Kensfield ES is being tested

[dmens]

Originally posted by: n7
Finally you've seen the light!

Now go quit your job; they don't need you; cache is the answer to everything

the pathetic/funny thing is, so many amd fanboys really believe cache explosion is an intel gimmick instead of something that was carefully measured. but hey, what do you know, lol.

 

[imported_Questar]

Looks like they need to run their website off that Kentsfield system

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: sindows

Originally posted by: munky
Geez, why dont they just slap 2 gigs of cache on the thing and call it a day? :roll: Seems like their favorite solution to whatever and limitations the cpu and its platform might have - more cache.

Right, so I'm getting the feeling that you know better than some of the world's top engineers working for one of the world's largest companies. So, what woulld've been the better choice for Intel to take?

dude....chill....

What munky said does seem to be true, though it may be for other reasons. I'm sure someone around here is knowledgeable enough to tell us why cache sizes keep increasing. It could just be the evolution of the processor, or there could be a reason it has to keep increasing, or all of the above. I bet Viditor knows, ask him.

If we were all thinking like you, we'd be using non-integrated L2 cache thats barely faster than system memory.

 

[alex123]

I am the one who is ready to benefit from quad-core right now... All my computers are dualcore. My web crawlers would fully load as many cores as I throw at them.

And SQL Server licencing is per CPU, not per core... What a generous move from Microsoft. Greedy Oracle is charging per core.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: n7
Finally you've seen the light!

Now go quit your job; they don't need you; cache is the answer to everything

the pathetic/funny thing is, so many amd fanboys really believe cache explosion is an intel gimmick instead of something that was carefully measured. but hey, what do you know, lol.

It helps but by no means is the sole reason the conroe is dominating an architecture clock for clock against the AMD let alone the core duo chips with half the cache...

I think INtel raising cache levels is just a natural progression to work with other aspects of the architecture....the cost of the cache alone wouldn't really justify the added space it takes in die size or the minimal gains in real world apps it would have...

I mean how much gain was there going from 512 to 1mb for Intel??? Not much.....more noticeable from 256 to 512....Then came 2mb versus 1mb and it was minute as well....

 

[Munky]

Originally posted by: sindows

Originally posted by: munky
Geez, why dont they just slap 2 gigs of cache on the thing and call it a day? :roll: Seems like their favorite solution to whatever and limitations the cpu and its platform might have - more cache.

Right, so I'm getting the feeling that you know better than some of the world's top engineers working for one of the world's largest companies. So, what woulld've been the better choice for Intel to take?

I make a sarcastic comment and half the posters in the thread get upset...
Lighten up, man.

 

[n19htmare]

well the thing is that it didn't sound sarcastic. You sounded very serious in your post. It's clear when not a single person caught your sarcasm without you having to tell us that you were being sarcastic.

 

[Keysplayr]

XS is probably being hammered to a pulp. I can't get a page displayed from there.

 

[Dubb]

I was reading that last night...what's impressive is the kentsfield at 2.8 beats a dual 3 GHz woodcrest in cinebench. (thats 4 cores vs 4 cores for the slow crowd)...theories as to why?

I need to see if one of those XS guys will sell me a pair of clovertons. then I can skip woodcrest altogether.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: munky

Originally posted by: sindows

Originally posted by: munky
Geez, why dont they just slap 2 gigs of cache on the thing and call it a day? :roll: Seems like their favorite solution to whatever and limitations the cpu and its platform might have - more cache.

Right, so I'm getting the feeling that you know better than some of the world's top engineers working for one of the world's largest companies. So, what woulld've been the better choice for Intel to take?

I make a sarcastic comment and half the posters in the thread get upset...
Lighten up, man.

fixing...

Originally posted by: munky
Geez, why dont they just slap 2 gigs of cache on the thing and call it a day? Seems like their favorite solution to whatever and limitations the cpu and its platform might have - more cache.

That's sarcasm, the rolling of the eyes throws you off.

 

[Furen]

If I had to venture a guess I'd say lower latency, higher clock speed memory. Woodcrest was running FB dimms (maybe even 533MHz FBs, I dont remember).

 

[BrownTown]

yeah, FBDIMMS are good for programs that need large amounts of RAM, not for programs that want low latentcy RAM. Didn't really think rendering wanted low latentcy though, so maybe its something else, but the memmory is still likely the reason.

 

[imported_Questar]

They got it up to 3.2Ghz today, from stock at 2.4.

Cinebench at 12 sec flat.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
yeah, FBDIMMS are good for programs that need large amounts of RAM, not for programs that want low latentcy RAM. Didn't really think rendering wanted low latentcy though, so maybe its something else, but the memmory is still likely the reason.

