Intel Skulltrail Part 1 - Feeling the Power of 8 Cores

yomamafor1

Distinguished
Jun 17, 2007
2,462
1
19,790
2
OMG the same fanboys that cracked on Quad FX last year will be pimping this power hog for the next two weeks.
Could it be that AMD was a bit too early for such a beast?
Or could it be you had too much of whatever you're smoking, and forgot that Quad FX was demolished by Intel's first generation quad core?
 

Reynod

Administrator
I am impressed though ... it is closer to the gamers dream.

It is a pity they didn't fix the ram issue ... but then the QF sucked power up like a dog and had it's own issues with IPC.

If anyone gets it right soon I have no doubt it will be Intel.

In the meantime there is no reason to buy it over a souped up single socket Yorkie with all of the fruit ... and half the cost.


 

sailer

Splendid
Apr 9, 2006
4,970
1
22,810
8
The whole review was a waste of time, in my opinion. Why bother with something that doesn't do anything practical, as far as gamers are concerned? Unless that was the point, to make gamers aware of how bad this setup is, as well as how expensive.
 

wingless

Distinguished
Oct 23, 2006
156
0
18,680
0
All this proves is that software is so far behind modern computer tech there is no reason to upgrade to more cores. Skulltrail and it's FB-DIMM crap is useless unless you're a Cinebench whore. 8 Cores is only useful in a workstation environment and that may hold true for the next 2 years. Even Nehalem in it's 8 core revision will mostly go unused despite the 2009 time frame. Software simply has not caught up and they're still taking their merry time to do so. We have had multiple cores for years and even 64bit capability before that, and we still have not seen software that fully uses generation old technology. Gaming is actually better on single CPU systems simply due to the lower latency as compared to Skulltrail. Skulltrail is probably doomed and until Quick Path hits, multi-socket Intel systems will not be the way to go. Skulltrail = FAIL.
 

kutark

Distinguished
Jan 10, 2007
193
0
18,680
0
I agree with wingless. Software developers are way WAY behind the game here. They've known about dual core coming for at least 3.5 years, and dual cores have been available on market for at least 2. And yet we're still not seeing any games that utilize more than one core? Lazy lazy lazy.
 

Joe_The_Dragon

Distinguished
Sep 19, 2006
512
0
18,980
0
where is amd with there dual quad core system with a lower power use chipset. The 790FX chipset can be used with a dual cpu setup and it will use a lot less power then the skultrail chipset with more pci-e 2.0 lanes and 2 dual channels sets with DESKTOP RAM.
2 channels per cpu.
 

sailer

Splendid
Apr 9, 2006
4,970
1
22,810
8


That idea sounds suspiciously like the now abandoned QFX, just updated in a couple areas. :sleep:

No wait, let me think about this a minute; a 790FX with a Phenom equals a hot, slow running, power hungry, buggy setup. A 790FX with two Phenoms equals an extremely hot, slow running, very power hungry, twice as buggy setup. :heink: I think I'll pass on this.
 

jeverson

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2007
136
0
18,680
0
Umm... am I the only one that read the whole article? This setup seems about as practicel as whipping your bottom with a pine cone. Some of the #s are impressive but the layout is useless. You can't run 4 video cards, even if you could they would block significant air flow to the South Bridge cooler which is already noisy. I'm sorry, but i think this would be an immense waste of money and time to setup. Not to mention the added cost of powering it. There are bragging rights and then there is just blind stupidity. I think I will wait to see how the nVidia 790i chip set turns out. If you are a gamer then even going quad core right now or even for the next year or two is really just a waste as there aren't many games coded to use more then 2-4 cores. To all you graphics pros and artists... good luck and enjoy!
 

Ycon

Distinguished
Feb 1, 2006
1,359
0
19,280
0
OMG the same fanboys that cracked on Quad FX last year will be pimping this power hog for the next two weeks.
Could it be that AMD was a bit too early for such a beast?
No, its because AMD procs were/are suckage.
Looking at all the other things, SkullTrail really isnt a lot better than QFX, but the CPUs are.
 

zenmaster

Splendid
Feb 21, 2006
3,867
0
22,790
3
The Whole point was to review the product.
Show it's strengths/weaknesses so people could decide if they want it.

If you are a gamer, you likely don't want this system.

If you are a professional developer for 3D work, you may VERY MUCH want this system.

The whole computing universe, does not revolve around playing Crysis.
Some folks use PCs for other functions, heaven forbid.

And Yes, Intel did not target this system that will likely cost $5,000+ for a basic setup at tweens playing computer games.

This is more designed for professionals as a workstation type device for 3D Content Creators. A company would not think twice at tossing $10K-$15K on a computer, IF it made key folks more efficient.

This system is for MASSIVE CPU Power.
Games Don't Need Massive CPU Power off this magnitude.

 

sailer

Splendid
Apr 9, 2006
4,970
1
22,810
8


That I will agree with completely, when it comes to games. As Zenmaster pointed out, this is a good workstation, and for those people who want a professional type setup, this is an interesting article. It won't be the best that can be gotten, but will be a good entry level workstation at a reasonable price..
 

dariushro

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2007
53
0
18,630
0


I actually think it was targeted at gamers...

A pro 3d artist can buy a real workstation , not a desktop/WS hybrid.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
I think this is just a starting mobo. The idea is great for encoding and decoding. I am syre Itel is cooking up a desktop style chipset just for this and will impliment it later when it is fully ready. Intel is just trying to deliver on their promise of a 8 core system.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY