Quad core this year from Intel?

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: Steve Guilliot
IMHO, many of you are being short-sighted. For most, this might be an e-penis enlargement tool. But next year, the proliferation of HD video on the desktop will change that.

Check out Tom's article on Kentsfield. You will NEED 4 cores to do any kind of HD encoding at reasonable speeds. There's plenty to use 4 cores for besides games.

True, but it will still be a niche for a long while yet, and that's a given.

Its perfect for enterprise systems in the corporate domain (4 cores on one socket i mean). But for the average consumer, its pointless. And if they slap Extreme on it, the uninformed consumer will be fooled yet again due to marketing FUD.

 

[Steve Guilliot]

Originally posted by: RichUK

True, but it will still be a niche for a long while yet, and that's a given.

Call it a niche if you like, but some people will need 4 cores by early next year, including myself probably. As the year progresses, it will go from a "niche" to mainstream as more users have HD on the desktop and programs are multi-threaded more and more. Since quad core won't be widely available till next year, I don't forsee any period of time when quad core will be "useless".

Sure, there will many who buy quad just for bragging rights, but so what? Are many of this forum's participants braggarts, and their video cards useless becuase they don't need $300+ video cards for anything except running a niche game (read: oblivion)?

 

[BrownTown]

Personally I still think Dual Core is a total waste, but since AMD and Intel are marking down the prices on them that second core costs you alot less than the first, so you might as well I guess even if you only use it for a small number of apps.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: Steve Guilliot

Originally posted by: RichUK

True, but it will still be a niche for a long while yet, and that's a given.

Call it a niche if you like, but some people will need 4 cores by early next year, including myself probably. As the year progresses, it will go from a "niche" to mainstream as more users have HD on the desktop and programs are multi-threaded more and more. Since quad core won't be widely available till next year, I don't forsee any period of time when quad core will be "useless".

Sure, there will many who buy quad just for bragging rights, but so what? Are many of this forum's participants braggarts, and their video cards useless becuase they don't need $300+ video cards for anything except running a niche game (read: oblivion)?

When only one application fully uses the power, it's a waste of money to me. I don't forsee myself moving up from my C2D for a long time. A video card upgrade, maybe physics if it takes off but that's it. I know there's many people that feel this way too. Especially since I'm a gamer and speak from that area. Most games hardly use 2 CPUs and although that is changing, moving to 4 makes even less of an impact on this area of the market.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Steve Guilliot

Originally posted by: RichUK

True, but it will still be a niche for a long while yet, and that's a given.

Call it a niche if you like, but some people will need 4 cores by early next year, including myself probably. As the year progresses, it will go from a "niche" to mainstream as more users have HD on the desktop and programs are multi-threaded more and more. Since quad core won't be widely available till next year, I don't forsee any period of time when quad core will be "useless".

Sure, there will many who buy quad just for bragging rights, but so what? Are many of this forum's participants braggarts, and their video cards useless becuase they don't need $300+ video cards for anything except running a niche game (read: oblivion)?

Out of curiousity, what do you need a quad core processer for? Or did you mean that you need 4 cores (as in a dual-dual system would do fine as well...)?

 

[liebremx]

If you are a programmer (C/C++/Java/whatever) working on a big project 4 cores are quite handy. Pair the quad core with sufficient RAM and you got a nice compilation box.

make -j5 anyone?

 

[JackBurton]

WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Such as?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Such as?

Yes really...show me an app that will max out all 4 cores and make a noticable impact on the performance of the app vs a dual core right now. I don't want theory here, because you seem to have something you do now that a C2D wouldn't be enough for. Just having an app being CPU intensive doesn't mean you'll use 4 cores or even 2. Most apps will just use Core1 and nothing more. Unless it's specifically written to use more than one. And I don't think buying a Kentsfield to run folding@home 24/7 is worth a crap.

 

[AdamK47]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Yes

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Are they going to call it "Core 2 Quadro" then?

Core 4 Quadro

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Are they going to call it "Core 2 Quadro" then?

Core 4 Quadro

Where did you get that name? It's has four cores (Quadro) on the Core 2 architecture. Core 2 Quadro

 

[RichUK]

It's looking as if Core is akin to Pentium with regards to Intel's naming scheme's, as each new core design will be receiving the next number in sequence to denote the next gen processor.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Such as?

Yes really...show me an app that will max out all 4 cores and make a noticable impact on the performance of the app vs a dual core right now. I don't want theory here, because you seem to have something you do now that a C2D wouldn't be enough for. Just having an app being CPU intensive doesn't mean you'll use 4 cores or even 2. Most apps will just use Core1 and nothing more. Unless it's specifically written to use more than one. And I don't think buying a Kentsfield to run folding@home 24/7 is worth a crap.