FBD also has an advantage in that it can read and write simultaneously, hence MUCH greater throughput.

 

[theteamaqua]

i heard this coolaler spend about $1500 USD to buy kentsfield, its like some big number in china or taiwan. Not to mention its an ES chip. The production units should be much better in terms of OCing, stability

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: theteamaqua
i heard this coolaler spend about $1500 USD to buy kentsfield, its like some big number in china or taiwan. Not to mention its an ES chip. The production units should be much better in terms of OCing, stability

i am of the opinion he is associated with intel (works for ?) cuz he get alot of enginnering samples and stuff. also if $1500 is all it costs to get a confedential intel engineering sample then woot.

 

[classy]

Its so awesome. One small question though, when can I bleeping buy it? All these awesome cpus, but here is the truth. Intel is laying off 16,000 people and having a fire sale on most of their businesses. But yet we keep seeing all these "reviews" of stuff you can't buy. No offense at all, but this is becoming a joke, a total laughable joke.

 

[raz3000]

Originally posted by: classy
Its so awesome. One small question though, when can I bleeping buy it? All these awesome cpus, but here is the truth. Intel is laying off 16,000 people and having a fire sale on most of their businesses. But yet we keep seeing all these "reviews" of stuff you can't buy. No offense at all, but this is becoming a joke, a total laughable joke.

I would share your sentiment IF Intel had not kept up with their release schedule. It is not Intel's fault that rogue individuals are obtaining confidential hardware so far in advance for unauthorized testing, and releasing the info to the public. This is purely a case of the pre-release product's own strengths generating the hype. not Intel's marketing. It would be foolish for Intel to detail Kentsfield on the eve of Conroe's launch.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Kentsfield should be available in Q1 2007. I don't mind all the previews given the fact that Intel seems to be giving launch dates for their products and appears to be on schedule to meet them. None of this stuff is paper-launching.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

any prediction on cost. would it like coist 600 cuz it has 2 300 cpus in it (like the X2s did) or will it charge a premium for bieng quad core.

 

[Lord Banshee]

it should be expensive, probaly 175% the price of same GHz rated of the Conroe chip. But maybe even more. Intel is killing itself with all these cheap chips they have to start making money again, have you seen their stocks lately?

 

[imported_Questar]

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
it should be expensive, probaly 175% the price of same GHz rated of the Conroe chip. But maybe even more. Intel is killing itself with all these cheap chips they have to start making money again, have you seen their stocks lately?

Yes, I have seen the price of Intel stock lately. It's been a nice few weeks. And a nice few years. And a nice few decades.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Questar

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
it should be expensive, probaly 175% the price of same GHz rated of the Conroe chip. But maybe even more. Intel is killing itself with all these cheap chips they have to start making money again, have you seen their stocks lately?

Yes, I have seen the price of Intel stock lately. It's been a nice few weeks. And a nice few years. And a nice few decades.

Uhh... definitely not a nice few years. If you bought 3 years ago you paid $33 a share, which is oh... TWICE what it's worth now... lol... I'm an Intel shareholder and want to see the rosy side of the picture too, but that comment is a bit ridiculous....

 

[BrownTown]

last I saw it was gonna come in at 1200$, it will certinally be no less than a thousand since thats what the dual core XE costs.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Questar

Originally posted by: Lord Banshee
it should be expensive, probaly 175% the price of same GHz rated of the Conroe chip. But maybe even more. Intel is killing itself with all these cheap chips they have to start making money again, have you seen their stocks lately?

Yes, I have seen the price of Intel stock lately. It's been a nice few weeks. And a nice few years. And a nice few decades.

Uhh... definitely not a nice few years. If you bought 3 years ago you paid $33 a share, which is oh... TWICE what it's worth now... lol... I'm an Intel shareholder and want to see the rosy side of the picture too, but that comment is a bit ridiculous....

QFT...

Obviously hasn't paid attention to even the last 2 quarters...a few years ago you could swap AMD and intel position and price right now...AMD is currently the higher price stock


http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AMD&d=t

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC

Intel is only 2 points above its 52 week low....and that occurred on June 12th

Edit:...AMD has been coming down as well...speculations is investors dont like the fear of a price war...dilutes profits...plus rumor on the street is INtel is willing to tank the next few quarters is a brash attempt to regain lost marketshare////

i would buy Intel stock now cause I think it will go up...i think AMD is going to go to 20 and INTC will overtake them in stock price my 2Q 07