×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Fastest Processor You Can't Run

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the testing-untapped-potential dept.

236

auld_wyrm writes "Intel is trying to push the news of AMD's Barcelona launch out of the headlines with the release of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9770, a 3.20 GHz CPU that runs on a 1600 MHz front-side bus. It is the fastest consumer level processor that has come out, but don't plan on running it anytime soon. The ~$1200 price tag, and the lack of any motherboards that support a 1600MHz FSB will stop this unneeded answer to Barcelona from appearing in enthusiast's PCs for Christmas. Still, the benchmarks from this powerful CPU are something awesome to behold."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

236 comments

Just the things for Windows 7 (4, Funny)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413219)

Good thing technology is making big leaps as you are going to need this, a solid state 1 TB hard drive and around 20 gigs of RAM to make Windows 7 to run at even a Vista level!

Still Waiting (1)

jimmyhat3939 (931746) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413319)

I'm still waiting to hear Intel's response to AMD's latest SSE announcement, which to me sounds like a complete rewrite of the x86 instruction set.

Anyone know anything about this?

Re:Still Waiting (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413493)

There is no way they would fundamentally change the ISA. Backwards compatibility is hugely important, as Intel discovered with Itanium. It's probably just an expansion of SSE2.

Re:Still Waiting (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413565)

I may have misunderstood, but I thought that AMD just added 4 extra instructions to form SSE4a, if that is the case what will most likely happen is that AMD and intel will cross license the instructions, and in the future all of the instructions will be available on both lines of processor. Well, perhaps not all of them, but certainly the ones that are useful will.

More likely its just FUD to try and scare people away from the competition. From what I've read, the SSE4.1 isn't terribly useful either. Neither appears to be a must have on its own, and in both cases it appears that any performance benefit is going to be far out weighed by other factors in the processor.

Why must you people exaggerate! (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413461)

Good thing technology is making big leaps as you are going to need this, a solid state 1 TB hard drive and around 20 gigs of RAM to make Windows 7 to run at even a Vista level!

You know bloody well it'll take 24 GB of memory to actually run an office app!

It'll also demand a 4GB videocard with a GPU strong enough to process all SETI requests ever in about 20 minutes

Re:Just the things for Windows 7 (4, Funny)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413663)

Hmm, don't rush out and buy it yet. This processor will only barely scrape the minimum system requirements for Windows 7 lower middle home basic word-processing and emailing edition. I'd wait for a little while longer.

Re:Just the things for Windows 7 (4, Insightful)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414073)

Remember when there weren't any non-workstation dual core processors yet and MS was saying you'd need one for Longhorn/Vista?

Re:Just the things for Windows 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21414511)

So would the "Disagree" moderation be +1 or -1?

Re:Just the things for Windows 7 (1)

kc2keo (694222) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414783)

When Windows 7 is released I'm sure people will be throwing out good hardware that would otherwise be in a landfill. You can find me looking out for this hardware. I say this because I am putting bets that Windows 7 will have hefty system requirements just like Vista has. I've gotten some good hardware for free because of Vistas release. It also seems that the non-compliant vista hardware is sold much cheaper than it normally was.

Yes yes... I know what I just said is obvious and has been said a million times over.

Huh? (3, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413235)

How do you benchmark a processor when there are no motherboards that support it?

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

SteWhite (212909) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413267)

It's worse than that even - the processor doesn't exist yet either!

Intel had them overclock an existing Core 2 Quad Extreme to perform the "benchmarks".

Check out the article on Toms Hardware Guide:

http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Intel-QX9770-X48-X38-QX9650,review-29749.html [tomshardware.co.uk]

Re:Huh? (5, Informative)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413363)

According to the Anandtech review [anandtech.com] they gave them a real (though pre-production) CPU, and only had them overclock an existing motherboard - merely overclocking an existing processor wouldn't account for the massive differences in power usage.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413317)

by copy and pasting the benchmarks supplied by intel's presskit.

Re:Huh? (1, Informative)

HowIsMyDriving? (142335) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413329)

The board that the CPU was tested was either a pre-production model that Intel supplied for the tests, or was overclocked by the testers to run at the speed that the CPU FSB can support. Since no MBs officially support that FSB speed, I am guessing that Intel supplied the MB, but I have seen MBs run at at 1400 FSB even though it was not officially supported by the manufacturer.

Re:Huh? (2, Interesting)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414661)

How do you benchmark a processor when there are no motherboards that support it?

Simple, you test it on a motherboard that supports it. "But wait," you say, "the article said no motherboard does." Yeah, they often get it wrong, welcome to slashdot. While Intel does not have a chipset that officially supports 1600MHz, there are X35 boards out there from manufacturers such as Asus and Gigabyte that have bumped the FSB frequency anyway. Somehow, even under load, the platform is stable.

benchmarks (3, Insightful)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413263)

where are these benchmarks you speak of and why did they create this processor without a motherboard that is available for actual use?

Re:benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413349)

Any way you want to. In fact, I just benchmarked a homebrewed processor at 5ghz. Its made out of paper and isn't supported by any motherboard, but I swear the numbers are correct. For good measure, I'll say its consumer grade and call it a record.

Re:benchmarks (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414585)

Motherboards will catch up to the processor. Same reason computer games have graphics "abilities" that pretty much no one can see because it's too taxing on the system... eventually, you'll be able to run it.

Re:benchmarks (2, Insightful)

wilsonng (900790) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414855)

Well, if the speed limit is 65 mph, why do people make cars that can go 200 or 250 mph? why all the extra horsepower? If there are no speed limits on processor speed, I would expect the manufacturer to continually push the envelope. whether the 'rest' of us needs it is another question -- but there should be a good many who will need it and willing to pay a few extra hundred for it, I reckon. After all, why create computers with hundreds or thousands of processors running hundreds of teraflops?

tag this post as (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413273)

!overkill

tag this comment as (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413297)

st00pid

Re:tag this post as (4, Funny)

Trillan (597339) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413411)

Indeed. There is no "overkill"; there is only "open fire" and "I need to reload." ((Thanks to Schlock Mercenary.))

Re:tag this post as (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413575)

damn no mods points So I reply with this

30. A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go

shame on you, intel (1)

andreyvul (1176115) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413295)

still no integrated memory controller
shame on you, intel

Re:shame on you, intel (1)

Chlorus (1146335) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413613)

And why is this a problem? The integrated controller has apparently made little difference in actual benchmarks. I suppose next you'll post "shame on them for not having 'true' quad core", despite that not making any difference either? Besides, isn't Nehalem slated to have an integrated DDR3 controller?

Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (-1, Flamebait)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413307)

With such speeds, running Windows Vista should be a snap I guess. Booting operating systems like Windows 2000 would take less than 10 seconds.

On the other hand, I am happy for the USA. Why? Because the personal computer CPU space is one space the USA owns.

I wonder why no other country, even those technologically [more] advanced, have produced anything remotely comparable to Intel and AMD processors yet. Does anyone know?

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413525)

What would you say if I told you that AMD processors were made in Germany?

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (0, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413633)

I would ask you whether all AMD processors are made in Germany, and whether AMD is a German company. If the answers to all these questions is in the affirmative, then I am wrong...sorry!

If on the other hand AMD is [indeed] a US company and some of its processors are made in the USA, then I am reassured.

But then when it comes to the USA, all our electronics are foreign made. To make matters worse, our flagship Boeing 787 Dreamliner jet will be at least 61% foreign made. These are some of the facts that ashame me.

Welcome to 18th Century Economics (4, Insightful)

NEOtaku17 (679902) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413877)

Do you make your own shoes and clothes or do you go out and buy them from "other" people outside of your household? Do you milk your own cow in your backyard or do you buy your milk at the grocery store? My guess is that you do what you do best in exchange for money and trade it for things that other make more efficiently. That way the total amount of production is greater because you and others are specializing in what you make. For the same reason it would be stupid to make all your own goods inside your own household it would be stupid for a country to make all of its goods inside of its borders. Comparative advantage increases division of labor which increases total production(AKA you become more wealthy). Making everything yourself is a good way to make yourself extremely poor.

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (1)

Neuticle (255200) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413659)

He would say that silicon fabs are built all over the world; AMD has relatively few fabs and the flagship one is in Germany right now.

However, that does not make AMD a German company and that being said, Intel* is firmly based in the USA. I live a few minutes from Intel's testing & research fab in Oregon, and the Corporate Headquarters is in California (not too far from the AMD headquarters)

*they own the personal computer CPU world, AMD is a much smaller competitor.

That is what he might say.

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (1)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414537)

I was under the impression that the great things coming out of Intel lately have been from the Israeli R&D people.

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413717)

Because making plants that make processors is expensive. Return on investment in building up the production capability from scratch would suck when there is already an international economy that is capable of supplying even the more capital restricted countries with the processors they need.

