X-bit labs

Started by: Jorge | Date 05/18/07

Comments: 23 | Last Comment:  11/09/07

[1-19]

1. Intel as usual rushed out their Glue-Blob multi-core crap to try and deceive consumers. AMD will crush Intel with a real quad-core CPU and their eight core systems. The results are already known so Intel's song and dance is just a smoke screen for the technically challenged.

Is it me or you sound like a fhanbhoy..

2. The x264 codec is more multi-thread optimized than QT7 - for 4 cores at least. You should look into using it for your h264 encoding tests.

3. I will give my 10 points in Q3 2007

4. I believe Skulltrail is the platform Intel came up with to counter the Phenom QFX. You should've written something about that.

5. For those who truly can unlock the power of these dual-socket platforms, god love them for it.

For everyone else who does a mix of gaming, surfing, taxes, office, photo, video, these dual-socket systems are not a good fit.

Someone can game just as well spending a lot less money. And instead of the entire tax return going to pay off a V8 and its power bill, you can instead take a nice trip to Hawaii :-)

Right on brother, right on! Why spend thousands on dollars on over-powerful technology that you don't need?

6. Bogus - Bogus I say !

Our AMD processors are customer centric with a laser focus - and deserve to be the righteous winner over the monopolist Intel, despite your test results.

Kyle Bennett, Ananad and all the other testers that we own will be putting together new benchmarks to highlight our upcoming Barforama and PUKE-A processors.


Suing and Puking-From-My-Gut And Gestapo Raids At Dawn,
Hector

7. is it just me that thought the FX's performed pretty well bearing in mind they are a worse architecture than intels

they are only four processors and performed only slightly worse than the C2Q (possibly overhead of having 2 seperate CPUS)

dont get me wrong they did lose all the benches but i think this shows promise for Future Technology

8. 4C AMD consumes 80W more than the 8C Intel system.
Looks like AMD hasnt noticed that were running out of oil.

9. eks?!

Awful review! Where are any speedup graphs? Isn't that a REALLY interesting matter?

We need to know the real scaling...
from 1 to n cores
from 1 to 2 sockets

We already know c2d right now has a better IPC... what we need to know is the real-world scaling!

Actually, all the benchmarking data is already done; so, why not to calculate the speedups and etc from that dataset?

I'm sorry, but this is the worst (p)review I had from this (otherwise) quite respected website -in my opinion-.


Regards.

I just try a cinebench64 render to compare the results with my MacPro 8-cores, running with Vista64 or MacOS.
The results are the same, 2379. A little bit faster than the V8 :)

10. I wonder why they used an Intel board, Asus seems to have quad channel DDR2 these days and it would be interessting to see how that would perform. especially if think of the bandwith of 8 cores.

11. Nice review. I already knew its power since last year. I posted an initial benchmark here:

http://fanboyreview.blogspot.com/2006/11/brag-initial-clovertown-benchmark.html

And an early CPU-Z here:

http://fanboyreview.blogspot.com/2006/11/brag-kentsfield-quad-core-how-about.html

12. google adds banned can not read review when thay are alowed as it is part of the text i am trying to read

13. .What a waste of time.

-----------------------------------
Video Tools
http://www.bestvideotools.com

14. And here is episode 2 of the copy/paste saga from Intel corp. I was expecting it to be a lot cooler than QuadFX... but to my honest surprise it actually is pretty close to the enormous power requirements of the Quadfather.

Intel seems to be copying everything from AMD these days, including the bad ideas...

It wasn't necessarily so much as copying AMD's idea, but rather trying to show them up at their own game. But seeming as you don't really know much (or anything at all), it's understandable why you would think that way. ;)

15. What a great no body can stop intel proccesseors

16. intel V8... sort of energy drink ?
sorry to say that there is a competitor called.. APPLE !

the mac pro is same hardware-based. it would like to see benchmarks comparaison...

17. "V8 platform physically is none other but a traditional workstation based on quad-core Xeon Clowertown processors installed into a mainboard on i5000X Greencreek chipset. From this standpoint, Intel’s solution is not too innovative. Apple has long been offering systems built using the same principles, which are known as Mac Pro."

- Well, just like Dell, Hp or any other WS manufacturer? What's the big news about apple doing the same?

18. Thanks for this review.
I would like to see more realworld specs from 3D apps.
Also, considering how well the Q6800 performed and the fact that it can be significantly overclocked, I would put my money there (or QX6850) and upgrade in a year or two - thanks for helping me make that decision.

I haven't found any similar comparisons on the web. Same for your articles on the Q6600 vs. Core E6850, QX6850, and Quadro FX 5600/Quadro FX 4600. Invaluable stuff for helping choose components for a new system.
Keep up the great work!

19. just think what it would have been like if this chip had been at the hart of the Xbox360 console it would have blown Sony out of the waters of computer gaming.

[1-19]