Source: Tom's Hardware UK – Keywords: Skulltrail, QX9775, D5400XS, Octo-Core
Categories: Hardware
Performance Analysis – 2 Years Too Early and no Software Support
Considering its price tag, the Skulltrail system offers absolutely catastrophic performance. To be fair, though, it is not Intel’s hardware that is at fault here, but today’s software. If a program only uses four of the eight processor cores, then the Skulltrail system is noticeably slower than a single-socket quad-core computer. Since there are practically no current games or desktop applications around that can utilize more than four cores (if that many), the Skulltrail system does not offer any benefit here.
There are a few exceptions to this statement, namely 3D rendering, scenarios that require many virtual machines or situations where several video streams need to be encoded/recoded simultaneously. Still, in most cases you’ll still be off cheaper getting a second dual-core computer that offers better overclocking potential. Additionally, such a system is guaranteed to be quieter than the Skulltrail.
When running software that can take advantage of eight cores, the Skulltrail offers performance that is second to none in the desktop arena.
By assigning threads directly to one of the CPU cores, the L2 cache available to a quad-core capable application can be increased from 12 MB to 24 MB. However, the Core 2 Technology is already saturated even with the smaller amount of cache and does not show any performance gains as a result. Another problem is that today’s applications are not designed to take advantage of large amounts of CPU cache.
| System | Single Socket | Dual Socket |
|---|---|---|
| Thread 1 | CPU 1 - 3 MB | CPU 1 - 6 MB |
| Thread 2 | CPU 1 - 3 MB | CPU 1 - 6 MB |
| Thread 3 | CPU 1 - 3 MB | CPU 2 - 6 MB |
| Thread 4 | CPU 1 - 3 MB | CPU 2 - 6 MB |
| Total | 12 MB | 24 MB |
Due to the board’s design and layout, Nvidia’s SLI and ATI’s Crossfire are very badly implemented. There are better choices available in the market.
While the Skulltrail system makes for a very fast computer, it comes at least two years too soon. At present, there isn’t really any way to really use its performance to its full potential. Even Adobe’s expensive Premiere video editing suite can’t utilize eight processor cores.
Due to the pronounced performance hits when using dual-core or quad-core optimized applications and its board design, the Skulltrail platform is simply not a good choice for gamers. A single quad-core processor is faster, more energy efficient and cheaper.
- Previous page Benchmarks – QX9775 34.1% faster than...
- Next page Total Cost of the Skulltrail System –...
so... all in all, it sucks
sounds awesome, but the performance is troublesome. if they swapped out the memory, and if games actually could use it, then it would be awesome! but if your thinking ill buy this to be future proof(you will soon find that you wasted your money)
WRONG. This system will cost a HELL of a lot more than four grand.
And I wonder if Intel will rush out some custom high-speed memory with the ECC crippled? For a whopping price of course..
That'll bring the price up to mid-fives or low six grand, easy...
Why does TH assume you'd pair such a strong CPU setup with (comparatively) weak graphics? AFAIK just one GTX costs a fair bit more than what's listed here, and anyone who'd want SkullTrail is a hundred times more likely to buy THREE. Or THREE Ultras
That in turn means that you'll be looking at a 1.2KW PSU AND a 300W 12V booster for the extra oomph (oh, and the missing PCIe connectors...) And they'd either want to dismantle and replace the southbridge cooler or invest in a whole lotta dampening material for the insides of the case to supress the unholy fan noise
Bit of a white elephant, this.
well, the life isn't just about playing games on the pc............this motherboard is done for professional use. boxx, sgi, apple, dell, hp ecc are using dual quads for years...........but we use them to create what you play a year later