-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
E8700
- Thread starter ConTRo13R
- Start date
I can see those being about £240 a go. I think with everyone overclocking the E8*00s to 4GHz it will be a limited market. Still, it would be nice if they supported s775 for a while longer and released some good CPUs
I know most people DON'T overclock but would these be used in pre-builds? and would someone who isn't all that into PC hardware/overclocking choose this CPU for the price?
I'm in no rush to move from s775 and welcome any new CPUs. It will hopefully force down the prices of the 'old' s775 processors
I know most people DON'T overclock but would these be used in pre-builds? and would someone who isn't all that into PC hardware/overclocking choose this CPU for the price?
I'm in no rush to move from s775 and welcome any new CPUs. It will hopefully force down the prices of the 'old' s775 processors
Last edited:
these are aimed at the bulk brown box shifters ( Dell etc ) the overclocking market makes up just a tiny fraction of Intels output by comparison.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 3,322
- Location
- Co. Durham
Done some digging and found
The processor is named Core 2 Duo E8700 and it will offer a clockspeed of 3.5GHz, 6MB of cache, 1333MHz FSB and 65W TDP.
That is assuming the information is correct, it's possible that this was not a leak but just a mistake.
The processor is named Core 2 Duo E8700 and it will offer a clockspeed of 3.5GHz, 6MB of cache, 1333MHz FSB and 65W TDP.
That is assuming the information is correct, it's possible that this was not a leak but just a mistake.
Funny rig you decided to buy then
Dual core chips are much easier to build and they have no problem selling these at a price that is profitable, how is that a bad product? They're quick enough for 99% of the purposes they're sold for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 12,256
- Location
- Derby
There are still a lot of programs that do not utilise or have problems with multicore. a lot of plugins for CAD apps such as Solidworks, Catia, Autodesk etc all benifit from faster dual core rather than quad...
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,009
- Location
- Kent
As long as people buy them, keeping a market for them, Intel and AMD will sell them. It's as simple as that, they're cheaper to make so cheaper to sell and most users don't need Quad core anyway, so the faster clocked Duals are ideal, especially as if an application is not coded fior multiple cores (the vast majority of applications) then they benefit more from a higher clockspeed than an extra core or two.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 21,913
- Location
- Aberlour, NE Scotland
What utter rubbish. There are hardly any games or apps that make use of multicore cpu's so in most circumstances a quad is wasted. AMD's Tri-core cpu's are just quads with a duff core if i recall correctly. You have also shot your own arguement down as you have a E7200 dual core.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,711
Wow that wasent on any roadmaps. The clocks are getting more like back in the P4 PD days.
Yes, and my next upgrade, whenever that will be is going to be a Quad. The lack of price drop for the CPUs has kept me away (seen by how AMD quads are cheaper than Intel Quads at the moment - even if they perform worse).
Because it is not future proof at all, as shown by everything but the bargain basement Nehalem CPUs being 4 cores or more.
Applications will follow once we have everyone on multiple cores, at the moment 50% of the gaming world is still single core (as per Valve survey).
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 5 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 9,009
- Location
- Kent
If 50% of the gaming world is still on SINGLE now, how long will it take for them to move from Dual to Quad? Dual Core from single offers more of a boost than from dual to quad so as most people will not want to use their computers for the applications needing multiple cores what's the point in them upgrading? Dual Core is certainly powerful enough for 90% (figure not totally accurate, but serves its purpose) of PC users.
Anyway, numerous users on here will tell you, programming for multiple cores is very difficult and time consuming, the aaverage software company wont bother. So your arguement is null and void. I'm sure Quads may eventually take over completely, but that's more about marketing hype than actual use.
If you stop releasing new Duals, then the next upgrade step for all these people will be Quad, thus they'll by-pass the duals.
And a Quad is a much better upgrade than a dual, the total processing power is almost double.
ALL gaming companies now develop for 6 threads (on 3 cores), why? Because the 360 has 3 cores and 6 threads. Yes I know it is hard, but they seem to be managing just fine.
C2Q is 4 threads on 4 cores (a step down from consoles as far as threads go), i7 is 8 threads on 4 cores, so the step up is not major.
Everyday more and more software is getting proper multi-threaded support.
There is no point getting a quad core now what so ever!!!
By the time quad core applications are utilised there will be CPU's that dwarf the performance of what is on the market now.
Dual core are leagues better, my CPU will out perform an overclocked Q6600 in most applications and games.
By the time quad core applications are utilised there will be CPU's that dwarf the performance of what is on the market now.
Dual core are leagues better, my CPU will out perform an overclocked Q6600 in most applications and games.
Technology is never future proof, this chip will be more than enough for any current game, and could potentially be manufactured at a much better price than you would expect.