• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

IDF Coverage - Day 1

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
2FA
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
58,246
Intel Developer Forum Fall 2006 - Day One - The Intel Developer Forum is well underway and as expected, Intel has made new announcements related to their soon to be released quad-core Kentsfield chip, 45nm wafer production, and even showed off an 80-core wafer prototype.

Kentsfield will be a quad-core chip that’s essentially two Conroe chips put together, and will first be released in the retail market some time in November of this year. The first Kentsfield chip will be called the Pentium Core 2 Extreme QX6700 and then will be followed by the Pentium Core 2 Quad mainstream CPU in the first part of 2007. Will Kentsfield really perform up to 70% faster than Conroe like Intel says? We can’t say yet for sure but will do our best to sit down with a Kentsfield system in the next few days and find out for ourselves.
Click to expand...
 
80 core prototype , wow. :eek:

I hope the general public get to see it and not just the servers.
 
80 core is just a gimick imo. They hardly have the bandwidth for 4 cores let alone 80. Its nice to know that Intel is commited to 45nm process though for 2H'07.
 
45nm.......I smell some serious O/C potential out of that one baby!

Personally I cannot wait to see what happens. Maybe if the CPU's hit shelves as early as this Winter, we might actually start seeing some game optimizations for multi-core environments sooner than later.
 
DemonDiablo said:
80 core is just a gimick imo. They hardly have the bandwidth for 4 cores let alone 80. Its nice to know that Intel is commited to 45nm process though for 2H'07.
Click to expand...

LOL... who says they will be on a FSB in 5 years? Or 2 years for that matter. :D
 
Poncho said:
LOL... who says they will be on a FSB in 5 years? Or 2 years for that matter. :D
Click to expand...

Yup that comment was very funny indeed "lol". Anyways, I havent seen much reason to believe otherwise. I've seen more reason to believe that Intel will be happily plugging away with a dated fsb rather than make something new and innovative.

Even still I can still think up of a handful of issues that you would have with an 80 core cpu if it were released today. And no im not to optimistic about the pace of technology given the snails pace that its going at currently right now.
 
DemonDiablo said:
I've seen more reason to believe that Intel will be happily plugging away with a dated fsb rather than make something new and innovative.
Click to expand...


Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. Intel is never gonna go away from FSB... nope. CSI is just smoke and mirrors. AMD rulez!!@!!!!!
 
Poncho said:
Whatever helps you sleep at night buddy. Intel is never gonna go away from FSB... nope. CSI is just smoke and mirrors. AMD rulez!!@!!!!!
Click to expand...

I really dont see where all of your hostility is coming from? Honestly I made a postive and a negative comment about what I saw and you just completely turned a blind eye to my positive comment and went straight to the, "oh he must be an amd !!!!!!!" negative comment.

Im sure Intel will move onto something else sooner or later, later more than likely, but the question still remains. Will that new arc. give the bandwidth needed for 80 cores? Will this new arc. be even remotely price effective? What about thermal characteristics of having 80 cores?

I've brought up nothing but geniune concerns here and all you keep on doing is bringing up these half assed flames. Try discussing this new technology without flaming in your next response? KKTHANKS.
 
DemonDiablo said:
Try discussing this new technology without flaming in your next response? KKTHANKS.
Click to expand...


If you look at what I said... Intel will be off of the FSB within the next 5 years. There was no "flame" in there... I was simply stating fact. Now... you decided to dismiss this. Fine... sorry if I don't respond well to being dismissed. You want to take offense to what I said... fine by me. Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

As for 80 cores having the bandwidth... who knows. I was more responding to your comment about there not being enough bandwidth for 4 cores in upcoming years.
 
DemonDiablo said:
I've seen more reason to believe that Intel will be happily plugging away with a dated fsb rather than make something new and innovative.
Click to expand...

Oh, one more thing.... you come here making idiotic comments like this and don't expect to ruffle feathers? Come on man... this right here is flame bait and you knew that. Quit with the "oh, poor little me getting picked on" bs routine. :rolleyes:
 
Poncho said:
If you look at what I said... Intel will be off of the FSB within the next 5 years. There was no "flame" in there... I was simply stating fact. Now... you decided to dismiss this. Fine... sorry if I don't respond well to being dismissed. You want to take offense to what I said... fine by me. Doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

As for 80 cores having the bandwidth... who knows. I was more responding to your comment about there not being enough bandwidth for 4 cores in upcoming years.
Click to expand...

It looks like you misread what I wrote then. Im talking about the here and now, not in upcoming years. In upcoming years I sure do hope Intel will have the bandwidth for 4 cores.

And I didnt dismiss anything you said, you on the other hand have and still are.

But saying that its impossible to know what we will have in 5 yrs is quite the double edged sword in this industry. As time and time again we have seen company x says they will have so and so in whatever number of years and they never end up coming through on these goals for one reason or another. Thats primarily why I called it a "gimick". Could Intel make an 80 core cpu in 5 yrs, lets go ahead and say sure! But will they find it a profitable goal? Will there actually be a strong market for it? I dunno only time will tell how Intel, AMD, and Mac/Microsoft push this whole multicore revolution. But something tells me Intel isnt going to see much reason to have an 80 core cpu out on the market in 5 yrs aka gimick.
 
actually... if you look at what that 80 core CPU is targeted at it's not a gimmick. Are they saying that 80 core CPUs will be in the desktop? Not at all. If/when it comes out it'll be targeted at very specific processes and uses... much like Itanium. Itanium, for all it's perceived faults, is very good at what it's designed for... that's just a very specialized market.
 
