2007 Q1 Debut for Intel Quad-Core CPUs

2007 Q1 Debut for Intel Quad-Core CPUs

cashman on 28 March 2006 - 11:14 · 40 comments & 21640 views

Advertisement (Why?)

The Register are reporting that Intel’s quad-core processor, 'Kentsfield', will be released ahead of the original Q2 release date. Originally Intel had given a mid-2007 release date for their first quad-core offerings, but with AMD’s quad-CPUs due out in 2007 Q1 it looks as though the release date is being rushed forward.

With AMD slowly making ground on Intel it looks as though the company have had to take notice and change their release dates around. It also means that Intel will be releasing their next generation CPU at the same time that Microsoft releases their next operating system, Windows Vista. The new release of a new operating system is a major drive for computer sales and both Intel and AMD will be looking to be part of that hardware rush.

View: Intel

About the Author

Full name: Unknown
User name: cashman
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: View All
More: View Profile

Post a comment · Send to friend Comments · There are 40 additional comments

(1 reply) #1 Ficman on 28 Mar 2006 - 11:17

Cool...

#1.1 dbrehm on 30 Mar 2006 - 02:45

are there any apps that utilize this now on xp pro with 2 procs?

(4 replies) #2 MrCobra on 28 Mar 2006 - 11:18

Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't more than 2 processors require a server OS? Will Vista Ultimate support more? If not, I see no reason to have quad core chips.

#2.1 sam_goffe on 28 Mar 2006 - 11:26

But the quad cores can still be used in servers. So it does have a reason.

Im sure Vista will also allow more processors, XP pro is 1-2 but, the most you could have (on a home pc) was 2 (intel HT).

#2.2 Intelman on 28 Mar 2006 - 11:34

It depends how they license, I thought Windows was by socket. I remember asking Microsoft this. Some software is by core though, I dont think windows is.

#2.3 Jugalator on 28 Mar 2006 - 11:35

No Vista editions are limited to the number of *cores*, just the number of *processors*. As in physical chips on your motherboard. Also, HyperThreading is just a P4 architecture trick to make it look like it has two processors so the OS will be fooled into trying to load "both" with work.

As for Vista: Starter and Home (all of them) will support 1 processor, and Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate will support 2 processors. So you can run one hexacore on Home or whatever in theory.

#2.4 sphbecker on 28 Mar 2006 - 13:26

Windows XP and higher uses per socket licensing, so you can have all the cores you want as long as you stay within your processor limit. Even today you can run Windows XP Home (licensed for only one processor) on a dual-core system.

#3 thenay on 28 Mar 2006 - 11:29

WinXP Pro allows 2 processors, while Home allows 1 but I believe this means physical processors, not cores.
I've seen Home edition with dual core chips and they work

#4 Xavien on 28 Mar 2006 - 11:46

Indeed you are correct, Windows XP Pro allows 2 sockets with processors in them (actual processors) and as many cores as you want, as long as they are on two processors

theres still some kick in the old girl yet (Windows XP Pro) :p

(2 replies) #5 Master Shake on 28 Mar 2006 - 12:01

I still think the new Intel logo SUCKS!!

#5.1 outofcoffee on 28 Mar 2006 - 12:30

It doesn't like you either.

#5.2 Croquant on 28 Mar 2006 - 14:27

My attempts to make the new Intel logo act like a vacume cleaner have all failed. Perhaps Master Shake knows something the rest of us don't, but I belive he is full of hot air. Therfore, I recomend that he be poked repeatedly with some sort of sharp poking stick.

(4 replies) #6 antny_uk on 28 Mar 2006 - 12:20

What kind of machine would need a quad core?

Our servers are fine on dual processors... its the memory that gets eaten up.

Home machines will never need quad-core... so whats the use?

#6.1 rIaHc3 on 28 Mar 2006 - 12:57

Mostly in encode videos.

#6.2 DeanNapper on 28 Mar 2006 - 13:30

> Home machines will never need quad-core... so whats the use?

And Bill Gates said 640K of memory is enough for anyone....Look how wrong he was!

If the processing power is there, there will be a use for it....

#6.3 Jugalator on 28 Mar 2006 - 14:15

Indeed.. Although graphics cards are improving as well, there's still a balance to be met between processing power, RAM, overall system bandwidth, and graphics card power for ever increasing demands. And just imagine the demands of tomorrow's high resolution physics and graphics in games, and I think we aren't too far away from such requirements even today. I can *definitely* imagine it anyway, as we're still miles away from reality-quality graphics and physics that's rendered and animated on the fly.

