Intel to launch quad core processors in Q4!!

ihatelag · 20 Jul 2006 at 16:01

Hehe! The processor that has broken many records in the XS forums will be available to us this year!!! How cool is that!

THG said:
Santa Clara (CA) - Intel today said that it has notified its partners that it has accelerated the roadmap for its quad-core processors. The launch has been pulled from the first half of 2007 into the fourth quarter of this year - in time to compete with AMD's 4x4 platform. Intel also indicated that the Pentium brand will move into the value segment of PCs.

Full article available from THG here: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/2006/07/19/intel_to_launch_quad_core_in_q4_2006/

This has been an exciting year for Intel with the release of conroe...now that the quad core is coming out within a few more months is even better news!!!

I have a premonition that my bank manager will not be happy with me by the end of the year

w3bbo · 20 Jul 2006 at 20:34

Good to hear. I'll hold off conroe until we see how quad core technology fairs.

jamie2497 · 20 Jul 2006 at 20:41

Wow, if these end up as cheap as Conroe then i may have to hold out for one.

Hidden Hippo · 20 Jul 2006 at 20:43

Now you're making me have to think again. Do I go for the conroe now (probably, I like buying things) or wait for the quad core to be release (much less likely)? Seems like I've already made up my mind, go conroe.

w3bbo · 20 Jul 2006 at 20:52

Hidden Hippo said:
Now you're making me have to think again. Do I go for the conroe now (probably, I like buying things) or wait for the quad core to be release (much less likely)? Seems like I've already made up my mind, go conroe.

That would all depend on whether you have a decent spec rig atm. I know its the same old story but maybe waiting 6 months will pay dividends this time as I don't fancy buying a whole new setup now only to do it again when 4x4 tech arrives.

dafloppyone · 20 Jul 2006 at 20:52

not sure how much use quad core is going to be when dual core isnt exactly overly used

nikebee · 20 Jul 2006 at 20:59

dafloppyone said:
not sure how much use quad core is going to be when dual core isnt exactly overly used

you can never have enough cores

quadboi · 20 Jul 2006 at 21:43

nikebee said:
you can never have enough cores

Rofl, just what he says, however its just OVERKILL!

FreeStream · 20 Jul 2006 at 21:46

sjohal2006 said:
Rofl, just what he says, however its just OVERKILL!

Well, no, when your folding its not

Depending on the prices, I might just swap my Conroe for a Kentsfield

HighlandeR · 20 Jul 2006 at 22:23

Quake 4 benchmarks will proberly go thru the roof

Its good news regardless looks like were gonna have some even more powerful systems, and less AMD systems !

22BUK · 20 Jul 2006 at 22:42

I wonder how frequently the average person uses the full potential of dual core systems - I mean, how often does the 2nd core get put under significant load? Also, doesn't Windows (XP and Vista) have issues with more than 2 cores? 4-core systems will probably be aimed at servers.

lucifersam · 21 Jul 2006 at 00:29

as more multi threaded applications come out in the near future we will start to realise the full potential of these processors, XP etc have no probs that i know of with multi cores, licensing for standard XP is for 1-2 CPUs but MS have waved this and said for each physical package. I will probs look at getting a kentsfield when i come to renew just after new year but they will be very pricey me thinks

Gibbs · 21 Jul 2006 at 01:34

another piece here also: http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2006/07/20/dont_upgrade_now_quad_core_is_coming_soon/

londonbairn · 21 Jul 2006 at 02:41

saw a lot of good benchmark results, however i question the need for 4 cores, why would you need 4 cores?!? are you gonna encode xvid, play a game, virus scan and encode mp3 at once? guess it'd be good if games were "quad-threaded" lol

silversurfer · 21 Jul 2006 at 03:37

Iam not sure if multi threading applies equally to 4 cores as it does to 2. If theres only 2 threads then I guess not.

w3bbo said:
Good to hear. I'll hold off conroe until we see how quad core technology fairs.

Intel have a 32 core 'kiefer' cpu in the works, maybe you should wait for that

http://desktops.engadget.com/2006/07/10/intel-goes-multi-core-crazy-for-keifer-server-line/

Vista isnt fully able to cope with all these cores apparently, which is a shame because its definetly the future.

In my sig is a picture of an eight core PS3 chip

w3bbo · 21 Jul 2006 at 07:12

silversurfer said:
Intel have a 32 core 'kiefer' cpu in the works, maybe you should wait for that

I could wait forever for the 'next big thing' but imo and from what I have read conroe is not the badass chip or leap forward everyone thought it was going to be, simply because they are limited by GPU for the gamers among us (not the chips fault). Motherboard support is also sketchy at best which dosn't help. Don't get me wrong, conroe wipes the floor with x2 chips atm and is currently by far the best option for someone looking to build a new pc but I really can't justify investing into an old socket design (like I did with 939) only for it to be replaced(is it getting replaced?) 6 months later when quad core is on the scene be it with intel or AMD.

Quad core is definately looks like overkill but then so is conroe and so is x2. However, people (inc me) will always upgrade whether they 'need' the upgrade or not in the quest for more speed/power. The way I see conroe atm is like buying a top of the range GPU today - pointless when a further upgrade will be 'needed' in 6 months time (dx10 cards/quad core/new skt).

Thats why I will play the waiting game this time until the 'whole picture' reveals itself.

NathanE · 21 Jul 2006 at 09:35

silversurfer said:
Iam not sure if multi threading applies equally to 4 cores as it does to 2. If theres only 2 threads then I guess not.

Intel have a 32 core 'kiefer' cpu in the works, maybe you should wait for that

http://desktops.engadget.com/2006/07/10/intel-goes-multi-core-crazy-for-keifer-server-line/

Vista isnt fully able to cope with all these cores apparently, which is a shame because its definetly the future.

In my sig is a picture of an eight core PS3 chip

Vista and XP can cope just fine. The NT kernel was designed for SMP operation.

As somebody said, you really cannot have enough cores. Just look at how many threads are running on my fairly average PC:

Explicit · 21 Jul 2006 at 11:49

sjohal2006 said:
Rofl, just what he says, however its just OVERKILL!

It's not overkill, it's future proof

lucifersam · 21 Jul 2006 at 11:59

when ever you buy the best thing for a PC then a few weeks later its gonna be out of date, always. Im waiting for Kentsfield as that is being released around the time im gonna have enough money gathered together to make the big jump, there is no such thing as buying a socket thats gonna last, not anymore in my opinion, S775 may have lasted but the chipsets governing it have not, so that means a mobo replacement anyway

Cyber-Mav · 21 Jul 2006 at 12:12

as the screenshot above shows standard machines do run more than 1 thread at a time, over 200 from the looks of that screenshot above. so having more cores WILL provide a more smoother windows experience and the more cores the better as always.