Tech Link (Processor): Clovertown versus Barcelona

RickGeek of Geek.Com posted an interesting opinion about native versus mcm. In his post, the author cited many advantaged/disavantages of Clovertown MCM versus the competition's so called offering. And the truth isn't very hard to see, Intel has been shipping millions of quad core processors while AMD has yet to ship one. And I don't mean sample, Intel is shipping retail products, just in case you're not aware yet, and AMD is still delaying their Barcelona release. This processor better perform or it will be a major dissapointment even for a FanBoy like me...

OPINION


When I first heard about AMD's decision to make a native quad-core processor--that is a single piece of silicon comprising all four cores--I thought it was an excellent idea. I began to think of the advantages four-way HyperTransport has over the shared bus architecture of Intel's design. I also saw the significance in the larger shared cache, especially when all four cores are working closely on some particular task, and I didn't really see any downside. However, the more I think about it, the more I am realizing how much better Intel's solution is.

Clovertown is a single-package solution comprising two dual-core Core 2 processors within. It uses a shared bus architecture and is somewhat slower in off-chip communication, but because the die is so much smaller, they can create a larger shared cache for each dual-core, thereby making up for much of that loss.

AMD is not at the same place in manufacturing prowess that Intel is. It has been reported that Intel's yields are also very high, typically 90% or higher with some reports saying 95% or higher. AMD's yields have never (to my knowledge) been publicly disclosed, though I'm going to make a probably very incorrect assumption that they're around 80% for current processors. Even assuming they were 95% for current processors, we know that the number of potential defects goes up by the square of the surface area, so as we move from K8's current 183 mm^2 dual-core 65 nm 512 KB L2 processors, we would see a significant degredation in potential yield due to an additional 100 mm^2 per die alone. That also does not include the potential loss of high-binning parts due to even small defects not making the chip unusable, but rather making them less clockable at higher speeds.

We now know that Barcelona's die will be 283 mm^2, and that Clovertowns are comprised of two 143 mm^2 dual-core dies. Using my Wafer program, we find that AMD could fit a maximum of about 212 Barcelonas per 300 mm wafer, while Intel could fit about 430 dual-core Core 2 processors on a single 300 mm wafer. Now, assuming a 90% yield for Intel, that's about 388 dies per wafer, or 194 Clovertowns. In order for AMD to make as many Barcelonas per 300 mm wafer, its yield would have to be 92%, and by all accounts that's not something AMD will be able to do 1) based on its unconfirmed history of lower yields, 2) based on the natural increase in defect rate due to the larger die size and 3) that defects of any kind which do not render the chip inoperable will render it operable only at slower speeds.

AMD is facing several realities here with its native quad-core design, and it would seem that it does not have the manufacturing prowess to pull it off. Some at Intel even admitted recently that the company would have a hard time doing a die that large with high yields. Note also that Intel's Itanium at its largest on an 180 nm process technology was about 473 mm^2, quite a bit larger. I believe that also might explain why Intel targeted the highest-end markets with Itanium--because those processors sold for so much that very low yields would still be profitable.

As we stand today, with a pricing war going on between Intel and AMD, this native quad-core does not seem to provide enough financial incentive for AMD to have gone with it, even with its potentially much higher performance and scalability.

I see no two ways about it; I think AMD has made a significant mistake in going with the native quad-core design. Had it gone with an approach similar to Intel's, the company could've already had single-package quad-core parts out the door, and their yields would've been greater, their processing power would've only been slightly slower, and they could've been more price competitive.

As it stands, I just don't see the advantages of a native quad-core design. However, I'd very much like to hear your opinions.

Please post your thoughts below.

Source:Clovertown versus Barcelona

Tech Link (Platform): Intel's V8 Media Creation Demo System -- Octopussy anyone?

LostCircuits rarely posts articles, but when they do, they usually have a very comprehensive article. Their latest content is about an 8-way monster from Intel and they have a pretty good look at this system. Expand to read the conclusion...

Final Thoughts

Eight cores on two processor packages or four dies and all of that in a single system. Needless to say that all components are standard shelf parts that can be purchased at any major computer part retailer. So what in the world has happened to good old computing as in emails and typewriter substitute?

The answer to that question is actually relatively simple, we are living more and more in the digital age, where content creation is taken for granted, whether it is good or bad content, doesn’t even matter, it is essentially the fact that it is available and, because of the ease of its creation, it becomes disposable. As somewhat of an oldtimer in the computing scene, it is hard to appreciate the fact that there is no more collection of files, everything is available somewhere somehow and even if the quality is a tad degraded, who cares, it is like reading a paperback instead of a hard-cover. Well, that gets a bit off topic but really what it comes down to is how fast can we create disposable digital media and does it matter whether we have to do it over again? With the system at hand, the answer is a clear no, just power it up, pay the electric bill and let her rip. In so far, the “Octopussy” system we reviewed here is possibly the penultimate cruncher for DVDs, MP3s and whatnot.

On the other side of the fence are the designers, using the same tools to create a digital reality in the first place in the form of CGIs. Time is money in that business and that alone justifies the use of extended numbers of cores, as long as the software supports them. Then there are the “other” designers, those who are running simulations of hardware designs, whether it is silicon or plastic or metal works or the simulation of thermals in complex designs of hybrid materials. Even though we did not run any of these simulations as benchmarks, this field is huge since machines are getting ever more complex and efficient at any task and it is a matter of time until the last human “idiot savant” who has a “feeling” for one or the other technology will have to submit to the growing power of electronic data crunching. The “Octopussy” is just another milestone on that path.

All of this said and done, during the time we were working on this article, an important decision was made at Intel to no longer really support the FBDIMM architecture except for use in ultra high-end servers. Power issues were the primarily cited factor in this decision. For my own part, I probably won’t miss them but if history has taught me something, it’ll be another 5 years and then we will see the next iteration of the same concept. This is not meant to say that the FBDIMM is fundamentally bad, it is just not good enough from a power and cost perspective to compete in a market where pennies on any item are escalated to multimillion $ cost over head or savings in the grand picture.

To finally come to the end of this article, it’s been fun working with this “Octopussy” and see what she can do. And that’s still what it all comes down to.

Source:Intel's V8 Media Creation Demo System -- Octopussy anyone?

Tech Link (Processor): 8 Intel cores faster than 16 AMD cores!

I just got this info from a friend, apparently, uberplus err uberpulse managed to snag a benchmark of a whooping 16core-based Barcelona. I am not really sure I understand the video interview, but they compared a Penryn with Kentsfiled, I have yet to see why Barcelona was even mentioned. Check it out...

At the Microprocessor Forum, Intel demoed its V8 workstation running the POV-Ray benchmark. The machine is equipped with Intel's Workstation Board S5000XVN, 2 quad-core Xeons 5365, clocked at 3GHz and 16GB RAM. And the results are simply impressive: Intel scored over 4,900 pixels per seconds versus a little bit over 4,000 for AMD's 4 sockets quad-core (Barcelona) system. Again, this is an AMD 16 cores system versus Intel's 8 cores V8 machine.

If you take 16 cores at 1.8Ghz, divided by 2 and add 60% to get to 3.0Ghz, it gives POV-Ray score of 3600 for 8 cores. Meaning that at 3.0GHz, Barcelona still lose by quite some compare to an 8 cores Clowertown system.

"Why do you need 16 cores, when you can do better with 8. Our 8 core system is 30% faster than the 16 core machine AMD showed to the press yesterday. I just don't understand how they can claim to be 40% faster", said Francois Piednoel, an Intel engineer present at the show.

Well, now AMD has some explanation to do and sooner rather than later. Because if they can't figure out what happened with those POV-Ray results they showed us, that's the end of it. At the show, Intel also demoed a system with a 45nm Penryn quad-core processor (shipping by year end, about the same time than Barcelona!) that is 40% faster than the top of the line quad-core generation, the Core 2 Extreme processor QX6800. Wow!

Source:8 Intel cores faster than 16 AMD cores!

Tech Link (Platform): Intel V8 Eight-Core Platform Preview

It's a slow news day today so I am just sharing a preview done by XBitLabs on the "V8" platform (isn't it annoying that AMD have a "FASN8"). Anyway, XBitLabs are impressed with the performance. But if you are a regular FanBoy TechWeb visitor, you'll know that I have done a quick benching of this system for quite some time already. I first post about Clovertown 2xQuad-Core (total of 8 cores) here and posted initial benchmark here. Expand to read the article from XBitLabs...

Conclusion

Our experience with Intel V8 platform made an unforgettable impression. The obtained benchmark results are so high that we do not hesitate to call it the today’s world’s fastest system for multi-threaded work. This desktop and workstation platform with two quad-core Xeon processors demonstrates unattainable performance in all SMP optimized applications.

However, everything we have just said is true mostly because there are no other eight-core systems in the market today that could compete with Intel V8. Therefore, when the new AMD FASN8 with quad-core CPUs on K10 micro-architecture comes out, situation may change. Especially, since Intel V8 has a few disadvantages originating from its server roots.

First of all, the FB DDR2 memory subsystem in the eight-core monster from Intel is implemented in not the most optimal way. Its latency is too high, which affects the system performance in some widespread applications. Secondly, i5000X based workstation mainboards used for Intel V8 systems cannot suit enthusiasts in the best possible way. They have a lot of functions that no enthusiasts will ever use, but at the same time offer nothing for processor overclocking. And thirdly, Intel V8 platform limits the user’s ability to create a high-performance video subsystem. There are very few mainboards on i5000X chipset that offer slots for two graphics cards, but even they do not allow to use SLI and Crossfire configurations in full power, only as PCI Express x16 + PCI Express x4.

That is why before we make any final conclusions about the future of Intel V8 platform as a great eight-core solution for enthusiasts, we would like to wait a little bit until we get a chance to test the AMD FASN8 platform featuring two next-generation quad-core processors. New Phenom FX CPUs (known under Agena FX codename) are expected to arrive in Q3 2007, so there is not much waiting left. Besides, from what we know already we can say that AMD Quad FX as well as the upcoming FASN8 will be more enthusiast-friendly judging by their features.

Anyway, we will be able to dot all i’s only when we get our hands on the new competitor in this segment, and right now Intel V8 deserves the laurels of an ultimate leader.

Source:Intel V8 Eight-Core Platform Preview

Tech Link (Industry): Eat this, Quad FX: Here's an 8-core desktop!

THG, or TGDaily has posted a coverage of Intel's Clovertown eight(8)-core monster. I have posted my own Eight-core monster here, and even posted my own early benchmark, unfortunately, that's the only benchmark I am able to post due to work and other tasks (from trivial to weird stuff). They posted a score of 3DMark06 CPU score with a whoopin 61% lead over the competitor's QuadFX (and you'd still think Intel doesn't know how to benchmark?). Expand to read more from THG...
_{Image owned by THG}

Las Vegas (NV) - You didn't think that Intel would leave all that dual-socket fame for itself, did you? At CES, Intel showed off an 8-core desktop system build on a 2P workstation board with two quad-core processors. Intel claims that the system trumps AMD's fastest Quad-FX by 61% in one key benchmark. And yes, we do have pictures of this beast.

Technically, Intel's dual-socket prototype PC isn't that unusual and there are may be many enthusiasts who have built systems using a similar approach in the past. However, this specific PC takes the multi-core theme to the edge and shows what is possible today.

The PC uses a 2-processor workstation board with an Intel 5000-series (Blackford) and chipset supporting FSB1333. The board carries two Xeon 5300 series (Clovertown) processors. Intel also built four 120 mm side panel-mounted fans, which we heard were just for drama and not really necessary to cool the system. 4 GB of FB memory and an Nvidia GeForce 8800 card complement the computer.

