Quad-core cpu from intel

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: 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?

Without any major breakthroughs in reducing leakage thats a very reasonable estimate.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Pardon me for asking, but will quad-core CPUs really help anyone? Multithreaded apps or not, cmon. Milking the full potential of a dual-core cpu, or of a dual-cpu rig(single core CPUs) is already difficult for most home users, and it's questionable as to how much a dual-core CPU will be implemented by future games. I don't know that I relish the idea of investing in a quad-core cpu when future games will likely tax maybe two cores, at best.

Even for non-gaming applications, it's a pretty rare app that can single-handedly push two cores to 100% utilization. You will have to be a serious multitasker to want quad-core CPUs.

 

[Greenman]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Pardon me for asking, but will quad-core CPUs really help anyone? Multithreaded apps or not, cmon. Milking the full potential of a dual-core cpu, or of a dual-cpu rig(single core CPUs) is already difficult for most home users, and it's questionable as to how much a dual-core CPU will be implemented by future games. I don't know that I relish the idea of investing in a quad-core cpu when future games will likely tax maybe two cores, at best.

Even for non-gaming applications, it's a pretty rare app that can single-handedly push two cores to 100% utilization. You will have to be a serious multitasker to want quad-core CPUs.

I couldn't agree more. Dual cores are great for running dual core benchmarks, and someday they they will work well with games, but right now they make me yawn. I'd guess that most people with a DC have no use for it.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Pardon me for asking, but will quad-core CPUs really help anyone? Multithreaded apps or not, cmon. Milking the full potential of a dual-core cpu, or of a dual-cpu rig(single core CPUs) is already difficult for most home users, and it's questionable as to how much a dual-core CPU will be implemented by future games. I don't know that I relish the idea of investing in a quad-core cpu when future games will likely tax maybe two cores, at best.

Even for non-gaming applications, it's a pretty rare app that can single-handedly push two cores to 100% utilization. You will have to be a serious multitasker to want quad-core CPUs.

By the time quad cores hit, (late next year) there will be substantially more SMP aware software to take advantage of at least dual cores.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: 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?

Without any major breakthroughs in reducing leakage thats a very reasonable estimate.

2 die shrinks? SOI?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Pardon me for asking, but will quad-core CPUs really help anyone? Multithreaded apps or not, cmon. Milking the full potential of a dual-core cpu, or of a dual-cpu rig(single core CPUs) is already difficult for most home users, and it's questionable as to how much a dual-core CPU will be implemented by future games. I don't know that I relish the idea of investing in a quad-core cpu when future games will likely tax maybe two cores, at best.

Even for non-gaming applications, it's a pretty rare app that can single-handedly push two cores to 100% utilization. You will have to be a serious multitasker to want quad-core CPUs.

Quad cores are not for the desktop (at least not for the forseeable future). In the server sector, they will be MOST welcome! Remember that software is charged per socket and not per core...and that cost can run into the $10k's/socket range.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Acanthus


2 die shrinks? SOI?

Well, hopefully the SOI will help them out a lot, but so far the die shrinks are only making things worse at this point as leakage current becomes a greater and greater percentage of the power consumption.

 

[akugami]

I think dual cores are a great welcome to the home market. Sure, software will have to enable the 2nd core but XP and Vista will be aware enough to delegate tasks to each CPU. There is also a large increase in responsiveness when doing more than one task. Something Intel enjoyed with hyperthreading that was superior to what AMD had.

Quad cores...I think this will largely be a non factor for home users. Sure, there are some of us that dabble in video encoding and photoshopping and other power hungry tasks that will lend itself well to multi-threading. However, the typical AT'er, HardOCP'er, etc are not the typical home user. We're power users.

I really don't think quad cores will make any noticeable dent in the home user sector until late 2007 at best. It might be available before then but most people with dual cores won't have a huge reason to upgrade for a bit until prices jump down a bit. Which likely won't be till late 2007 or early 2008.

EDIT: This is on the assumption that the timelines for quad cores are early 2007. If it's late 2007 then it's likely the home market won't really see affordable quad cores till late 2008, maybe 2009. It's likely the dual cores will be the home market computer for the next 5 years while quad cores and maybe up will be for the enthusiast and server markets.

 

[Viditor]

There are differing issues for quad core with AMD and Intel...
For AMD, the issue will be memory bandwidth. 4 cores accessing system memory through only a single memory controller will create a bottleneck (IMHO).
That's why I'm guessing that Socket F chips (1207 pin for servers) will introduce a second mem controller on-die.

For Intel, it's the entire FSB model that will be a big problem. Remember that they don't use the distributed HT model as AMD does, so ALL data must go through the FSB.
The solution for them is their upcoming CSI platforms (due in mid 2007), which use a distributed ring model similar to AMD's HT. So, even though they may have quad core chips to show off in early 2007, they won't get shipped until the platform is ready as well...

