Intel to show off it's Quad design

[Daniel ~]

Written by Daniel
Monday, 25 September 2006
Intel puts four on the floor
By Tom Krazit
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: September 25, 2006, 4:00 AM PDT


Intel's planning its own version of "Quadrophenia" for this week's Intel Developer Forum, except without The Who or any tough, young mods facing off against angry rockers.

Instead of a rock opera, Intel will shed more light on its plans for quad-core processors, company representatives and analysts said. It has already revealed the code names for the server and desktop versions of those chips: Clovertown and Kentsfield. Those models will be constructed by combining Intel's two newest dual-core processors in those categories in a multichip package.
What's new:....

Front page

[keithwalton]

Only a few weeks to go now! Even though its not been that long since the core 2 duo onslaught, the core 2 quad is nigh

[aghastpumpkin]

We've already seen the results of quad kentsfield cores in a custom pc article.
It blew everything away, and only two cores were overclocked.*

*Because it was being used on a current board.

[Aedan]

Question for you - how do you only overclock two cores on a quad core chip?

[MONKEYMAN]

I think the AMD equivalent has independant internal clock control for the 4 cores as part of its server power management, I assume the Intel is the same.

[keithwalton]

I would of said that it would have to be a multiplier unlocked chip.
Conroe's in EIST mode can run the primary core at full speed and idle the other core at 6x mult if required. I would assume then that kentsfield can do a similar thing and they raised the mult on the primary cores. It wouldnt of been via fsb as all 4 cores will share the same 1333mhz fsb. (as proven by merom wont be a bottleneck, as the merom runs two cores off a 667mhz fsb almost as quick as a conroe runs at 1066mhz clock for clock that is)

[aghastpumpkin]

Originally Posted by Áedán

Question for you - how do you only overclock two cores on a quad core chip?

The motherboard he was using was only programmed for overclocking dual cores.

[cadaveca]

Originally Posted by keithwalton

It wouldnt of been via fsb as all 4 cores will share the same 1333mhz fsb. (as proven by merom wont be a bottleneck, as the merom runs two cores off a 667mhz fsb almost as quick as a conroe runs at 1066mhz clock for clock that is)

Sry, Keith, but i don't see this as being true. Merom is ok, but once you start doing large HDD transfers and encoding duties, the FSB bottleneck is quite obvious. I mean really, it's slight, but it's there @ 1066mhz. The latency added as well from the HDD calls further increases this performance loss. I would really like to see these cpu's @ 1667FSB...that's where they belong, with DDR3. But DDR3 is not quite ready to be released in such large quantities that this core(and AMD's) really need, so we are stuck with DDR2, and a 1333mhz FSB max.