POST A COMMENT

14 Comments

Back to Article

  • Beenthere - Wednesday, September 26, 2007 - link

    Intel keeps releasing engineering samples and tech info. to the media because they are running scared. AMD is once again delivering the best of breed and Intel is in for one Helleva beating to come now that Barcelona is available and ramping in clockspeed. The shitze is about to hit the fan! Reply
  • Zak - Monday, September 24, 2007 - link

    I've just built a new gaming rig last week: the new 3GHz Core2Duo (@3.8GHz with Tuniq cooler) and 8800GTX (slightly o/clocked) with 3GB of 800MHZ RAM, 600W PS, the whole thing sans case and HD, which I already had, was just under $1,200 and I get over 12000 points in 3DMark and 100% stable with few 12cm fans and CM Stacker case. So with a decent case and a couple of HDs it'd be around $1,500. I can imagine I can build a system for $3000 that will get close to 17000 points. WTF?

    There is no reason to even consider this monstrosity unless you have a really small penis...

    Z.
    Reply
  • Amiteriver - Sunday, September 23, 2007 - link

    Ran a quick FM06 at 3467 (13x)on a qx6700 with 2 GTX SLI and got 17,425 pts overall with nothing tweeked. G Kind of thinking in this bench mark - wheres the beef. Reply
  • vgermax - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    Why are the TMPGEnc scores listed as 151 and 239 for both comparisons? It seems a might coincidence if a different encoded file would result in identical scores in comparing Penryn/Merom and Skulltrail/Penryn. Either that or the mobile Penryn is as fast as Skulltrail, with the desktop Penryn being the same speed as Merom, which doesn't seem plausible. Reply
  • tayhimself - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    What the f**k???????????///////slash

    Reply
  • smilingcrow - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    “TMPGEnc 4.0 Express Beta (seconds)
    151 239

    while there's a 26% reduction in encoding time in TMPGEnc.”

    The reduction is 88 seconds which equates to a ~37% reduction, or you could say that the single CPU system takes ~58% longer.
    Reply
  • joex444 - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    Yea, they suck. Reply
  • mcnabney - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    About a 40% increase in gaming performance by adding a second top-end video card and doubling the number of CPUs that also happen to run at a higher speed. A good bit better, yes, but the performance hardly scales with the amount of hardware. Reply
  • retrospooty - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    Its not really a gaming system. There games are now being coded to use 2 cores, and a few that do 4 cores, but nothing uses 8. 8 is for special use niche apps at this point. Reply
  • mcnabney - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    Yes, they cleverly disguised a plainjane workstation by covering it with skulls and loading two $700 gaming video cards into it... Reply
  • lebe0024 - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    Doesn't the Source engine now use an unlimited amount of cores? (with diminishing results, obviously) Reply
  • retrospooty - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    I hadn't heard that but its certainly possible. Either way, yes it will come eventually, maybe soon on some games, but for now the fact remains this is a high end enthusiast "gotta have it" type machine, or special purpose machine. Reply
  • kleinwl - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    As an engineering work station or graphic/video editing system this has some promiss... however as a gaming station this thing is silly (real time ray tracing aside).

    I would love to have this running my CFD/FEA models (assuming I can afford 8 simultanious licenses which are $10K apiece)... but running Quake 3? Seriously?
    Reply
  • Stas - Thursday, September 20, 2007 - link

    So it consumes around 800 Watt or so? And produces enough heat for you to turn your central heating system off in the winter? And costs $10K+? What a deal! Can't wait for it to become available in retail... just to watch the suckers complain about spending a ton of cash on a POS system.
    P.S. Performance shown is a fraction of what I would expect from that system. What was Intel thinking?
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now