Tuesday, January 9th 2007

Intel Responds to AMD’s Quad FX


With AMD's Quad FX processors recently launched with the ability to run a pair of dual-core CPUs, Intel has unveiled its next step to strengthen its hold on the market. At CES 2007, the silicon giant announced a proof-of-concept PC designed to counter AMD's 4x4 systems, named the V8. The system contains a pair of quad-core processors running at 2.4GHz using a 1066MHz system bus - when paired with an NVIDIA 8800GTX it manages to score 6089 on the 3Dmark06 CPU benchmark. However, it isn't all good news for Intel fans. The V8 system requires FB-DIMMs and only works with a single GPU at present, whilst Quad FX systems can use standard unbuffered memory along with multiple GPUs. If Intel doesn't manage to solve the problem with multi GPU support soon this may give AMD time to release 8x8 systems, which wouldn't be part of Intel's plan.
Source: DailyTech
Add your own comment

59 Comments on Intel Responds to AMD’s Quad FX

#1
EviLZeD
damn that is crazy 8 cores :O
Posted on Reply
#2
xylomn
and the cores war goes on

whats next a quad of quad core cpu's with quad pci-e lol
Posted on Reply
#3
RickyG512
THAT IS A RUBBISH 3D MARK O6 SCORE, 8 conroe cores and a 8800GTX and only 6000 points, my system can do better than that, unless that is cpu score on 3dmark06
Posted on Reply
#4
Track
I think u mean 16,000 not 6,000.
Posted on Reply
#5
xylomn
read the dailytech article the 6089 score is the CPU score not a full 3d mark score
Posted on Reply
#6
MTL
This is sort of a non-news story because I think that all the internet news outlets have this one completely wrong. Either that or Intel's press team is trying to pull a fast one on us.

Basically what you see above is a what amounts to a workstation platform that is not even remotely targeted towards gamers. Why would anyone even THINK this is targeted towards gamers other than "because Intel said so"? Why do I say this? Its simple:
- It uses Xeon Processors
- It uses FB-DIMMs
- It only has one graphics card slot.

All of these things point to a workstation and not a gaming rig "proof of concept". If people think about it in these terms, why didn't they classify the first dual processor, dual core Opteron workstation as the first proof of concept quad core gaming rig? Hmmm?

All Intel did here was show the logical course for their development of a 2P workstation and pass it off as a "proof of concept" gaming rig.
Posted on Reply
#7
Jimmy 2004
xylomnread the dailytech article the 6089 score is the CPU score not a full 3d mark score
Sorry about that - I've changed the article to say CPU score.
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
MTLIf people think about it in these terms, why didn't they classify the first dual processor, dual core Opteron workstation as the first proof of concept quad core gaming rig? Hmmm?
Actually, that is exactly what AMD did. The first 4x4 proof of concept they showed was using Opteron processors, a workstation board, and ECC DDR memory. Of cource it evolved into something much more targetted at home use once it was released...
Posted on Reply
#9
Urlyin
I still do pencil mods
MTLThis is sort of a non-news story because I think that all the internet news outlets have this one completely wrong. Either that or Intel's press team is trying to pull a fast one on us.

Basically what you see above is a what amounts to a workstation platform that is not even remotely targeted towards gamers. Why would anyone even THINK this is targeted towards gamers other than "because Intel said so"? Why do I say this? Its simple:
- It uses Xeon Processors
- It uses FB-DIMMs
- It only has one graphics card slot.

All of these things point to a workstation and not a gaming rig "proof of concept". If people think about it in these terms, why didn't they classify the first dual processor, dual core Opteron workstation as the first proof of concept quad core gaming rig? Hmmm?

All Intel did here was show the logical course for their development of a 2P workstation and pass it off as a "proof of concept" gaming rig.
not sure I agree that it's a non news story... what is not interesting to you, maybe for someone else... being technology for a workstation platform now could possibly be gamers tomorrow ...
Posted on Reply
#10
Namslas90
CPU score of 6089!! Devide that by 2ea Quad cores and you get
6089/8 = 761. Wow thats a "good" CPU score? Don't see it!! That's more af an average score, nothing special there.
Posted on Reply
#11
ktr
EviLZeDdamn that is crazy 8 cores :O
it has been done...and all in one cpu. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#12
Jimmy 2004
Namslas90CPU score of 6089!! Devide that by 2ea Quad cores and you get
6089/8 = 761. Wow thats a "good" CPU score? Don't see it!! That's more af an average score, nothing special there.
Remember - the whole point of 8 cores is what they can do put together, not indivual performace. Single core CPUs tend to out perform a dual core CPU unless it is using an application specifically designed to take advantage of multiple cores.
Posted on Reply
#13
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Namslas90CPU score of 6089!! Devide that by 2ea Quad cores and you get
6089/8 = 761. Wow thats a "good" CPU score? Don't see it!! That's more af an average score, nothing special there.
6089 is a good CPU score, the score per core isn't good, but the overall score, which is the important one, is. Especially when it is only clocked at 2.4GHz. A Core 2 Duo at 2.4GHz only scores about 2000 points. Of course when you start to add cores, you also start to add overhead. The more complex you make something the less efficient it will be, but in the end you usually end up with something that can do a heck of a lot more work.
Posted on Reply
#14
Deleted member 3
Intel is basically making a great point here. They're doing the same as AMD did. AMD relabeled 2 Opterons and called it 4x4, Intel says "hey games, let's all buy Xeons now!" and calls it V8.

Also, there are plenty of i5000 boards with dual PEG slots, my own board has 2 as well (one at x4, though nothing is preventing me from cutting open my x8 slot and using that)


@Ricky
read the article again, it's a CPU score, not a complete score.
Posted on Reply
#15
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
DanTheBanjoman@Ricky
read the article again, it's a CPU score, not a complete score.
In Ricky's defence, it was orignally posted on TPU as the 3Dmark06 score, not the CPU score.
Posted on Reply
#16
Deleted member 3
newtekie1In Ricky's defence, it was orignally posted on TPU as the 3Dmark06 score, not the CPU score.
Let's lynch Jimmy then :)
Posted on Reply
#17
Jimmy 2004
DanTheBanjomanLet's lynch Jimmy then :)
At least get permission from W1zz before you do...

Maybe TPU should recruit a mafia to do its dirty work?
Posted on Reply
#18
Namslas90
newtekie16089 is a good CPU score, the score per core isn't good, but the overall score, which is the important one, is. Especially when it is only clocked at 2.4GHz. A Core 2 Duo at 2.4GHz only scores about 2000 points. Of course when you start to add cores, you also start to add overhead. The more complex you make something the less efficient it will be, but in the end you usually end up with something that can do a heck of a lot more work.
It's only a good score for now!

AMD's are right around the corner, everyone will be suprised!!
Posted on Reply
#19
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Namslas90It's only a good score for now!

AMD's are right around the corner, everyone will be suprised!!
AMD isn't going to have anything that can rival the Core architecture for at least 6 months, probably longer.
Posted on Reply
#20
Deleted member 3
Jimmy 2004At least get permission from W1zz before you do...

Maybe TPU should recruit a mafia to do its dirty work?
What makes you think we don't already have one?
Posted on Reply
#21
Lazzer408
This should be titled "AMD's responce to Core2duo". They need that much to keep up. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#22
Jimmy 2004
DanTheBanjomanWhat makes you think we don't already have one?
Well if you guys come at night make sure to knock ok? I don't want any surprises.
Posted on Reply
#23
Steevo
Did I hear a beating order?
Posted on Reply
#25
RickyG512
the qx6700 gets just over 4000 so this should really get about 8000
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 24th, 2024 23:46 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts