one the P4 was not a gaming chip, but for media encoding ect it creamed AMD, go back and look. For another who gives a rats ass about all this, we all know when the day is over we buy what are budget will allow.


And star wars boy, turn 13 and stop taking like a moron please, it got old after the first post


----------



## Tatty_One (Feb 27, 2008)

candle_86 said:


> who gives a crap, for one the P4 was not a gaming chip, but for media encoding ect it creamed AMD, go back and look. For another who gives a rats ass about all this, we all know when the day is over we buy what are budget will allow.
> 
> 
> And star wars boy, turn 13 and stop taking like a moron please, it got old after the first post



Agreed!.....tiresome it be


----------



## devilhood (Feb 27, 2008)

Tiresome? I'm new here and I already think he's a lunatic, his posts read like he just pasted some random disjointed part of his brain into babelfish in order to strum up some kind of conversation that eventually leads to empty space


----------



## erocker (Feb 27, 2008)

Since you are new here, I'll let you off with a warning.  Please read the rules.


----------



## devilhood (Feb 27, 2008)

I'm familiar with the rules and I apologize.
It is my opinion that I just felt he deserved the comment, because, it was overly frustrating to read through this thread due to the way he constructed his sentences.

P.


----------



## Morgoth (Feb 27, 2008)

may intel bewith you lol!


----------



## candle_86 (Feb 27, 2008)

amen my brother, amen.

Intel is path unto comptuing righteousness

Though sadly i use AMD, but only untill i save up more money, then its by by Satan hello God


----------



## zekrahminator (Feb 27, 2008)

Keep it cool guys.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Feb 28, 2008)

may intel bless your loins with bounteous hairs ...


----------



## tiys (Feb 28, 2008)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> The discussion is old, the way 2 (or more) cores are bundled is completely irrelevant. A Pentium D is as much a dual core as an X2 or C2D. Saying things like "duct tape" is just popular/fanboy talk. As you know C2Q still outperforms Phenom  X4, and since you say "duct taping" is a poor lazy design per se and poor design = poor performance you're obviously wrong somewhere.
> 
> AMD already said the cheaper and faster method Intel uses is the better one months ago. Making a native quad core didn't do AMD any good, they got behind and it didn't perform as planned.
> 
> ...



You provide a good point! 

As for my previous post, I read it somewhere, but I can't remember where it was from.


----------



## MagnusEgallo (Feb 28, 2008)

zekrahminator said:


> Keep it cool guys.



mmmm, buying me one when are you, hungery am I......


----------