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413773)

Why are all high end industrial robots built in japan or sweden? Why are all decent camera lenses built by japanese or german companies? Why are all sport cars worth mentioning built in continental europe?

High end technology isnt just something you start building, it requires loads of development, and the market niche is probably taken, which makes all that development cost an unsafe investment.

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (3, Interesting)

GuidoW (844172) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414025)

The Core line of processors is based on the Pentium M, which was developed in Isreal.

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (2, Insightful)

necro2607 (771790) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414337)

"I wonder why no other country, even those technologically [more] advanced, have produced anything remotely comparable to Intel and AMD processors yet."

Well, let's just say, in Soviet Russia, CPU processes you!

Re:Good news for Windows Vista and the USA (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414515)

ARM is british designed. SH4 is Japanese designed. Nobody else has produced anything remotely comparable to x86 because x86 sucks. There's a lot of smart people polishing that turd, but it's still a turd.

it's about time we had a (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413321)

F1RST P0ST in this topic

Reminds me of stuff (5, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413333)

Reminds me of all that stuff I read for years in Pop Science and Pop Mechanics -- ultra cool stuff you'll never lay your hands on. Well, this will be available, but probably not for 6 months. Meanwhile, I'm not about to upgrade my mobo for it anyway. I work in Photoshop on an Athlon 64, the cheapest one available about a year ago, and it's still no issue of speed, memory is the problem, having enough of it. Need mobos which can hold 16 GB of memory, not faster CPUs.

Re:Reminds me of stuff (4, Informative)

magarity (164372) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413859)

Need mobos which can hold 16 GB of memory, not faster CPUs
 
Then go buy one. NewEgg's motherboard search has 'max supported memory' as an option where there are 2 that support 16GB and 3 that support 32GB. And that's in the consumer grade motherboards. You've been able to get that kind of memory support in a server class motherboard, that really doesn't cost much more than a consumer one, for years and years now.

Re:Reminds me of stuff (1)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414191)

This reminds me of the AMD I just got - the mobo took 4 dimms up to 2G each, so a bog standard (Supermicro) board can run 8G ram. Had I been willing, any dual AMD board is capable of 16G, with DIMMs running about $140 each. The problem is that dual boards usually need EATX, which won't fit in mid towers, generally. Oh well, Dual core with 8G is still really nice.

Must be some boards (2, Informative)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413343)

Boxx has anounced machines using this chip so I'm guessing there are boards just the first run aren't available to the home builder.

Works on intel X38 chipsets. (4, Informative)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413345)

FTA:
"...The Intel X48 chipset is a refresh of the X38 chipset aimed at the high end desktop market. It will be the first chipset to support 1600 MHz FSB parts (though current boards do as well in some cases) and will have unlocked bus ratios for improved overclocking ability. So there really isn't much change from the X38 chipset -- and in fact most X38 motherboards aimed at the enthusiast will probably support 1600 MHz FSB processors anyway. For my testing I used the Asus P5E3 Deluxe motherboard based on the X38 chipset to run the QX9770 and it ran without an issue.... http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=484 [pcper.com]

Sounds like many existing Intel X38 chipset mainboards will work with the QX9770, and I'd bet Intel's DX38BT can run it, (but probably at FSB 1,333MHz) http://www.intel.com/products/motherboard/DX38BT/index.htm [intel.com]

Re:Works on intel X38 chipsets. (1)

Traa (158207) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414331)

I just put together a new box using the Asus P5E3 Deluxe. Funny thing is that I considered that motherboard to be a decent high-end board, not state-of-the-art. It's affordable, fully featured and apparently capable of the next gen chips.

Nothing dramatic, but surely the topic poster is incorrectly claiming that Intel is hyping a chip that can't be expected to work in the market.

tag: epeen (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413371)

This chip is pure E-peen for Intel, especially since nobody can fully take advantage of the ruttin' thing.

What everybody wants to know (0)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413391)

Does it run Linux?

Re:What everybody wants to know (5, Funny)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413473)

Yes. In fact, Linux on this CPU can run infinite loops in five seconds.

Re:What everybody wants to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21414177)

Absolutely. Thats when the watchdog timer starts barking.

Is it me (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413399)

Or is Intel moving away from any sort of street cred they only started getting back with the Core 2 by seemingly flogging the Mhz myth again?

Nerds know better and your typical "user" doesn't care. Make a quality chip and spending a shit ton on marketing buzzwords is unnecessary. Nerds will buy it and sell it on word of mouth. Done. Fire your marketing people.