The system was the brainchild of Francois Piednoel, an engineer with Intel's benchmarking team. He wanted to show how simple it was to make an 8-core workstation with regular parts. "We're not marketing it, but if you want it and need it, it's available."

Piednoel added that the parts weren't "crazy expensive" and could easily be purchased through online retailers like Newegg or Gamepc.com.

Before we mention the performance, let us drop a word on power consumption. AMD's Quad FX system was heavily criticized for its shameless hunger for power. While we did not hear anything from Intel about the power consumption of this 8-core monster, we do know that the two Clovertown processors are rated at a maximum power consumption of just 80 watts - compared to the 125 watts of each FX processor in the dual socket AMD system.

Performance-wise, Intel ran the 3DMark 2006, along with some other tests, on its system and the CPU portion of the benchmark was said to have achieved 6089 points in a test run and came in at 6065 when we pushed the button. The 3.0 GHz dual-socket dual-core system from AMD (FX-74) came in at 3764 points in Tom's Hardware's benchmarks, which gives the Intel system at least theoretically a lead of 61%.

Theoretically, because we can't compare those two system due to the different environments and different setups. In any case, this Intel prototype hints to exciting enthusiast computers that may be in our future. Not just at Intel, but AMD as well: The AgenaFX quad-core is due in mid-2007 and will be available as a drop-in upgrade for current QuadFX computers.

Source:Eat this, Quad FX: Here's an 8-core desktop!

Tech Link (Platform): Octa-Core Computing : Intel’s Cloverton Xeon Processor

This is a bit late, but I since I missed posting it, I figure better late than never. So, GamePC has put up an article for which I can't do because, well, I'll get my ass kicked for breaking NDA. Anyway, they have a comprehensive review, but I only have one peeve: they mentioned they have a Maxon Cinebench 9.5 benchmark but they actually don't have it in there :(. Bummer....

The Final Word

Intel’s new quad-core Xeon 5300 series processors can offer spectacular performance at fairly low clock speeds, while at the same time consuming no more power or creating no more heat compared to higher-clocked dual-core variants. On a technical level, we feel that the chip is certainly a success, as one can now deploy eight-core systems just as easily as dual and quad-core systems of yesteryear. With new standard ATX sized Xeon motherboards from Tyan and Supermicro, it’s also now possible to have eight-core computing in a standard ATX sized case, something which would simply be impossible as of last year. Eight-core systems used to require proprietary (read : ultra expensive) components and were extremely limited, whereas with these new Xeon 5300’s, one can assemble an eight-core system using over the counter components.

As one would expect, Intel’s quad-core Xeon processors are quite expensive - roughly double the price of their dual-core brethren at the same clock speeds. Price wise, an eight-core setup with 2 x 1.86 GHz quad-core processors will cost about the same as a quad-core setup with 2 x 3.0 GHz dual-core processors. So, which is better, more cores or higher-clocked cores? Turns out that in the majority of our benchmarks, a highly-clocked quad-core setup will outperform a lower-clocked eight-core system in most real-world applications. This is simply due to the fact that most applications don’t know how to handle eight cores, whereas most multi-threaded applications can properly handle four cores without getting too confused. If you have an application which is heavily multi-threaded and can take advantage of eight cores, the Xeon 5300’s actually provide better price/performance compared to the dual-core 5100 series. However, such applications are extremely rare on the market.

For everyone outside of the high-end server market, or those who heavily multi-task with multi-threaded applications, this chip will simply be overkill. However, an interesting area to consider will be virtualization, which will very likely show these eight-core processors in a much more positive light. A fairly inexpensive eight-core system could potentially run dozens of servers at with low power consumption and low-heat, which is certainly attractive for potential rackmount customers. For workstation and desktop users though, we would recommend sticking with the dual-core Xeon 5100 series until quad-core prices drop and software can catch up with what this hardware is capable of.