That's for me to know and you not to find out. And I never said, ONE app would max out 4 cores. Let's just say, I have a few apps when run will take a few days and up to 10 days on a single core processor to complete. This app basically renders my PC useless for that amount of time. 4 cores means I can run that program PLUS other CPU intensive programs AND still be able to play games. I'm excited. Now will most people do what I do? No. But that's because they just waste their time playing games all day.

And no, it's nothing like some bullsh!t folding@home or SETI crap either.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Such as?

Yes really...show me an app that will max out all 4 cores and make a noticable impact on the performance of the app vs a dual core right now. I don't want theory here, because you seem to have something you do now that a C2D wouldn't be enough for. Just having an app being CPU intensive doesn't mean you'll use 4 cores or even 2. Most apps will just use Core1 and nothing more. Unless it's specifically written to use more than one. And I don't think buying a Kentsfield to run folding@home 24/7 is worth a crap.

That's for me to know and you not to find out. And I never said, ONE app would max out 4 cores. Let's just say, I have a few apps when run will take a few days and up to 10 days on a single core processor to complete. This app basically renders my PC useless for that amount of time. 4 cores means I can run that program PLUS other CPU intensive programs AND still be able to play games. I'm excited. Now will most people do what I do? No. But that's because they just waste their time playing games all day.

And no, it's nothing like some bullsh!t folding@home or SETI crap either.

You still can't name the use. I don't think you'll have much luck encoding a video and playing Oblivion...if that's what you're talking about.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Such as?

Yes really...show me an app that will max out all 4 cores and make a noticable impact on the performance of the app vs a dual core right now. I don't want theory here, because you seem to have something you do now that a C2D wouldn't be enough for. Just having an app being CPU intensive doesn't mean you'll use 4 cores or even 2. Most apps will just use Core1 and nothing more. Unless it's specifically written to use more than one. And I don't think buying a Kentsfield to run folding@home 24/7 is worth a crap.

That's for me to know and you not to find out. And I never said, ONE app would max out 4 cores. Let's just say, I have a few apps when run will take a few days and up to 10 days on a single core processor to complete. This app basically renders my PC useless for that amount of time. 4 cores means I can run that program PLUS other CPU intensive programs AND still be able to play games. I'm excited. Now will most people do what I do? No. But that's because they just waste their time playing games all day.

And no, it's nothing like some bullsh!t folding@home or SETI crap either.

You still can't name the use. I don't think you'll have much luck encoding a video and playing Oblivion...if that's what you're talking about.

When does video encoding take 10 days? And why do you think encoding video wouldn't work out well while play Oblivion? Just curious. I like how you're guessing though.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
lol quadcore...yea rite, thats what i need so badly..

ever tried encoding a realtime tv source in x264 at any resolution higher than 300x280. then you'll appreciate quad core.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: tanishalfelven

Originally posted by: BlingBlingArsch
lol quadcore...yea rite, thats what i need so badly..

ever tried encoding a realtime tv source in x264 at any resolution higher than 300x280. then you'll appreciate quad core.

ONLY if the app uses all 4 cores at one time and splits the work it's doing.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

When does video encoding take 10 days? And why do you think encoding video wouldn't work out well while play Oblivion? Just curious. I like how you're guessing though.

Now I think you're full of it because you can't name one damn reason 4 cores would actually be better in the real world than 2. What apps use 4 cores? Can you even name one that would make such a difference than dual core looks horrible in comparison?

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: JackBurton

When does video encoding take 10 days? And why do you think encoding video wouldn't work out well while play Oblivion? Just curious. I like how you're guessing though.

Now I think you're full of it because you can't name one damn reason 4 cores would actually be better in the real world than 2. What apps use 4 cores? Can you even name one that would make such a difference than dual core looks horrible in comparison?

Dude, what the fvck? I'm not talking about ONE app. I'm talking about SEVERAL CPU intensive apps running at one time. With 4 cores you'll have more processing power to disperse the load over. And yes, ONE app that I plan on running is video encoding software. But that's only ONE app I plan to run in the background while running OTHER CPU intensive apps at the same time. Since you don't know what a quad core CPU can be used for, apparently you don't need it. It's really that simple. Other's do. Don't worry about what others are doing, but know, other people do more than what you do with your machine. Now go back and play some Oblivion.

 

[Bobthelost]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: JackBurton

When does video encoding take 10 days? And why do you think encoding video wouldn't work out well while play Oblivion? Just curious. I like how you're guessing though.

