• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel 4 cores US$999 at Q4...

okay, everybody, don't all jump up and buy one at once..... 😉

<TIRADE>
seriously, is anybody interested in this at all? think about it:
1) this thing will have a lower clockspeed than the x6800. this will mean worse peformance in games, since just about 0 games really use quad cores.
2) since the design is basically 2 conroes pasted together (a la pentium D), performance of a quad core would be, at best, equal to that of a dual xeon 5150 setup, i.e. the new mac pro. to see how it performs, check this out:
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=1
if you look at it, in the best cases, performance is boosted by 20-25%. most benchmarks show much less improvement.
3) of course, performance would probably be even lower. after all, the 4 cores share a SINGLE 1066MHz FSB, while the dual xeon 5150s have DUAL INDEPENDENT 1333MHz buses. dual xeons also support quad channel RAM.
4) overclocking will probably be terrible. heat will be a huge problem, since they will be built on the same process as with conroe, but with double the die size. in addition, 4 cores means a much higher probability of one core being a weak one.
</TIRADE>

anyways, i'm not saying quad core will never be useful. i'm just saying that unlike with dual core versus single core, there simply isn't enough of a performance jump to justify it at this point. i think intel would be better served waiting a while, and focusing on a good quad core solution. they need to fully unify the L2 cache, and boost the bus speed by quite a bit. by the time such a solution came out, maybe software would actually use it!
 
I don't exactly think it's targeted at gamers, rather the intensive workstation users that may somehow need the 4 cores (intense graphics rendering, encoding, all at once?).

And a dual Xeon setup? Isn't that like, $1000x2?

I still consider anything above $500 for a processor a waste.
 
gobucks, u bring good points but i agree with shadow conception too...i mean a 3800x2 is more than likely not a bottleneck in a gaming rig
 
This is what I've been waiting for. I'm skipping the dual cores altogether.

However I'm waiting until they are a lot cheaper and faster speeds. Maybe next spring.
 
Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
I don't exactly think it's targeted at gamers, rather the intensive workstation users that may somehow need the 4 cores (intense graphics rendering, encoding, all at once?).

And a dual Xeon setup? Isn't that like, $1000x2?

I still consider anything above $500 for a processor a waste.
Click to expand...

$760x2 for 2.66GHz Xeon (2x2 cores)
So you save $520.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top