AMD is roling out a 3 cored Phenom to combat intel in early 2008

AMD is also making a true dual core and quad core. 2 or 4 CPU sockets on the motherboard. cant wait. but i dont think ill get one.

more info here


single phenom fx


dual core phenom fx.

'True' dual and quad core computers already exist, they're called server computers. Mac also delivers Mac Pro with dual socket (server) mobos, which have room for two processors.

Tri core? Sounds like a desperate attempt of AMD to sell some cores as 'cheaper than quad and better than dual core', to me.

yeah cause intels like good at quad core now

quick question, how fast is the intel core 2 quad Q660? how fast can the overclock get the core speed to? 3GHz?

I lol'd

I've seen a mobo with 4 procs on it.

Its factory clock is 2.4ghz. Ive seen overclocks as high as 3.2ghz on the Q6600.

I hope Phenom can compare with Core 2 Duo. Maybe Dell will release a Bios update for my comp so I can upgrade to that eventually, even though I just spent $120 on a AMD Athlon X2 5200+.

You've seen nothing about Q6600 G0 then. I've seen overclocks on air at 3.6GHz, on water to 4GHz. Phenom X3 is just a cheap way to make sure even defective quad-cores leave the fab as profit. Anyways--Intel's quad-core solution is so much better--call it gluing together, but one piece of silicon in the hand is worth two in a bush. The morale of the story is... no matter how good your product is, if meant to compete it has to be released.

EDIT: Some rumors I've heard about X48 is actually going to be dual-socket compatibility. We know we'll have dual-socket in late 2008 with Nehalem, but there's rumors of it coming for enthusiast motherboards (and use FBRAM, desktop-branded server chips, and support CrossFire).

EDIT2: It's useless really, I already spent $300 on computer parts for an Intel machine. Too little too late--maybe if they launched sooner I would have chosen a Phenom-based processor for my $800 budget-gamer's special.

EDIT3: Reviewing the latest on IDF, the Skulltail chipset will be dual-socket LGA 771 and support up to 4 graphics cards--including both SLI and Crossfire (They got some nVidia MCPs to support SLI, so it's seen by the Forceware drivers as an nVidia-compatible chipset, so it's enabled). Bravo, Intel--now people might not have to buy two motherboards to get SLI or CrossFire... and hopefully there'll be more then one model of motherboard for Skulltrail (ehem--AMD's QuadFX).

what motherboard was it?

Newegg has three, under server mobos: http://www.newegg.com/ProductSort/SubCateg...SubCategory=302

can you use the server motherboard on a normal computer?

No, it's a very different socket and I don't beleive Windows Vista has support for multi-socket mobos, though I'm pretty sure Windows Server does.

Define normal.

If you use Windows Server 2003 as a workstation opposed to a server, then you could run it in a home PC.

does linux support? and server = workstation or what?

Don't know about Linux.

A workstation isn't the same as a server. I was meaning, turn your server into a PC effectively.

so which OSs actually support true DUAL or Quad CPU?

Windows Server 2003 - not sure if the SBS edition does though. Also I am fairly sure Solaris does.

wat is SBS? also the phenom is a actual 3 core or is it a quad core thats messed?

The Phenom X3 is just a Quad core with one core disabled... I wonder if anybody can buy it when it comes out and enable the other core to save some money...

Windows Server 2003 Small Business Server. You can only have one of them running per domain though. Not sure if your workgroup them.

that sucks lol it limits u a lot. do you think new server version of windows comming out after vista?

Windows Home Server is coming out pretty soon.

Lame move but pretty smart since they will be able to utilize the wafer in a more cost effective way.
It's just a quadcore with a problematic core disabled.

Selling defective quadcores, way to go AMD,

Could wish i had that processor and mobo....
I only have single core...But for me that would be a liitle bit much....
That mobo got many slots too! double processor....
wtf is the red thingy?

It doesn't suck, a small business would only need one server. If you need more than one, then you shouldn't be using the SBS edition.

