Danny Cheung, an Intel Corporation spokesman in Singapore, announced that the millionth quad-core Xeon chip was shipped this month. The chip giant has unleashed more than 1 million quad-core Xeon 5300 microprocessors since introducing them last November, meeting a goal announced by company executives earlier this year. The Xeon 5300 series, which was code-named Clovertown, has been priced aggressively in an effort to win more orders for the quad-core devices. The prices it is charging overlap those of its dual-core Xeon 5100 series, which was code-named Woodcrest. According to Intel's latest processor price list, pricing for the full Xeon 5300 line ranges from $455 to $1,172 in quantities of 1,000 chips, while Xeon 5100 pricing ranges from $209 to $851.
News source: ComputerWorld
News source: ComputerWorld
They sure weren't kidding when they said that.
if its a laptop wait for the new VBI and BTO laptops from your oem's and disty's
Verified by Intel®
http://www.intel.com/cd/channel/reseller/a.../vbi/271262.htm
core1: 100%
core2: 10%
core3: 0%
core4: 0%
Stick with faster dual cores (like the upcoming e6850) until there is far more support for multicore imop.
core1: 100%
core2: 10%
core3: 0%
core4: 0%
Stick with faster dual cores (like the upcoming e6850) until there is far more support for multicore imop.
Some useful applications and games already use four cores. Video Encoding and Supreme Commander for instance.
And probably image editors and 3D software. Also UE3 and Crysis are supposed to use them. If you buy a dual core now because not much is availible that uses more than 1 core, you will feel stupid when people with quad cores are smoking your dual core setup in crysis, et al. Most people upgrade years apart, might as well buy what works best a year or two from now and not what works best now, since both duals and quads are good enough for todays games/apps. I bought a X6800 the day Core 2 duo's were released months before quad's were announced, but oh well, should be good enough until I upgrade next year.
Think of it thus: Instead of trying to run an app on one of two cores that are already under stress from the OS, you're trying to run an app on one of four cores that are already under stress from 5the OS. That means that the core you're trying to run your APP under is under aproximately HALF the OS-load than it would be if you were running with a dual-core.
I don't see the downside.
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.