OMG Check out Intel's V8

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for pharomarc
pharomarc

276

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#1 pharomarc
Member since 2003 • 276 Posts

I can not freaken believe those numbers. :shock:

http://www.bootdaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=460&Item%20%20id=56%3E%20&task=view&id=460&Itemid=56

 

 

Avatar image for Staryoshi87
Staryoshi87

12760

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#2 Staryoshi87
Member since 2003 • 12760 Posts
In the words of Borat....Niiiiice.
Avatar image for LordEC911
LordEC911

9972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 LordEC911
Member since 2004 • 9972 Posts

Those are some sad numbers...
Terrible, terrible scaling performance-wise.

An E6600 @ 3.6ghz easily reaches 3k. http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1708300
A C2Q @ 3.33ghz reaches 5.1k. http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm06=1603480
Two quads at 3ghz should be close to 9k, but yet it is only at 6.5k. 

Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#4 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
it's called a memory bottleneck, and quite frankly, while the 5000x had no problem feeding four cores, it doesn't have enough to keep 8 cores happy.
Avatar image for LordEC911
LordEC911

9972

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 LordEC911
Member since 2004 • 9972 Posts

it's called a memory bottleneck, and quite frankly, while the 5000x had no problem feeding four cores, it doesn't have enough to keep 8 cores happy.codezer0

Each actual die, 4 die in total, is only getting 333.3mhz of the FSB, correct?
No wonder Intel is putting an IMC on the server Nehalems.

Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#6 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts

Actually the FSB IIRC is shared between the two cores... and I thought it was still 1066mhz still?

In that case, it'd be 1066/8 = only 133mhz FSB. 

Avatar image for r3351925
r3351925

1728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 r3351925
Member since 2006 • 1728 Posts
wow, but that is far from now to be released, and maybe the quad is enough.
Avatar image for r3351925
r3351925

1728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 r3351925
Member since 2006 • 1728 Posts
imo intel should release qe6600 qe6300 etc :P
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#9 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts
wow, but that is far from now to be released, and maybe the quad is enough.r3351925
Except it's already out, with the Mac Pro. They now have a configuration for 8-core with twin 3.0GHz xeons like this.
Avatar image for r3351925
r3351925

1728

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 r3351925
Member since 2006 • 1728 Posts
 use for us gamers i mean who's gonna game on mac???
Avatar image for codezer0
codezer0

15898

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 44

User Lists: 0

#11 codezer0
Member since 2004 • 15898 Posts

use for us gamers i mean who's gonna game on mac???r3351925
You can get an X1900 XT on a Mac currently.

Not to mention, the kind of person buying an 8-way system like this is likely going to be doing some hardcore multithreaded apps, like rendering HD video.