Now I think you're full of it because you can't name one damn reason 4 cores would actually be better in the real world than 2. What apps use 4 cores? Can you even name one that would make such a difference than dual core looks horrible in comparison?

Dude, what the fvck? I'm not talking about ONE app. I'm talking about SEVERAL CPU intensive apps running at one time. With 4 cores you'll have more processing power to disperse the load over. And yes, ONE app that I plan on running is video encoding software. But that's only ONE app I plan to run in the background while running OTHER CPU intensive apps at the same time. Since you don't know what a quad core CPU can be used for, apparently you don't need it. It's really that simple. Other's do. Don't worry about what others are doing, but know, other people do more than what you do with your machine. Now go back and play some Oblivion.

I really hate that example as a benifit of dual core.

Encoding while gaming is a non issue for 99% of people. Nearly all CPU heavy applications are also HD intensive too, unless you've been clever about your HD layout/topology you're going to run into HD bottlenecks very, very quickly.

 

[hans007]

well 4 core on the desktop is only in the extreme line anyway.

i doubt it will be that useful for a normal machine. 4 core has its value though. with less sockets to worry about, it would be good for blade servers, or things like that. getting more cores into 1 socket on a machine that actually has many processes running (like say a webserver, and sql database on one machine) etc would be pretty useful.

also the video decoding / encoding boxes. i know a friend who works at a company where all they build are mpeg2 streaming boxes. they just recently upgraded from p4 to pentium D 9 series. a dual or quad core core 2 machine would be very beneficial in machines like that (they have to be 1u)

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Such as?

Yes really...show me an app that will max out all 4 cores and make a noticable impact on the performance of the app vs a dual core right now. I don't want theory here, because you seem to have something you do now that a C2D wouldn't be enough for. Just having an app being CPU intensive doesn't mean you'll use 4 cores or even 2. Most apps will just use Core1 and nothing more. Unless it's specifically written to use more than one. And I don't think buying a Kentsfield to run folding@home 24/7 is worth a crap.

VMWare Server
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/

If you are Writing, Modifying, or Testing distributed apps the ability to sandbox functionality on one systems without disturbing the rest of the network if simply great.

Right now, I'm using a Dual Core P4 2.8 at work with 2 Gig of RAM. At home I'm using a Dual Xeon 2.666 with 1.5 gigs of RAM for the same development and testing.

I'll be dropping a chunk of change on a Core 2 Quad Core and 4 gigs of RAM almost as soon as they are available. (Probably not the "Extreme")

I'm suprised there aren't more people here talking about how much this will accelorate the responsiveness of Virtual Machines. For some reason I've got this image of many other ATers running a slimmed down XP base system for gaming. With sperate VMs running for Linux, XP Dev, MySQL/MSSQL Servers.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

ONLY if the app uses all 4 cores at one time and splits the work it's doing.

Hmm if that's the case I'd want 8-cores. Not sure about you, but I like to have more power available if I need it. If an app can maxing out 4 cores to the 80%+ range then system responsivness will suffer greatly. Most of the time even when doing heavy operations I don't want my system to become unresponsive.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: VooDooAddict

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: JackBurton
WTF, do all you guys do with a PC is play games? Jesus. I can definitely use a quad core CPU. If the app isn't multithreaded, I can sure use it for multitasking. I have quite a few things I do that are CPU intensive, so the more cores, the better.

Such as?

Yes really...show me an app that will max out all 4 cores and make a noticable impact on the performance of the app vs a dual core right now. I don't want theory here, because you seem to have something you do now that a C2D wouldn't be enough for. Just having an app being CPU intensive doesn't mean you'll use 4 cores or even 2. Most apps will just use Core1 and nothing more. Unless it's specifically written to use more than one. And I don't think buying a Kentsfield to run folding@home 24/7 is worth a crap.

VMWare Server
http://www.vmware.com/products/server/

If you are Writing, Modifying, or Testing distributed apps the ability to sandbox functionality on one systems without disturbing the rest of the network if simply great.

Right now, I'm using a Dual Core P4 2.8 at work with 2 Gig of RAM. At home I'm using a Dual Xeon 2.666 with 1.5 gigs of RAM for the same development and testing.

I'll be dropping a chunk of change on a Core 2 Quad Core and 4 gigs of RAM almost as soon as they are available. (Probably not the "Extreme")

I'm suprised there aren't more people here talking about how much this will accelorate the responsiveness of Virtual Machines. For some reason I've got this image of many other ATers running a slimmed down XP base system for gaming. With sperate VMs running for Linux, XP Dev, MySQL/MSSQL Servers.

good point about vms. vmware is way faster on a dual core than a single core.