-
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.
Quad-core cpu from intel
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
DrMrLordX
Lifer
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.
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.
akugami
Diamond Member
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.
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.
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...
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
Lifer
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.
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.
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....
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...
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