Windows Home Server is coming out soon (as Toungy said), and also Windows Server 2008 will be about soon. It's in beta right now.

the 2008 version will support multi core and cluster?

I'd imagine it'd support multi core, as 2003 does. As for cluster, I take it you mean more than one server? You can already do that, providing you aren't using SBS.

Tri Core?

Come on, no one needs that. If anyone (child) gets that they must be spoiled.

what??? i have dual core and getting quad core. what do you have? gettting dual or quad core is not getting spoiled. depends how u get it though!.

Single core, I mean why have two processors when one works just fine. It's like trying to fix something that works.

Erm.. because that makes sense. Single core fails at High end functions lol. Quad > Tri . amd is still behind

High end functions?

Explain.

quad or dual cores are much better at multitasking. like if you had 4 different programs 1 core would work on each. bigger L2 cache. faster connection with motherboard.

If anyone cares, Windows Server 2003 Data Center Edition can support up to 32 CPUs.

im a bit confused with all these server editions? what are all the editions and there funtions ?

They're new OS's... sort of like how Windows Vista came after Windows XP... after Windows ME... after Windows 2000... Windows 98SE... Windows 98... it's just a new version of a server OS. There's a few different configurations for what you want to do with it (workstation, versus web or storage server) that determine pricing and feature set. In short--don't even bother understanding it if you don't need any of the functions. Oh, and remember dual-processor setups on desktops are growing out of a low-point... they used to be quite common in servers and high-end desktops.

As far as I've heard (A techie could probably destroy that reply of mine ), it seems that Intel are a bit better than AMD in dual core processors, yes, but not THAT much, and intel costs about 2-3 times more, so.... At this point, unless you run tons of applications that really require RAM, I do think that most of the users would do perfectly with an AMD, and save quite a bit of money.

Got an AMD Turion 64 X2 on my laptop, and I really have no problem at all with it. I could have had a Core 2 Duo Centrino from Intel, but I'd have lost about.. 200 bucks in the process?


(I really hope that what I say is, at least, correct enough so that I don't humiliate myself .)

I'll completely annihilate your post a little bit later. This is a reserved post. Please--don't warn me after I do so!

EDIT: Annihilation time!

AMD is so far behind right now. Even with Barcelona officially launched, the product really hasn't made it to the market--some Barcelona 2GHz parts have been sold, but the launch is basically a paper-launch. Not to mention, the Barcelona chips being shipped are all Opertrons that require Socket 1207 motherboards and registered DDR2--expensive to say the least. As for desktop chips, we're waiting on the Phenom and FASN8 (the upgraded QuadFX setup) from Camp Green (AMD).

As for Intel desktop chips--they're cheap (though the platform is a bit more expensive (max 5%), there are few overclocking chipsets out there for AMDs, while almost all of the retail market makes up overclocking boards for Intels), fast, run cool, consume less electricity, and overclock incredibly well--everything Core from Celeron 4x0 to Core 2 Extreme QX6850... they basically have no more competition with AMD setups.

Now, AMD hasn't completely lost--they still have several things that they're surviving on (for really low budget)... their fastest processor (Athlon X2 6400+ at 3.2GHz) costs $239. Now, that chip happens to perform a bit under the E6750 (at 2.66GHz) which is priced at $195 or so. Now, they have one mainstream price "tied-up"--the Athlon X2 6000+ (at 3.0GHz) costs $170, compared to the slightly slower E6550 (at 2.33GHz) for $175. However--don't despair! The 6000+ and 6400+ consume so much power that it's quite expensive in the long-term. The $5 difference will be made up for within a few months of running, not to mention that you'll be spending a lot in a high-end cooling solution to overclocking beyond about 5-10%. In retrospect, basically all Core-based processors (except Core 2 Extreme and some Core 2 Quad) are known to overclock at least 33% on stock, many of the lower-end processors (Celeron 420-430-440, Pentium Dual-Core E2140-...-E2220 (all beyond E2180 are yet to be released, though I've seen benchmarks on the E2220 at 2.4GHz) are well-known to overclock beyond 75%, even past 100%, on stock cooling. Many people with good E2140s get above 3.2GHz on stock, and E2160s get above 3.6GHz on stock.