Re:Is it me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21414109)

It's you. You're a cretin, looking for cheap /. karma.

A better architecture clocked faster is a win on both fronts.

Re:Is it me (1)

cnettel (836611) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414131)

If Anandtech didn't get a really bad chip, the power usage numbers are quite disappointing. On the other hand, for the same microarchitecture, there is no MHz myth. A quad-core Core 2 at 3.2 GHz will beat every other x86 CPU in existence. With a 1600 MHz FSB, there is even no reason to call it seriously unbalanced.

Is anybody using Barcelona yet? (4, Interesting)

coult (200316) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413455)

Outside of giant clusters, is anybody running Barcelona yet either? I have been unable to find any systems available for purchase. Word on the street is January before they are available in quantity to the general public.

Re:Is anybody using Barcelona yet? (1)

felix9x (562120) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413605)

You can get Barcelona systems from siliconmechanics. The big guys don't have the systems yet.

Re:Is anybody using Barcelona yet? (1)

coult (200316) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413743)

You can get Barcelona systems from siliconmechanics. The big guys don't have the systems yet.
Thanks for the tip! Just over $13K for a 64GB system with 16 cores...not bad.

old news (1)

crassico (1058002) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413503)

I've run 8x400 on my old P5W-DH/E6400 couple and it went fine. Today's quad must do it too on sweet new boards

Waiting (1)

CaptScarlet22 (585291) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413549)

Looks like I'll be waiting to buy my Mac Pro until later...

Re:Waiting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413675)

wow, i'm not the only one! i have been expecting the new mac pro since last week but not a peep from apple... i suspect they may wait until january to announce at the conference. :(

Getting it out of the way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413691)

In Soviet America, the processor runs you!

An overclocked Q6600 is faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413693)

And costs a damn lot less.

Re:An overclocked Q6600 is faster (1)

lordofwhee (1187719) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414243)

Yes, but, supposedly, it reduces power consumption, and has a larger L2 cache (unless I failed miserably at basic math).

So, basically, the Q6600 is still king of the quad-core world (at least until Phenom comes out, maybe).

What does 3GHz give me (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413701)

That 1GHz doesn't?

 

Obviously you don't multi-task (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413727)

Multi-tasking takes up all kinds of CPU time. However a multicore chip is even better suited for it.

Correct. (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414047)

I work on one task at a time.

I have a laptop with apparently a ... 1.6GHz CPU and it works just fine, so what does an additional 2GHz give me?

 

Re:Correct. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21414103)

the additional 1.6 GHZ, will allow CPU bound operations to complete in half the time - less than half the time in fact, as it appears to be slightly faster per clock than the previous model too.

But if that doesn't matter to you, then rather than show how special you are because you don't have CPU bound workloads, you could just STFU and NOT BUY IT.

Re:Correct. (2, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414251)

I work on one task at a time.
I have a laptop with apparently a ... 1.6GHz CPU and it works just fine, so what does an additional 2GHz give me?
Apparently nothing.

Re:Obviously you don't multi-task (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21414193)

Huh? Multitasking doesn't take much grunt. A 7 MHz Amiga can do it without any slowdown at all. And I have a 300 MHz Pentium II running a long, long pipeline of curl, awk, and a shitload of seds all the time, and it's almost totally I/O bound. CPU doesn't matter at all for multitasking.

It's all about the apps you're running, not how many there happen to be.

Re:Obviously you don't multi-task (1)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414267)

I usually run about 20 instances of IE and then I have Outlook, a few open email messages I'm writing, Windows Media Player. Ya, I need the grunt. Most of this is just a memory hog though.

Re:What does 3GHz give me (3, Funny)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413741)

an extra 2GHz?

Re:What does 3GHz give me (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413845)

You have no idea how tiring people who think they're funny are.

What does an extra 2 GHz give me?

 

Re:What does 3GHz give me (1)

colesw (951825) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413869)

It allows you to run programs that are poorly written because no one needs optimize the more GHz you get.

Re:What does 3GHz give me (4, Insightful)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414847)

Conversely, it allows developers to write programs that are easier to debug, faster to develop, and easier to add features to (that yes, take up more CPU cycles than an obfuscated, buggy "optimized" application).

Re:What does 3GHz give me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21413779)

If you're asking that question, then you're presumably not the target market for "Extreme" edition processors.

Fortunately both Intel and AMD have processors that probably do suit your needs.