While it’s a great product to drool over, the real-world benefits of an eight core system are few and far between for the vast amount of users out there. Even during heavy multi-tasking, we couldn’t feel a difference between and eight-core and a four-core system. We applaud Intel for getting the prices of eight-core systems down to a far lower-level than they once we, and once again raising the stakes against AMD (who won’t have eight-core systems available until mid-2007). We’ll update our scores once Intel starts shipping the high-grade (2.33/2.66 GHz) quad-core Xeons in the coming month.

Source:Octa-Core Computing : Intel’s Cloverton Xeon Processor

Press Release: TYAN® ADDS QUAD CORE SUPPORT TO INTEL® SERVER / WORKSTATION SOLUTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE INCREASE, MORE EFFICIENCY

Dang, I can't believe I mixed posting the Tech Link and Press Release. I guess that's what happens when you're excited with a new toy. I just got my new Globe* Visibility line activated which I used to post. Anyway, check out this Press Release and sorry for the error I posted yesterday afternoon.

TYAN® ADDS QUAD CORE SUPPORT TO INTEL® SERVER / WORKSTATION SOLUTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE INCREASE, MORE EFFICIENCY

Quad Core Support adds Higher Speeds and
Performance to TYAN Motherboards with Intel® Chipsets


FREMONT, CA, November 14th, 2006 - At the advent of this year's Supercomputing 2006 event, TYAN Computer Corp., the world's leading whitebox server platform provider, announced support for the Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® processor 5300 series on Tempest S5380, S5370, S5372 server motherboards and Tempest S2696, S2692 workstation motherboards.

A wide range of applications stand to benefit from the addition of Intel quad-core processor support, such as high-performance computing (HPC), digital content creation, film and media entertainment development, CAD systems, as well as bio-sciences and financial systems.

TYAN's Tempest S5380, S5370, and S5372 offer rich feature sets including support for the Intel® Xeon® 5000, 5100, and 5300 series processors, PCI Express and PCI-X, multiple gigabit network ports, SAS and SATA2 RAID options, and remote management support. The Tempest S2696 and S2692 provide additional workstation solutions to TYAN's line-up, offering multiple PCI Express slots, built-in audio and FireWire, as well as SAS and SATA2 options.

"The addition of Intel quad-core processor support to TYAN's server/workstation product family provides customers with a wide range of benefits including substantial increases in speed, performance, energy efficiency and versatility," stated Danny Hsu, Vice-President of Sales/Marketing at TYAN. "General-purpose servers and workstation customers will also enjoy up to a 50% performance jump over today's dual-core 2P Intel Xeon processor-based platforms, as well as additional virtualization headroom."

"The addition of motherboards based on Quad-Core Intel Xeon processor 5300 series will provide TYAN's customers with a high-performance solution that provides superior processing power in the same power envelope of existing dual-core solutions," said Boyd Davis, general manager of Intel's server platforms group marketing.

The TYAN Tempest S5380, S5370, S5372, S2696, S2692 with Intel quad-core processor support have been sampling to select SI customers, and will reach mass availability in late Q4 of this year.

Source:TYAN® ADDS QUAD CORE SUPPORT TO INTEL® SERVER / WORKSTATION SOLUTIONS FOR PERFORMANCE INCREASE, MORE EFFICIENCY

Brag: Initial Clovertown Benchmark

I have uploaded an initial benchmark of Clovertown since I am really bored tonight. I don't really know what to do so I decided to fire it up and load a simple benchie, one that doesn't really require attention to run. SANDRA seems to be a good one to start with, so I fire it up and whoopsie daisy and it hits me like a champ (which it really is anyway). No more Mr. Nice Guy, this is one bad ass system. If you are looking for an ultimate multimedia stuff or into Virtualization, look no more because this is it.

Scrap that AMD* 4x4, which is a sorry solution to have four cores. Oh, if you don't have any idea of how powerful it is, click on the graph for a comparison against a wide array of Conroe processors and a Presler.

Brag: Kentsfield Quad Core? How about Clovertown Eight Cores

I got some time to play with the big bad Clovertown so I manage to snag a CPU-Z and post it as my new bragging thread. I'll try to run some benchies if time permits, but right now, bask in the glory of eight cores. I am just excited to test out some multimedia stuff in this baby.

