• 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.

Quad-core is On the Way

HighlandeR said:
Been priced at $999 which is still about £500ish-550
Click to expand...

Unfortunately doesn't work that way in UK retail - probably turn out to be more like £700 ish. Damn those Americans and their strong markets! :D
 
mosfet said:
I'm not getting excited over this, AFAIK it's aimed at enterprise applications, much like woodcrest, so overclocking potential/enthusiast motherboard support will probably be poor. It's a Skt771 LGA, isn't it?



Doesn't this go without saying? If it's 2 conroe cores on one die, then total L2 Cache will double to 8MB, or am I misunderstanding this?
Click to expand...

Yeah it doubles exactly, but that also means that only 4MB is visible to each dual core.
 
ATI said:
anyone know about the asus p5b could support the quad cores?
Click to expand...

It should mention something on either the Asus website or Intel's (re: the 975X chipset). Google is your friend on that one.

It will come down to individual motherboards, I think. Some will, some won't. The best thing to do would be to not buy a motherboard until such a CPU Comes out just to make sure...
 
I'm not to fussed about quad core cpus for the minute. You'll only see massive advantages when software starts being massively threaded. I think my core 2 Duo will see a good year to year and a half before I see any real slow down. I'll upgrade my cpu in 2008 when quad core is more common place and mature.
 
There's no plans in the roadmaps yet, but I assume it is somewhere in the future plans of both AMD and Intel. However, it won't happen for several years yet because more process shrinks will be needed. Currently, Intel are making CPUs on a 65 nanometre process, AMD on 90 nm. AMD's first quad-core will be on a 65 nm process as well.

It's possible that we'll see eight core CPUs on 45 nm, but I think it will be the process after that. The reason we can't have eight cores right now is that the heat and energy requirements would be too high, not to mention actual material costs in terms of the actual silicon die.
 
Biggles 266 said:
There's no plans in the roadmaps yet, but I assume it is somewhere in the future plans of both AMD and Intel. However, it won't happen for several years yet because more process shrinks will be needed. Currently, Intel are making CPUs on a 65 nanometre process, AMD on 90 nm. AMD's first quad-core will be on a 65 nm process as well.

It's possible that we'll see eight core CPUs on 45 nm, but I think it will be the process after that. The reason we can't have eight cores right now is that the heat and energy requirements would be too high, not to mention actual material costs in terms of the actual silicon die.
Click to expand...


Intel will have 16 cores by 2010 at 32nm. Therfore 8 cores on 45nm is 99.9% feasible.

Reference:
www.xbitlabs.com
 
dafloppyone said:
Thought Two Cores was enough? It isn’t. Really. Intel confirmed today that they will be releasing a 2.67 GHz quad-core Core 2 Extreme this holiday season. Drooling, yet? The processor is named Kentsfield and will host two dual-core Conroe cores on one package. The processor will be beefed up, increasing its L2 cache from 4MB to 8MB, which will serve to make multi-tasking much more seamless. Of course, all of these revisions will increase wattage, but only to around 110W–which is slightly more than what it took Inteal to power its spaceship Pentiums. These processors will still use the 975X chipset with FSB1066, though the socket was not mentioned.

Four cores, more cache, for less power than the flagship AMD processor? I’m in.









http://crunchgear.com/2006/08/17/quad-core-is-on-the-way/
Click to expand...

certainly not drooling im yet to receive my dual core 64 yet but barely anyhing can support dual core yet which would render quad core useless when it first comes out and tbh the prices are going 2 be extorcienate (sry for spellings) and its not going to be particulaly useful for ure average joe home user
 
Lan said:
certainly not drooling im yet to receive my dual core 64 yet but barely anyhing can support dual core yet which would render quad core useless when it first comes out and tbh the prices are going 2 be extorcienate (sry for spellings) and its not going to be particulaly useful for ure average joe home user
Click to expand...

The same could be said for dual cores. If a program isn't optimized for multiple processors (multithreaded) then the only advantage you will get is the ability to run more processes without the slowdown of using a single core. Software is still playing catch up to multithread but the more cores you have the more processing power you will have thereby running multiple cpu intensive applications will be easier imo. I'm personally looking forward to quad core cpu's but not the price hikes that will go with them.
 
gooner_47 said:
is this likely to affect the dual core prices when released?
Click to expand...


Unlikely as they are aimed at different types of systems / different user styles in my personal opinion

With a $1000 street price, over here I wouldnt be suprised to see them at £800-900 tbh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom