Intel Responds to AMD’s Quad FX

Jimmy 2004 · Jan 9, 2007

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.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

EviLZeD · Jan 9, 2007

damn that is crazy 8 cores :O

xylomn · Jan 9, 2007

and the cores war goes on

whats next a quad of quad core cpu's with quad pci-e lol

RickyG512 · Jan 9, 2007

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

Track · Jan 9, 2007

I think u mean 16,000 not 6,000.

xylomn · Jan 9, 2007

read the dailytech article the 6089 score is the CPU score not a full 3d mark score

MTL · Jan 9, 2007

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.

Jimmy 2004 · Jan 9, 2007

xylomn said:
read 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.

newtekie1 · Jan 9, 2007

MTL said:
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?

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...

Urlyin · Jan 9, 2007

MTL said:
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.

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 ...

Namslas90 · Jan 9, 2007

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.

ktr · Jan 9, 2007

EviLZeD said:
damn that is crazy 8 cores :O

it has been done...and all in one cpu. :toast:

Jimmy 2004 · Jan 9, 2007

Namslas90 said:
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.

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.

newtekie1 · Jan 9, 2007

Namslas90 said:
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.

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.

Deleted member 3 · Jan 9, 2007

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.

newtekie1 · Jan 9, 2007

DanTheBanjoman said:
@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.

Deleted member 3 · Jan 9, 2007

newtekie1 said:
In Ricky's defence, it was orignally posted on TPU as the 3Dmark06 score, not the CPU score.

Let's lynch Jimmy then

Jimmy 2004 · Jan 9, 2007

DanTheBanjoman said:
Let's lynch Jimmy then

At least get permission from W1zz before you do...

Maybe TPU should recruit a mafia to do its dirty work?

Namslas90 · Jan 9, 2007

newtekie1 said:
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.

It's only a good score for now!

AMD's are right around the corner, everyone will be suprised!!

newtekie1 · Jan 9, 2007

Namslas90 said:
It'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.

Deleted member 3 · Jan 9, 2007

Jimmy 2004 said:
At 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?

Lazzer408 · Jan 9, 2007

This should be titled "AMD's responce to Core2duo". They need that much to keep up. :rolleyes:

Jimmy 2004 · Jan 9, 2007

DanTheBanjoman said:
What 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.

Steevo · Jan 9, 2007

Did I hear a beating order?

Deleted member 3 · Jan 9, 2007

Steevo said:
Did I hear a beating order?

All in due time...

System Name	Jimmy 2004's PC
Processor	S754 AMD Athlon64 3200+ @ 2640MHz
Motherboard	ASUS K8N
Cooling	AC Freezer 64 Pro + Zalman VF1000 + 5x120mm Antec TriCool Case Fans
Memory	1GB Kingston PC3200 (2x512MB)
Video Card(s)	Saphire 256MB X800 GTO @ 450MHz/560MHz (Core/Memory)
Storage	500GB Western Digital SATA II + 80GB Maxtor DiamondMax SATA
Display(s)	Digimate 17" TFT (1280x1024)
Case	Antec P182
Audio Device(s)	Audigy 4 + Creative Inspire T7900 7.1 Speakers
Power Supply	Corsair HX520W
Software	Windows XP Home

System Name	Ez - 1st custom
Processor	AMD Phenom x3 8450
Motherboard	Asus m3a78-em
Cooling	thermaltake mini typhoon :D aerogate fan controller
Memory	6gb corsair xms 2 800mhz ddr2
Video Card(s)	xpertvision HD 4850 1GB ddr3 sonic 685/1000
Storage	Corsair 128gb SSD, 2x 250GB maxtor 16mb cache raid 0, 500gb 32mb cache storage
Display(s)	AMD surround view 2x e172fp 17" 1x dell e248wfp 24"
Case	coolermaster elite 330
Audio Device(s)	creative audigy se
Power Supply	hiper type r 580watt
Software	Windows 7 x64

