Earlier launch of Intel quad-core CPU targets enthusiasts
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 17 August 2006 - 19:13 · 13 comments & 7183 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(1 reply)
#1 Posted by RAID 0 on 17 Aug 2006 - 19:16
- Let's hope AMD can pull it off. Intel can't be top dog for more than a few months! ;-)
-
#1.1 Posted by Ravensworth on 17 Aug 2006 - 21:04
- You should hope they do, AMD had been getting lazy. Maybe this will kick them back into high gear (and bring down the prices too).
-
#2 Posted by El Sid on 17 Aug 2006 - 19:17
- Go Intel! I've got to admit I was an AMD fan until the start of the month, but Core 2 Duo works juuuust fiiiine
.
This Intel/AMD rivalry is really starting to hot up now, and it's really giving end-users benefits! Although "benefits" in the case is a word used loosely when you look at the price tag for vendors, let alone retail prices.
--El Sid
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by Co_Co on 17 Aug 2006 - 19:27
- bring on octo-core!
-
#4 Posted by Jugalator on 17 Aug 2006 - 19:36
- Hehe, with this and the Core 2 Duo, seems Intel's on a roll.
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by HawkMan on 17 Aug 2006 - 19:42
- Quad core and higher are useless for regular users, and will be for the foreseeable future.
dual core is important and speeds up because it allows you to runa full screen app, and other apps won't steal cycles from it. this way dual core will cause a perfomance icnreae evenf or non multithreaded non multicore apps.
Quad cores however won't be necessary for a logn time, games and program utiliziing multi threading and suign dual core is only now startign to be announced and getting released. And even these will for now probably only barely use dual core, and depite being mulithtreaded probably won't be usign any addition cores outside dual very well for a while.
so instead of goign to cheap route and just add more cores, make faster CPUs, That's what we need, not just gettign stuck with where we are and just doublign the cores every year.
in a few years when multicore arcitechres for consiumershave gotten a good foothold trhought he introduction of the dual cores, THEN we can start talking Quad cores and more, but as of right now Quad core doesn't give you ANYTHGIN unless you run renderign apps like 3DS MAX and such.
Intel just want to be first showing hey look we where a bit slow with our duals but we got twice as many cores as AMD.
it's a cheap upgrade, and without AMD's integrated memory controller it's even cheaper with the bottleneck it'll have. -
#5.1 Posted by MrCobra on 17 Aug 2006 - 20:44
- Quote - HawkMan said @ #5Quad core and higher are useless for regular users, and will be for the foreseeable future.
dual core is important and speeds up because it allows you to runa full screen app, and other apps won't steal cycles from it. this way dual core will cause a perfomance icnreae evenf or non multithreaded non multicore apps.
Quad cores however won't be necessary for a logn time, games and program utiliziing multi threading and suign dual core is only now startign to be announced and getting released. And even these will for now probably only barely use dual core, and depite being mulithtreaded probably won't be usign any addition cores outside dual very well for a while.
so instead of goign to cheap route and just add more cores, make faster CPUs, That's what we need, not just gettign stuck with where we are and just doublign the cores every year.
in a few years when multicore arcitechres for consiumershave gotten a good foothold trhought he introduction of the dual cores, THEN we can start talking Quad cores and more, but as of right now Quad core doesn't give you ANYTHGIN unless you run renderign apps like 3DS MAX and such.
Intel just want to be first showing hey look we where a bit slow with our duals but we got twice as many cores as AMD.
it's a cheap upgrade, and without AMD's integrated memory controller it's even cheaper with the bottleneck it'll have.
The same thing can be said about quad core as well. Windows will see it as a single chip with 4 logical processing units and offload its workload. That's a benefit right there. Same with dual core.
I don't think I'd want the Kentsfield chip as it's 2 physical CPUs piggy-backed just like their early dual cores were. The bold part in that quote is very true. -
#5.2 Posted by epple on 17 Aug 2006 - 21:57
- Just want to point out that the Kentsfield isn't exactly aimed toward the regular user..
-
#5.3 Posted by MrCobra on 18 Aug 2006 - 09:19
- While it does have some appeal to it, IMO, I don't see it as being that great. Unless they've come up with some new interconnect to let the two dual chips talk to one another at higher speeds it will bottleneck big time. I want true quad core. Not the piggy-backed chips. To me it just seems like a halfassed and desperate solution just to be able to say, "We did it first."
-
#6 Posted by Osprey on 17 Aug 2006 - 20:39
- HawkMan makes a good point. On the other hand, though, they've gotten to a point where it's harder and harder to just add more MHz. If there's a ceiling, they're getting close to it. At least by adding cores, they're adding speed, even if it's only in parallel. I can definitely agree that quad cores will benefit mostly only content creation professionals for quite a while, but this innovation will benefit the consumer sometime, whether it's 2 years from now or 20. For now, I'd rather they keep adding cores, rather than try to pass off on us processors that are a mere 200MHz faster than what they released 6 months ago. The days when increases like that were substantial are long gone.
-
#7 Posted by RAID 0 on 17 Aug 2006 - 21:05
- Start looking to other materials, besides silicon. Gallium Arsenide has been around for a while, but no one seems to wanna make the switch. There's MANY different types materials to use out there. Should we stay with Silicon??
Check it out, if you haven't already.
GA
-
#8 Posted by Ravensworth on 17 Aug 2006 - 21:06
- Quad core processor will actually be very important to normal users. The reason, because they will cause the price of the dual core chips to come down.
By launching the 65nm quad-core processors ahead of scedule, Intel is attempting to secure a leading position in the high-end gaming market, to counter AMD's fourth quarter introduction of the Socket-AM2 Athlon 64 FX-64 series of processors, which support a core speed of 3GHz and 2x1MB L2 cache memory, according to the makers. Intel's Socket-775 quad-core Kentsfield, which will be included in the Core 2 Extreme CPU family, has a core speed of 2.66GHz, a built-in 2x4MB L2 cache and supports a 1066MHz front-side bus (FSB), said the makers.