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Viditor


Quad cores are not for the desktop (at least not for the forseeable future). In the server sector, they will be MOST welcome! Remember that software is charged per socket and not per core...and that cost can run into the $10k's/socket range.

Yes, this is quite true. However, the PC enthusiast market(which this forum represents more prominantly than any other segment of the PC market) rarely intersects with the server sector. Makes me wonder why any of us are really interested in quad-cores *P

For servers and some workstations, they'll be a blessing.

 

[Topweasel]

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX

Originally posted by: Viditor


Quad cores are not for the desktop (at least not for the forseeable future). In the server sector, they will be MOST welcome! Remember that software is charged per socket and not per core...and that cost can run into the $10k's/socket range.

Yes, this is quite true. However, the PC enthusiast market(which this forum represents more prominantly than any other segment of the PC market) rarely intersects with the server sector. Makes me wonder why any of us are really interested in quad-cores *P

For servers and some workstations, they'll be a blessing.

Think of the FX51 and FX53

 

[lowside]

There is also a large increase in responsiveness when doing more than one task. Something Intel enjoyed with hyperthreading that was superior to what AMD had

I'll agree with that. For what I do, I'v noticed a significate loss in that since going to AMD.

Assuming it's fed a properly coded program, is the performance increase linear between 1-2-4 cores, or is it more exponiential? On the surface it would seem linear but I don't know enough about the whole chain of events like memory, cache levels, clock cycles, and outputs.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Greenman

Originally posted by: DrMrLordX
Pardon me for asking, but will quad-core CPUs really help anyone? Multithreaded apps or not, cmon. Milking the full potential of a dual-core cpu, or of a dual-cpu rig(single core CPUs) is already difficult for most home users, and it's questionable as to how much a dual-core CPU will be implemented by future games. I don't know that I relish the idea of investing in a quad-core cpu when future games will likely tax maybe two cores, at best.

Even for non-gaming applications, it's a pretty rare app that can single-handedly push two cores to 100% utilization. You will have to be a serious multitasker to want quad-core CPUs.

I couldn't agree more. Dual cores are great for running dual core benchmarks, and someday they they will work well with games, but right now they make me yawn. I'd guess that most people with a DC have no use for it.

Oh naive one....Why dont you permanently shove you foot in your mouth....

Dual core benches??? Where...There is a real lack of any good dual core benches...

I can crush you at video encoding thanks to my dual core...dont think so?? go run the autogk test....

I can crush you at photoshop...dont think so?? Go run that test...

I can crush you at CAD rendering in 3dsmax7....

and on and on and on and on and on.....

Difference here is these are not benchmarks but actually useful real world apps...Dont blame us cause all you do with you PC is game....

I would love quad core now....That is 4 cores running 4 instances in stead of 3 boxes (1 dual core) running 4 instances...Saves me moeny in redundant components...Also my CAD apps make effective use of multicores now as well as TMPGenc....

The bolded statement I have no clue what the heck you are talking about....

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Greenman
...I'd guess that most people with a DC have no use for it.

Ummm...the vast majority of PC users (85%+) don't game at all, so I would have to say you are incorrect. Of the remaining 15% who do game, I would bet the vast majority multitask...which means they certainly DO have a use for DC, providing that there is no loss on single thread performance. This is the major reason for most in this forum having an overwhelming preference for the AMD dualcore chips...

 

[remagavon]

Can't wait until Apple uses Merom chips.

 

[fatty4ksu]

The P-D did VERY well with MPEG-2 encoding.

I'm VERY excited to see quad-core.

jmo.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
The P-D did VERY well with MPEG-2 encoding.

I'm VERY excited to see quad-core.

jmo.

And the X2 blew right past it .. Why are back to posting crap, I thought you were banned ?

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
The P-D did VERY well with MPEG-2 encoding.

Absolutely! It beat the SNOT out of the Celeron! In fact, if it weren't for those pesky AMD chips, it would be a relatively good processor!

JMO

 

[fatty4ksu]

Actually in mpeg2 encoding (the biggie) it was neck and neck with the x2, despite a much smaller price.

x2 own the divx and what not encoding trials.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Actually in mpeg2 encoding (the biggie) it was neck and neck with the x2, despite a much smaller price.

x2 own the divx and what not encoding trials.

Where ? Show me a link to a reputable site that shows that. And price/performance the X2 has been shown to win.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: 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?

They'll be K9, which will just be a slightly tweaked K8 to make it faster mhz per mhz.

The P-D did VERY well with MPEG-2 encoding.

I'm VERY excited to see quad-core.

It's not the same architecture though, Netburst blows Dothan away when it comes to encoding.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Originally posted by: Topweasel

Think of the FX51 and FX53

Huh? Those weren't server or workstation chips. Those were aimed at enthusiasts and overly-wealthy PC gamers. The fact that they used Socket 940(well, some of the FX-53s did) is hardly relevant.