Processor	AMD Ryzen 5900X
Motherboard	MSI MAG B550M Mortar WiFi
Cooling	Corsair H100i RGB Platinum SE 240mm
Memory	32GB Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB 3600MHz
Video Card(s)	Sapphire Vega 64 8GB
Storage	Sabrent Rocket 4.0 1TB / ADATA SX8200 Pro 1TB / Crucial MX500 1TB
Display(s)	Dell U2715
Case	Corsair 280X
Power Supply	Corsair RM850x
Mouse	Razer DeathAdder Chroma
Keyboard	Ducky One2 Horizon
Software	Windows 10 Professional
Benchmark Scores	Cinemark r23 Multicore: 22280

Processor	E6600 @ 3.4ghz 60 degree load stock HSF 1.5v
Motherboard	P5B vanilla 0806
Cooling	All stock
Memory	2x 1GB geil @ DDR-2 850 4-5-5-12(7100 sis mem bench)
Video Card(s)	Powercolour X1900XT 512MB 681/792
Storage	c:250gb 16mb 7k2 d:320gb 16mb 7k2 both WD and Sata-II
Display(s)	Acer 19" 8ms widescreen 1440x900
Case	Thermaltake skull
Audio Device(s)	X-Fi eXtreme music
Power Supply	Enermax 620 liberty
Software	xp pro sp2

Processor	Intel Pentium 4 (prescott) 3.0Ghz 1M L2 cache 800Mhz FSB w/HT
Motherboard	Asus P4GD1
Cooling	Zalman VF900, Zalman 7700, 1x AC 80nm
Memory	1024 MB DDR400 PC3200
Video Card(s)	X1900XT (512Mb) @ 745/1660
Storage	1x WD 80GB 8M cache 7200 RPM, 1x WD 250GB 8M cache 7200RPM
Display(s)	Viewsonic VA712 LCD 17"
Power Supply	500W
Software	Windows XP SP2 Gold Edition

Processor	AMD X2 3800+ @2.5Ghz
Motherboard	DFI Lanparty SLI DR Expert
Cooling	2X Zalman 120mm fans
Memory	2GB Corsair XMS4000
Video Card(s)	EVGA 7900GTO
Storage	250GB Samsung Spinpoint P-Series
Display(s)	Dell 1907FP / Viewsonic VX922
Case	Antec Sonata II
Audio Device(s)	Ac'97
Power Supply	OCZ GameXstream 700W
Software	Windows XP

Processor	Intel Core i7 10850K@5.2GHz
Motherboard	AsRock Z470 Taichi
Cooling	Corsair H115i Pro w/ Noctua NF-A14 Fans
Memory	32GB DDR4-3600
Video Card(s)	RTX 2070 Super
Storage	500GB SX8200 Pro + 8TB with 1TB SSD Cache
Display(s)	Acer Nitro VG280K 4K 28"
Case	Fractal Design Define S
Audio Device(s)	Onboard is good enough for me
Power Supply	eVGA SuperNOVA 1000w G3
Software	Windows 10 Pro x64

Processor	i7 2600k@4.6ghz
Motherboard	MSI z68ma-ed55
Cooling	Silentx Extreem 120mm
Memory	2x4gb XMS 7-8-7-20 1600
Video Card(s)	HD6870
Storage	2x128gb Kingston Hyper-X (Raid0), 2x750gb RE3 (RAID1), 2x750gb RE3 (RAID1)
Display(s)	Soyo 24", Gateway 22"
Case	Fractal Design Arc Mini 6x120mm fans.
Audio Device(s)	Onboard
Power Supply	Zalman 750w
Software	Windows 7

System Name	Compy 386
Processor	7800X3D
Motherboard	Asus
Cooling	Air for now.....
Memory	64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz
Video Card(s)	7900XTX 310 Merc
Storage	Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs, 24TB Enterprise drives
Display(s)	55" Samsung 4K HDR
Audio Device(s)	ATI HDMI
Mouse	Logitech MX518
Keyboard	Razer
Software	A lot.
Benchmark Scores	Its fast. Enough.

Intel Responds to AMD’s Quad FX

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Semi-Retired Folder

I still do pencil mods

New Member

New Member

Semi-Retired Folder

Semi-Retired Folder

New Member

New Member

Semi-Retired Folder

New Member