I don't know much about the mobile market, but what I do know is AMD's mobile processors just aren't keeping up with the last two rounds of the mobile Core 2 Duos. I read an interview with a leading man in Intel--about mobile computers--and from what he said, Intel is doing so well right now, they have a technology advantage of 12 months and are already a year ahead in performance. They're going to be implementing Core 2 Quads for mobile--the price is some battery life, but you're paying for nearly double the performance without half the battery life. If that happens, woe is AMD for the mobile market.

I run PS CS2, FF w/ Chatzilla, Office 2000, and my printer and router apps constantly and I seem to have no problems.

With cores, do you get switching in between programs at a blink of an eye?

First off, Tecumseh--don't try to make yourself seem smart. Remember that single-core systems are generally fine at multitasking... now you can't run heavy-duty games, a virus scan, do batch editing in photoshop, and encode a DVD in premiere, but what you're doing is basically nothing... it's easy to do twenty tasks at the same time with a slow single-core system without any real lag. Office is a light application, all instant-messengers are light apps, as are printer and router apps. Photoshop CS2 is a bit heavy, but you should have absolutely no problem running the other three as well--not to mention you could add a few other popular "multitasking" tasks, such as music and internet. Seriously--those don't take that much computer speed... generally the processor is 90+% on Photoshop, and the other 10% occasionally switching between everything else.

Still, it runs well, why is dual core better for multi tasking, I mean I used to play alot so

One Game, One Browser, and iTunes were on.

Still, it ran flawlessly.

Acid, you're theories fail unless you define multi tasking on a dual core spectrum.

Multitasking is doing two heavy applications at the same time on the same computer. Running, as I've said many times, internet, IMing, playing games, and music are not really multitasking--not even when you're running two or more heavy applications. I've never seen my computer run at 100% for any more then a few seconds on AIM, MSN, Trillian, or GAIM. Same with music and playing games. The only "heavy" internet is running thirty-plus sites loading at the same time, and then it's more of a load on your RAM or hard drive.

Anyways--the Phenom X3 will be a good compromise between quad-core and dual-core... triple-core lets you offload unimportant applications while running dual-threaded apps.

Back to your actual original point. Have you considered that the child buying the dual core/quad core, might be buying it himself, with his own money that he has earned? A dual core processor can be purchased from around $60, and a child who does a paper round, could earn that fairly quickly.

yeah... or in my case. FREE how much are quad cores? 200$+?

$280 for the Q6600 on Newegg.

Also, you don't have to keep mentioning the fact you get free computer parts, at every possible opportunity. No offense, but it just makes you seem like a spoiled 10 year old.

spoiled perhaps but not 10 year old. so what other Q**** are there ? i heard like Q 675 or sumthing in another forum on sals. 2800, does it overclock well? i used to make 2500 a year for paper routes.

Q6600 is $280. That's about the cheapest way to get 4 real cores. Anyways--the Q6700 is about $500--a waste of money as it's basically a QX6700 with a locked multiplier.

guess u add a extra 0 stobbo. well whats the most expensive quad coreÉ and whats a locked multiplierÉ

The most expensive quad core would be Intel's QX6850 (It's €950 here). A locked multiplier is guessing by the name a CPU FSB multiplier that can't be changed.

Also, where I come from, the Q6700 is twice the price of a Q6600, and the QX6700 is the same price as a QX6850. Pretty weird, huh?

Anyways, quad core is still overkill, though not expensive (luckily, should give us a bright future ). For my rig, I'm getting the E6750, which is even more cheap (€179, compared to the €259 Q6600) and when overclocked can perform similar, with a bit less multi-tasking power. It's also better for gaming (a lot), which I intend to do more once I get my rig.