Re:What does 3GHz give me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21414229)

Well, you can keep your 4-inch dick and I'll upgrade to the 12-inch model.

Re:What does 3GHz give me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21414741)

100+ FPS in any Valve Source Engine based games.

Is this different from an enthusiast overclock? (1)

Neuticle (255200) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413793)

I seem to recall several "enthusiast" sites bragging about over-clocking the stock Intel Core-2s to 3.2GHz on air cooling, even higher with water or other, but I'm not an over-clocking expert.

Can someone please explain how this is "better"? How big of an impact will the faster FSB have?
Will it allow you to run memory at insane speeds, and is there even RAM available that can handle those speeds?

Re:Is this different from an enthusiast overclock? (1)

jfinke (68409) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414097)

3.2GHz is a pretty minor overclock at this point. Most of Intel's line will hit that. When you get about 3.8, you are pushing it. I believe that there are people getting close to 3.8 on air cooling as well.

Unavailable? (2, Interesting)

owlstead (636356) | more than 5 years ago | (#21413853)

Of course it is unavailable. It will be available when it hits the $999 price tag. Or is Intels highest desktop price susceptible to inflation as well? In that case, lets hope that they don't do a 20% increase every 2-3 years. It seems technically we are now at the P4 GHz range again, but now with well performing and full featured CPU's. Maybe we should call this a green paper launch.

Incorrect, motherboards are available (2, Informative)

Fross (83754) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414167)

For instance The Asus Maximus Extreme [overclockers.co.uk], or Abit carries one too.

Re:Incorrect, motherboards are available (1)

nitio (825314) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414617)

Wow, that's the most stupid name I've ever heard since ABIT's Fatality motherboard. FFS, do we need names that might suggest rape or any kind of anal violation now?

bah (humbug) (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21414185)

behold... the fastest Intel processor to date , watch it melt next to a Power5 or Power6 from IBM..

I dont care (1)

EEPROMS (889169) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414439)

Some may cringe at that statement especially from a person who is also a hardware geek. The reality is Im more interested in portable solutions now than static over priced box's. I already have a three year old Dual Xeon media server (8TB Raid 5, 4GB ram) that does everything I want and I wont be updating any time soon. What I will be looking for are better portable solutions like the Fujitsu U1010 or a Asus 10" EEE (if that is ever released) even the Archos 705/605WiFi PMP (Portable Media Player). Yes I do play games but Im happy with my PS3 and I wont be updating that any time soon. These expensive and way over the top cpu's I feel are becoming more and more irrelevant for the average (even power user) consumer.

the bus is nice (1)

sentientbrendan (316150) | more than 5 years ago | (#21414533)

and would be great in combo with a fast harddrive. Also intel really needs to start using NUMA like AMD does. However, there doesn't seem to be much point to running a cpu with that high of a clock rate. All you do is chew up power and make your equipment hot with cycles that aren't going to bes used.

The core 2 duos are already pretty nice in terms of raw cpu speed, it is the rest of the system that could use a speedup.

Re:the bus is nice (1)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414667)

clearly you have never played a game on your PC, encoded a video, ran F@H, or anything else CPU intensive. The hard drive is only the bottle neck while loading. And it's a bottleneck that's going away; SSD's are becoming faster and faster very quickly. Once the HDD bottleneck is eliminated, I wonder what the next one will be? The user?

You're all missing the point... (5, Interesting)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414733)

Anandtech had a good insight about this release. I'll just quote it directly instead of trying to paraphrase:
"Almost as soon as we had Phenom samples, Intel made the decision to sample a CPU requiring a FSB that wasn't officially supported by any chipset at the time. No, 1600MHz FSB support won't come until next year with the X48 chipset, but it didn't matter to Intel; we were getting chips now.

Take a moment to understand the gravity of what I just said; Intel, the company that would hardly acknowledge overclocking, was now sampling a CPU that required overclocking to run at stock speeds. Even more telling is that Intel got the approval of upper management to sample these unreleased processors, requiring an unreleased chipset, in a matter of weeks. This is Intel we're talking about here, the larger of the two companies, the Titanic, performing maneuvers with the urgency of a speed boat.

It's scary enough for AMD that Intel has the faster processor, but these days Intel is also the more agile company."

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=2 [anandtech.com]

Apple has one coming (1)

whatsyer20 (1159213) | more than 6 years ago | (#21414865)

rumor has it that Apple has a new Mac Pro coming with this monster, just in time for Christmas. Dual proc as well. Let's see if this one comes true.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...