Quad-core cpu from intel

[DrCrap]

Deddy Perlmuter (vp in the department which develops this architecture) was qouted today (in an interview from IDF 2005) in an Israeli newspaper saying that the first Quad-core based cpu will be introduced in early 2007, it's going to be based on the "Merom" architecture.
I wonder if this is true, or just an attempt to freak AMD out...

but hey... I'd like to see some benchmarks on a quad-core cpu, it should be able to run office apps like nobody's business.

 

[DarkSpeed]

Considering the drama's that dule-core cpu's are having at the momen't and the fact that there are dule-core 64bit without the programing to use it's FULL power.. I would say that intell are mad if they think there going release a quad-core cpu in the year 2007.. If I was AMD, I wouldn't be worried about what intell thinks there are going to do.. But be more worried about how they are going to get these's dule-core cpu's to work with ALL programs/games first.. But hey that ain't AMD's or INTELL's problem. LOL

 

[Furen]

It should be completely doable as long as their whitefield (is that the name of the server conroe?) doesnt suck too badly on the power consumption side. AMD will probably be able to do quad core as soon as they do their 65nm shrink. Hell, they can probably do quad core right now--since their K8 was actually designed to scale from single to dual and finally to quad core (the SRI was designed with 4 ports)--but it'd be huge and yields would be horrendous, not to mention power consumption (a 160+ watt cpu wouldnt really be a "drop in" with most current motherboards).

 

[Pabster]

As if AMD doesn't have quad-core in development too?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Pabster
As if AMD doesn't have quad-core in development too?

True enough...I believe they announced theirs last year sometime...

 

[Topweasel]

Yeah It should be released Late next year on .65 using Socket F, for more then its first year it should be a server only part.

 

[clarkey01]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Pabster
As if AMD doesn't have quad-core in development too?

True enough...I believe they announced theirs last year sometime...

Smaples have already been made. Q4 2006/Q1 2007. Im guessing 65nm.

 

[clarkey01]

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050425212220.html

 

[Duvie]

Its always the intel crowd that love to find this stuff and think that Intel is the only company that actually moves forward with a design. The fact they still haven't launched a dual core server chip and likely will about 8-9 months behind AMD should be clue enough AMD is ahead on 4 cores...It requires no great change in architecture as mentioned above....

It likely will be for server and business related chips first like it was with dual cores...

 

[sluthy]

I remember reading somewhere that AMD was looking at Q1 2006 for quad-core!! Surely not!

 

[SGtheArtist]

Watch the intel quad core run at 200-300watts even tho the 65u mfg process should make it less power hungry

 

[MBrown]

This should only be for the server market. Dont even bring quad core to the desktop at all. Its just going to be a waist of money. Let us use our dual cores for about 5 years and then let us think about buying quad core. Just imagine how much these things are going to cost. Basically buying 4 cpus with some price cuts. Wicked expensive. (Sorry. My inner New Englander is coming out...im live in NH )

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
Watch the intel quad core run at 200-300watts even tho the 65u mfg process should make it less power hungry

That makes no sense, they are abandoning netburst this year for the Merom core, which is a 4 issue core highly optimised for efficiency (like the pentium 3, dothan, etc), not clockspeed (wilamette, northwood, prescott, and the never see the light of day tejas).

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: MBrown
This should only be for the server market. Dont even bring quad core to the desktop at all. Its just going to be a waist of money. Let us use our dual cores for about 5 years and then let us think about buying quad core. Just imagine how much these things are going to cost. Basically buying 4 cpus with some price cuts. Wicked expensive. (Sorry. My inner New Englander is coming out...im live in NH )

With a 65nm die shrink you could fit 4 cores into a die the same size of a dual core cpu at 90nm. (in other words, they wont cost significantly more after the "OMGZ BUY HIS QUAD CORE!!!" initial craze wears down)

 

[SGtheArtist]

My pervious commet was a joke

 

[TuxDave]

 

[forumposter32]

is based on Moron architecture?

 

[Markfw]

I can use quad-core today !!! (4xF@H)

 

[Velk]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
Watch the intel quad core run at 200-300watts even tho the 65u mfg process should make it less power hungry

That makes no sense, they are abandoning netburst this year for the Merom core, which is a 4 issue core highly optimised for efficiency (like the pentium 3, dothan, etc), not clockspeed (wilamette, northwood, prescott, and the never see the light of day tejas).

Why would it make no sense ? 200 watts is only 50 each if you are using the intel tried and true glue them together approach.

Quad Prescotts would be more the 600 mark.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Velk

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: SGtheArtist
Watch the intel quad core run at 200-300watts even tho the 65u mfg process should make it less power hungry

That makes no sense, they are abandoning netburst this year for the Merom core, which is a 4 issue core highly optimised for efficiency (like the pentium 3, dothan, etc), not clockspeed (wilamette, northwood, prescott, and the never see the light of day tejas).

Why would it make no sense ? 200 watts is only 50 each if you are using the intel tried and true glue them together approach.

Quad Prescotts would be more the 600 mark.

So youre saying that 65nm netburst will put out ~150w per core?

 

[Vegitto]

Aw, c'mon. Don't start Intel bashing. Stop being fanboys. Don't bash Intel and don't bash AMD. I'd like to see YOU come up with a cpu design, even one as shi[/i]tty as Prescott's. Prescott is still my preferred choice over what any of you could make.

 

[SGtheArtist]

I'm sure that Intel has learned their lesson with the Prescott designs. I think that once Intel is done trying to catch up to where AMD is, they will be able to focus on a high quality multicore solution.

I was and still am very impressed with the PentiumM design and from what I understand this is where they will be picking up to continue their future processor designs.

And no I cannot design a processor

I'm just a consumer, what do I know? > I know what I spend my money on

 

[Leper Messiah]

Originally posted by: Vegitto
Aw, c'mon. Don't start Intel bashing. Stop being fanboys. Don't bash Intel and don't bash AMD. I'd like to see YOU come up with a cpu design, even one as shi[/i]tty as Prescott's. Prescott is still my preferred choice over what any of you could make.

abacus for the win!

 

[phaxmohdem]

I wouldn't be suprised if AMD has some working quad core silicon hidden deep in there labs already, seeing as Opteron was designed from teh get go years ago to run as such.

On another note, will the quad cores from AMD still be K8 based? or will that be the new K10 architecture?

 

[fatty4ksu]

Can't wait!!!