#6.4 sphbecker on 28 Mar 2006 - 14:58

It really depends on what your servers or workstations are doing. In most cases you are right, memory and disk speed are the key, but there are some applications that use a lot of processing power. I have a server with 8 processors and it frequently maxes all 8 of them out.

For home use it is harder to imagine a single user using up more then two cores. I'm sure software makers will find ways to use them; they always do. Plus, as home computers are asked to do more and more back ground things (record TV shows and stream them to an xBox for example) you will be glad to have extra threads to handle that without slowing your game down.

(2 replies) #7 thefunkymunky on 28 Mar 2006 - 12:25

Why is it taking longer for Intel and AMD to produce quad-cores. IBM have had quad-core in the PPC for last year.

#7.1 dbrehm on 28 Mar 2006 - 13:12

IBM is superior

#7.2 sphbecker on 28 Mar 2006 - 15:00

Cost differance. Do you have any idea what IBM charges for those PPC processors? Apple doesn't even use them in their PPC Power Macs.

#8 Jdawg683 on 28 Mar 2006 - 12:38

since im planning to build a new AM2 box, im wondering if the new nvidia chipset or whatever motherboard will support the quad cores in next year... maybe w/ a BIOS flash?

(1 reply) #9 Octol on 28 Mar 2006 - 13:33

Funny...I just stumbled on a story at the Inq about a company that will be integrating 48 cores on a single 90nm processor:

Azul to go 48-core with Vega 2

I'll bet that would put some pizazz in your laptop!

#9.1 aristotle-dude on 28 Mar 2006 - 17:15

Or at least you could cook your pizza on it. :p

#10 DeadOnArrival on 28 Mar 2006 - 13:35

My only feelings about this is, looking at intels current offerings with dual cores they suck.. So they annouce a quad core in q1 2007, to me thats kind of rushing it? If they do manage to get it out the door its going to be lousy if not worse than there dual core.

#11 kaffra on 28 Mar 2006 - 14:21

wow there will be soo many options, i was all set for the 'conroe'

#12 Croquant on 28 Mar 2006 - 14:28

Waiting for scoket AM2 myself. Don't care about Intel chips anymore since AMD offerings beat the pants off the Intel ones.

#13 rbet on 28 Mar 2006 - 14:56

Hmm... I wonder why the dual-core stage was so short. We've had single-core procs for an eternity and now only after a few months of dual-core, we're making the leap to quad-core.

Go technology!

#14 kronik on 28 Mar 2006 - 16:14

wont be long before robots take over the world

#15 mundox on 28 Mar 2006 - 16:24

Well i have a AMD dual core myself, wasnt aware they were releasing quads next year.... it's crazy O_o

Video enconding with one of those most be nice :p

And yeah I dont really like intel Dual... tried one and it wasnt even like my 4400+

I though it where the same thing :p but no

(1 reply) #16 Toxicity_Josh on 28 Mar 2006 - 23:33

Seriously, this is amazing stuff we have here.

Not sure why everyone is saying Intel is lagging behind in the Dual Core market compared to AMD's X2's... there is a ton of buzz about the Conroe processor that is coming out in 6 months time that can outperform an overclocked FX-60 at stock speeds and 2.66GHz...

DO YOUR RESEARCH INTEL IS ABOUT TO TAKE THE CROWN!

#16.1 macrosslover on 29 Mar 2006 - 00:21

you're talking about the future and they are talking about the present. I haven't seen anybody yet that has seen the Conroe's say bad things about them, so yeah I think they will be good for Intel. However you can't get a conroe right now, therefore when people say AMD's dual core offering is better than Intel's they mean the dual cores that Intel currently has out.

#17 |Maxim| on 29 Mar 2006 - 01:02

conroe + 4 cores + extreme phase cooling == Win!! (unless conrow gets the cold bug too)

(1 reply) #18 Weasel on 29 Mar 2006 - 01:25

So if I have two quad-core chips in a dual socket motherboard with hyperthreading on, will it show up in windows as having 16 CPUs?

2 chips * 4 cores * 2 virtual for hyperthreading = 16?

#18.1 blackspawn on 29 Mar 2006 - 13:33

Isn't Intel's plan so scrap HyperThreading? (I remember seeing a slide somewhere that said that) I thought HT was just a stepping stone for "real" 2x/4x/Yx Cores

#19 wutang01 on 29 Mar 2006 - 01:33

Wow awesome. I was going to build a Socket AM2 machine at the end of this year.

Screw that, AMD Quad-Cores Q1 2007!! Better be 64-bit ... and Vista better use the Quad-Cores to its full potential ...

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Advertisement (Why?)

Neowin.net

2007 Q1 Debut for Intel Quad-Core CPUs

Share this Article

About the Author

Related news