-
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 going to ship quade core before year end!
- Thread starter nyker96
- Start date
NuAlphaMan
Senior member
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Old news bro. They mentioned that before launch at the end of last quarter.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
You must first ask yourself how many games actually make use of dual core. Then you will have your answer.
theteamaqua
Senior member
nope, games have to be designed to use all 4 cores , i do think some games will do that next year, but if i am a gamer (which i am) i would stick with higher clock conroe . Conroes OC much better than kentsfield ....
there r some games thats CPU depandent as well as GPU, games like Oblivion, but other than that no , i dont think a gamer should spend money on CPU, i would spend on betteter graphics card
yeah the guy above me is right
heres the situation, not many games that even take advantage of 2 cores, and out of those games, even less that takes advantage of 4 cores ...
there r some games thats CPU depandent as well as GPU, games like Oblivion, but other than that no , i dont think a gamer should spend money on CPU, i would spend on betteter graphics card
yeah the guy above me is right
heres the situation, not many games that even take advantage of 2 cores, and out of those games, even less that takes advantage of 4 cores ...
myocardia
Diamond Member
Actually, teamaqua, you can't design any software to be "dual-core/dual processor" aware, but not quad-core-aware. Every software is either SMP-aware (enabled), or it isn't. So, any game/software that's dual-core/SMP-enabled by default will be able to take advantage of quad-core.
theteamaqua
Senior member
"So, any game/software that's dual-core/SMP-enabled by default will be able to take advantage of quad-core."
http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/page8.html
... self-own4age
quake 4 patch 1.2 was optimized for multi cores, and kentsfield is not even faster
Bobthelost
Diamond Member
SMP is the process by which code is broken up into strings that can be processed at the same time. If it's done right then having more than 1 core means you can fire the strings off to cores 1-3. Of course if you've only ever coded it to manage 2 strings at any one time then it won't be any faster going from 2 to 16.
Dual cores are a bit of a waste for gaming, quad core will be enough to get me to think very hard about upgrading, not for gaming but for encoding times, C2D would knock somwehere between 1/3 and 1/2 the time off my X2 @ 2.5Ghz, C2Q would be really testing me.
Although most games do not benefit directly from 2 Cores, there is one thing to consider: you have other programs running in the background, like Antivirus, Firewall, Skype (playing online with a pal, for example), etc.
When I moved to 2 Cores (that was on Xmas time), I went from a San Diego to an Opteron. The clock was the same, so I didn't get games to run faster BUT they do have higher minimum performance, ie, jerkiness is reduced - while one core runs the game, the other takes care of secondary tasks.
The system is more responsive and you can switch tasks without fearing it will crap.
My WoW and GW pal still runs his rig on a San Diego and he gets disconnected when Skype rings.....
I don't know if one can benchmark this but this is real life experience for me 🙂
Corporate Thug
Lifer
OP, what do you mean when you say NON native?
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
calling that thing "quad core" is comical
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/skynet107/presler_improved.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v295/skynet107/presler_improved.jpg
lopri
Elite Member
Intel is rushing to introduce the quad-cores, because they're looking to grab market initiative and substantial userbase before AMD's quad-cores show up. It would be a smart move with some other products, but with quad-cores.. not sure if there will be any use of quad-cores on desktop within next couple of years.
zsdersw
Lifer
"Dual-core" = two cores in one package
"Quad-core" = four cores in one package
Smithfield, Presler.. and Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest are all dual-core chips.. whether or not you think they are. Kentsfield/Clovertown are quad-core chips.. whether or not you think they are.
The terminology couldn't be more clear. Discussions about whether the cores are integrated into one piece of silicon or not are irrelevant to what is and is not a dual-core or quad-core chip.
TanisHalfElven
Diamond Member
i think he meant
presller = 2x p4s on one package.
kentslfield = 2x conroe on one package
Bobthelost
Diamond Member
The way the cores interact is important.
NoStateofMind
Diamond Member
Yes it is "Quad Core" and "Dual core". BUT! It will not be nearly as efficient as K8L, being that it is 4 cores on one silicon, instead of 2 dual cores "stapled" together. Pentium D anyone?
zsdersw
Lifer
Those issues are irrelevant to the point I was making and the original statement by AnandThenMan. Relative inefficiency doesn't make Kentsfield any less of a "quad-core" chip than the quad-core K8L.. or the Smithfield/Presler any less of a "dual-core" chip than dual-core chips from AMD.
Discuss all you want about the relative inefficiency of Kentsfield and Smithfield/Presler.. but don't say they're not quad-core and dual-core chips, respectively.
Bobthelost
Diamond Member
True, it doesn't matter all that much that it's not 4 cores on a die, but it would be nicer to have.
But that's just using a single term for different types of multi-core design...
I tend to call the 2C MCMs "twin core" rather than dual core (which I reserve for multicores that are interconnected directly), and designs like Kentsfield would be a twin dual core...
The reason for the distinction is that there is a measurable difference in performance between the two.
That said, the difference is not huge and Kentsfield should perform quite well (as does the C2D)...
Will Kentsfield be relevant?
Well, for gamers almost certainly not...even dual core has limited relevance at the moment.
For those of us who do professional editing and rendering (where 4 cores would rock), we already use twin dual core systems (and in some cases like mine, 4 dual cores) so it's not yet really compelling (until it is available for 2P+ systems).
Hopefully, the trend towards SMP will continue to expand quickly. It really is the best way to get the most out of a system...
Kentsfield Runs hot but if I open more than few client in Windows, i clearly see the advantage of Kentsfield. Oh if you do any media processing, it ROCKS!!!! For games I can't tell the diff. between Kentsfield and C2D.
Intel will launch Core 3 Duo and Core 3 Quad later part of next year and the Quad will be a true Quad core.
Intel will launch Core 3 Duo and Core 3 Quad later part of next year and the Quad will be a true Quad core.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