Click on the CPU-Z image for the validation link. For the un-initiated, notice the "CPU : Intel Xeon (*2)". Compare it with my Kentsfield which says "CPU : Intel Core 2 Extreme (*1)". See, Kentsfield is single socket Quad Core, while this new rig is dual socket Quad Core, with a whooping total of eight (8) cores. FanBoy out...

Tech Link (Platform): Asustek shines along with Intel launching quad-core CPUs

It's just amazing, so many motherboards to support the uber processors from Chipzilla. You'd think people had enough of these boards already, but enthusiasts will just never get enough. FanBoyz, prepare your wallets, this is going to be a ride of a lifetime. As for me, I am playing with dual Clovertown, this will tide me over while waiting for newer toyz. Expand to read the full news..

Asustek shines along with Intel launching quad-core CPUs
Vyacheslav Sobolev, DigiTimes.com, Taipei [Tuesday 14 November 2006]

Asustek Computer was ahead of competitors in terms of quantity of motherboards presented to support Intel's launch of quad-core CPUs, formerly known under the codenames Clovertown (for servers and workstations) and Kentsfield (for desktops). Today, Intel formally launched Clovertown and Kentsfield as the Intel Xeon 5300 series and Core 2 Extreme processors, respectively.

With 10 motherboards supporting Kentsfield and the same amount for Clovertown, Asustek easily won the competition, and was awarded to deliver the first testimonial speech among Intel's partners. In desktop motherboards, Asustek was followed by Gigabyte with eight models, Universal Abit with seven and Foxconn (the registered trade name for Hon Hai Precision Industry) with five. In total, 39 desktop motherboards from eight vendors were presented at the event.

For quad-core Xeon processor support, the two leaders were Asustek and US-based Supermicro, each with 10 motherboards. Gigabyte and Micro-Star International (MSI) shared third place, with three motherboards each. In total, 32 products from eight vendors represented Intel's ecosystem in this segment.

Today, Intel officially launched four quad-core Xeon processors and one Core 2 Extreme CPU, all with 64KB level-one (L1) cache (equally shared between data and instruction caches) per core and 2x4MB level-two (L2) cache. Priced from US$455 to US$1,172, all the new CPUs are promised to be socket-compatible with Intel's future 45nm quad-core processors, according to Intel.

Intel: Official prices for quad-core CPUs (in 1,000-unit lots)

Processor
Price (US$)

Quad-core Intel Xeon X5355 (2.66GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 120W TDP)
1172

Quad-core Intel Xeon E5345 (2.33GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W TDP)
851

Quad-core Intel Xeon E5320 (1.86GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 80W TDP)
690

Quad-core Intel Xeon E5310 (1.60GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 80W TDP)
455

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 (2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 130W TDP)
999


Source: Intel, compiled by DigiTimes.com, November 2006

Thirty nine desktop motherboards and 32 server and workstation (combined) boards were presented at Intel's launch of quad-core CPUs on November 14 in Taipei
Photo: Vyacheslav Sobolev, DigiTimes.com, November 2006


Asustek's DSBF-D12, one of the vendor's motherboards for the new quad-core Intel Xeon 5300 series
Photo: Vyacheslav Sobolev, DigiTimes.com, November 2006

Source:Asustek shines along with Intel launching quad-core CPUs

Tech Link (Platform): Intel's newest Quad Xeon MP versus HP's DL585 Quad Opteron

Hmm, lately I have been posting server platform than I used to. In any case, if you are interested with server platforms, you may want to check this out. Expand for more...

Conclusion so far

Yes, our testing is not done. We still have to test other databases, and we are running benchmarks with Bea's JVM while you are reading this. Those benchmarks will be presented in our Clovertown - Intel's new quad core server CPU - review. In this review we focused a little more on the actual servers. So what can we conclude so far?

The Xeon 7140MP "Tulsa" is nothing less than a massive improvement over the previous Xeon 7041: it consumes less, performs a lot better (see the SPEC int/fp numbers) and is much less expensive. The new Xeon MP needs fewer optimizations than the Opteron to perform well in Java applications. Or if we look at our preliminary Bea Webrockit numbers, it performs better than the quad Opteron with a highly optimized JVM in applications with a big memory footprint (like SPECjbb2005) thanks to its massive L3 cache. In applications where the large L3 cache doesn't play a big role, the relatively poor server performance of the "NetBurst" architecture becomes visible again: our MySQL benchmark runs a lot better on the AMD Opteron and Intel's newest Core architecture Xeons. Power consumption is still rather high though, and the HP Opteron server consumed over 230W less.

In a nutshell, the new Xeon MP will have a hard time convincing people who are leaning towards an Opteron server or want the best performance/watt. But on the other hand, the decent performance and superior RAS features will keep the customers who desire high availability in the Intel camp, while the previous Xeon MP was such a poor performer that many people had no other choice than the AMD Opteron in the quad socket market.

When "High-end RAS" is less important, the excellent performance of the Xeon 5160 based Supermicro 6015 server shows how much potential the Xeon DP "Clovertown" has. Clovertown is nothing more than two Xeon DP 51xx on one chip, but it could give our quad monsters a hard time. You will find out more very soon....

Source:Intel's newest Quad Xeon MP versus HP's DL585 Quad Opteron

Tech Link (Platform): Apple's Mac Pro - Upgrading CPUs, Memory & Running XP

AMDTech Head Honcho, Anand Lame Shimpi, whips out a review of Apple's* Mac Pro platform. While I am not interested with all his blabberings, I find it rather interesting that he tested a Clovertown on this baby and it works right out of the bat: wowzy!

We grabbed a pair of 2.4GHz Clovertown samples and tossed them in the system, and to our pleasure, they worked just fine. Our samples used a 1066MHz FSB, although we're expecting the final chip to use a 1333MHz FSB, but the most important part of the test is that all 8 cores were detected and functional.

Expand for more, that is, if you can take more his blabbering (I can't).

Weeks have passed since Apple's announcement of the Mac Pro, and while we wanted to conclude our look at the Mac Pro much earlier, like many Mac Pro users we ran into some serious performance issues under Windows XP.

With the Mac Pro performance issues resolved and some more time with the system under our belts, we're able to bring you the final part in our Mac Pro coverage. This time we're focusing on upgrading the memory and CPUs in the Mac Pro, as well as looking at its performance as a PC running Windows XP.

As a high end Xeon based machine that can run both Mac OS X and Windows XP, the Mac Pro has the potential to be the power user's dream. Today our task is to find out just how upgradable this machine is and how well it runs XP, if it can truly be your only system if you're a Mac and PC user.

Source:Apple's Mac Pro - Upgrading CPUs, Memory & Running XP

Brag: "Dual Intel Clovertown 8 cores @ 2.66 Ghz benching now"

FanBoyz, ready, set, go and start salivating. Get a napkin to wipe off that drool too. This isn't just good on paper print out, nor is it any nice Powerpoint* file with pretty graphics. From the looks of it, this is the real thing! As early as this week, I have seen two instances of Clovertown in action. Expand for more..

This baby is a real monster. Do you know about Kentsfield? That four core next generation processor slated to be released Q4 of this year? That's just a taste of what's coming from Chipzilla. Kentsfield, that's like two Conroe XE in one package, can do Cinebench "Daylight" render in 10seconds, and Kentsfield needed to be overclocked to ~4GHz to reach that. Now, in comparison, Clovertown can complete it in the same time of 10secons but only with 2.66GHz clockspeed. Oh my goodness, imagine the clockspeed and memory speed difference between a four-core Kentsfield@4GHz vs a Clovertown@2.66GHz. This is just pure massive ownage.

FanBoyz, prepare your wallets! (Yes, with an "s"). And oh, here's another Clovertown linky (search for Clover Town 2.4G in that page).

Source:Dual Intel Clovertown 8 cores @ 2.66 Ghz benching now