Quad core this year from Intel?

[cmdrdredd]

Originally posted by: 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.

and...how much of the market uses this? I'm betting not too much. See the problem is getting the average joe to believe he needs it, or the gamer to see better fps and better gameplay with it. Then it will sell well.

 

[DSTA]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd
and...how much of the market uses this? I'm betting not too much. See the problem is getting the average joe to believe he needs it, or the gamer to see better fps and better gameplay with it. Then it will sell well.

It's a henn and egg problem. Software companies will not make apps/games for a plattform (eg quad+ cores) that does not have a big market share. CPU companies stand a better chance selling a plattform that has currently only limited advantages. Average Joes buy a lot of things they don't need and I'm certain this will be no different for multi core CPUs. Usefullness will follow once there's hardware out there.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: cmdrdredd

Originally posted by: 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.

and...how much of the market uses this? I'm betting not too much. See the problem is getting the average joe to believe he needs it, or the gamer to see better fps and better gameplay with it. Then it will sell well.

well its not like they will be pumping out million and millions of quad core. its a speciality segment. im sure most of them will go into xeons.

but , people who work in software engineering, or video / audio etc will love these.

i mean i work in qa engineering. it is WAY easier to just launch a vm to test something than fire up an actual machine. not to mention with all the upcoming products that will use VMs for esecurity and such.

 

[theteamaqua]

well this thing aint gonna get me to spend my money

too expansive

 

[Viditor]

I certainly have used 4 cores fully before, but my own question was when is it better to have a single (non-expandable) quad core as opposed to a dual-dual setup (which can be expanded to dual-quad at a later date).
For professional scenarios, having 4 cores can come in QUITE handy (rendering is a good example)...but I would tend to think that with that kind of need, you would be on a professional workstation anyway. In that case, it makes more sense to me to use a dual socket (at least) system...