Poncho said:
Oh, one more thing.... you come here making idiotic comments like this and don't expect to ruffle feathers? Come on man... this right here is flame bait and you knew that. Quit with the "oh, poor little me getting picked on" bs routine. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Am I wrong in saying that? Seriously you are taking all of this way to personal, its almost impossible to talk to you about Intel related topics without you going all cock-eyed at the slightest sign of saying that Intel is anything but short of perfect.

How long has Intel been on this fsb thing again? How long do Intel fans and pc enthusists have to wait again untill they move along unto something new and better? Over the years Intel has clearly opted to just go ahead and tweak up the fsb to increase its bandwidth potential rather than, guess this, make something new and innovative.

Theres no flame there, just plain and simple fact. Get at me when Intel has something new out and drop this whole, "hes one of those amd guys" im a "nobody guy". If you sense im being hostile to you well guess why that is?
 
Poncho said:
actually... if you look at what that 80 core CPU is targeted at it's not a gimmick. Are they saying that 80 core CPUs will be in the desktop? Not at all. If/when it comes out it'll be targeted at very specific processes and uses... much like Itanium. Itanium, for all it's perceived faults, is very good at what it's designed for... that's just a very specialized market.
Click to expand...

Thinking in the train of thought of Itanium then yea I could see maybe how they could be alittle more motivated to make this. I was thinking in the lines of those very powerful super computers you know? Why have a server farm of pc's when you could just make that one pc with 80 cores? Still will Intel have that drive to push this to market in 5 years?
 
DemonDiablo said:
Over the years Intel has clearly opted to just go ahead and tweak up the fsb to increase its bandwidth potential rather than, guess this, make something new and innovative.
Click to expand...


The simple fact is that outside of the server market, where I will agree that FSB is a drawback, but in the desktop and mobile market FSB is fine at the present. Remember... Conroe is kicking the competitions ass and it's still on a FSB. With multi core designs you will see limitations of the FSB... which is why that is going the way of the Dodo.

And before you go and criticize intel for not being innovative... you might want to look up who actually designed that IMC that you are praising so much. It was Intel BTW in case you are too lazy to look it up. Look at who actually drives things to market.... DDR2, that was Intel. FBDIMMs... that was Intel as well. These are just recent things. History shows us a lot more.
 
DemonDiablo said:
Still will Intel have that drive to push this to market in 5 years?
Click to expand...

No clue... those decisions are made WAY above my pay grade. It's possible though if they put the effort into it. Also... in server land you don't have the same constraints that you do with desktop and mobile so there is the potential for a lot more innovation. Now... whether or not this potential is used is another discussion. :D
 
Tried to download the streaming vid but it didn't work , weird?
 
DemonDiablo said:
How long has Intel been on this fsb thing again? How long do Intel fans and pc enthusists have to wait again untill they move along unto something new and better?
Click to expand...

hehe, about 3 or 4 months ago....
 
DemonDiablo said:
How long has Intel been on this fsb thing again? How long do Intel fans and pc enthusists have to wait again untill they move along unto something new and better? Over the years Intel has clearly opted to just go ahead and tweak up the fsb to increase its bandwidth potential rather than, guess this, make something new and innovative.
Click to expand...

Wah? Are you serious? I agree, AMD has been quite innovative the last few years but Intel has been innovating for decades and is way way more innovative then AMD right now. I don't think it's even close.

And Intel's CSI has been known for a while, so your guess of later rather then sooner should be sooner rather then later.

Got to side with Poncho on this one, you've posted flamebait on almost each post, if not all of them.

80 core is just a gimick imo. They hardly have the bandwidth for 4 cores let alone 80. Its nice to know that Intel is commited to 45nm process though for 2H'07.
Click to expand...
I think it's safe to say they have plenty of bandwidth for four cores. It's above that when it becomes a problem I believe.

How long has Intel been on this fsb thing again? How long do Intel fans and pc enthusists have to wait again untill they move along unto something new and better? Over the years Intel has clearly opted to just go ahead and tweak up the fsb to increase its bandwidth potential rather than, guess this, make something new and innovative.

There's no flame there, just plain and simple fact."
Click to expand...
Most of that quote is fact, but hte last part is flamebait. But the fact of the matter is, how often is the bus saturated? You talk above about consumer here and now, but then bring this up which doesn't really affect consumer hardware or applications. Please show me an article review clearly showing how the FSB arch is holding back the quad-core intel processors. Or are you guessing/re-spewing stuff you've heard?
 
deeznuts said:
EDIT: By the way, did anyone notice (I'm not sure if it was listed in the ocp article) that Intel had a kentsfield running at 3.73GHz for the alan wake demo? That's crazy.
Click to expand...

I noticed, I would guess maybe 2.66 GHz is the stock speed of that CPU?, so that would mean a 1.07 GHz overclock, WOW.
 
Yup, on a quad-core. Not sure if it was air, water or something else but the fact they had it running there stable before release is quite an achievement.

That Alan Wake game looks damn interesting with the number of threads it has.
 
My boss asked me this question a while ago, but there is nothing I have found so far that confirms or denies it (and excuse me if it is obvious and I am just not getting it):

Will the new Kentsfield quad-core procs work with the current P965 chipset?
 
electech98 said:
My boss asked me this question a while ago, but there is nothing I have found so far that confirms or denies it (and excuse me if it is obvious and I am just not getting it):

Will the new Kentsfield quad-core procs work with the current P965 chipset?
Click to expand...

It will work with the chipset yes... though that doesn't mean that it will work with a 965 board. It should work, it can work.... doesn't mean it will though. :D Best bet is to look over on XS forums and see what they've tested quad core with. That's about the only way to KNOW for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top