Who will be first to have QUAD cores?

[bluemax]

So, who will be first - and any idea when?

Edit: Maybe I should mention: For DESKTOP average users.

Looks like it's far enough away to be of no concern.

 

[BrownTown]

Intel Q1 2007

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Intel Q1 2007

Uhhhh, you are kidding me right???

Sun already has had 8 core CPU's for a considerable period of time now.
http://www.sun.com/processors/UltraSPARC-T1/index.xml

and each core being SMT.

 

[Duvie]

Already have it now!!

Really for the specialized user....not for most of the yahoos in here who only game or run superpi benches....


I have read things over the last 6 months that says AMD may have something out by the end of the year in the more expensive server market, but whether it can be done in mass I dont know....It would have to be 65nm which all reports AMD will have in volume by end of the year...Some say the cost doesn't really pay off for quads until perhaps .45nm...If that is the case INtel will be there well in advance of AMD


Edit:

hot off the presses...

Looks like quad opterons not until mid 07

http://www.crn.com/sections/hardware/hardware.jhtml?articleId=188700772

also mentions the stupid dual FX setups!!!


This sounds interesting...

AMD also disclosed plans to let system makers couple Opteron processors with coprocessors for specialized applications, such as high-performance computing, advanced security, and XML and Java applications. These coprocessors currently can be plugged into an extra Hypertransport link or an empty socket in a dual-socket system.

 

[Duvie]

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2006/03/28/intel_kentsfield_quadcore_release/

This is one we talked about a few months back that showed both coming out around the same time....with conference call above it looks like AMD willl be later to the dance...However it may be new K8L design and therefore this wont be core architecture versus opteron we have been seeing early reviews of...

Shoudl be interesting...

 

[BrownTown]

Well, if you wanna be technical then there are chips with lots more then 4 cores, but I assume you mean quad cores for desktops?

 

[Maximilian]

Its like the 1ghz race all over again. I reckon Intel will be first, depends if your talking about desktops though, if not then servers already have them, google image search the POWER 5 cpu. That things got lots of cores and is massive, put 9 pentium PRO's together and it wouldnt equal the weight of a POWER 5.

 

[Falloutboy]

intel maybe, but there bus is so starved for bandwidth it will be pointless till they get that sorted

 

[hardwareking]

intel will be the first out with quad cores.And i think it'll be on the 45nm process.
But the quad core cpu will seriously be starved for bandwidth because of the fsb.
Unless they make the fsb around 2ghz,then i don't really see any point.

 

[Dubb]

if you count mainstream dual socket systems, probably cloverton - two woodcrests on the same package. Followed shortly by the kentsfield desktop EE.

 

[Viditor]

The real question is, "Who will be the first with non-MCM quad cores" (shared or connected cache)?

Edit: I should point out that AMD's 4x4 is at least equal to an MCM quad core...though the connections are faster because they use cHT links instead of the FSB.

 

[DarkKnight69]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
intel maybe, but there bus is so starved for bandwidth it will be pointless till they get that sorted

Conroe doesnt appear to be starved on the bus, I know that dothan isnt!

 

[the cobbler]

AMD 2Q '07, maybe 1Q launches Deerhound alongside Brisbane

so AMD will be first quad, on 65nm. Deerhound will be Opties. First "enthusiast" mainstream quad looks like it will be AMD Greyhound. nothing on Intel's roadmap like this I think? AMD roadmap also shows 45nm quads basically across the board in '08.

course we all know this doesn't mean a ton right now, but looks like AMD is first one on paper, lol

 

[Aluvus]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
intel maybe, but there bus is so starved for bandwidth it will be pointless till they get that sorted

Conroe doesnt appear to be starved on the bus, I know that dothan isnt!

Making claims about Conroe's performance in this area is premature. And Dothan is single-core only. And neither is quad-core.

For a quad-core system, Intel's implementation of multicore system could be problematic. I believe I remember reading something to the effect that they were introducing chipsets with dual FSBs for their server line to sidestep the issue a bit.

 

[BrownTown]

Its not like bandwidth is jsut an Intel problem, AMDs quad core chips will still be using the same DDR2 memmory they use now, so they will also ahve twice the cores competing for the same bandwidth.

Also, the first quad core as schedualed now is the Kentsfield which is a 65nm dual allendale MCM which will replace the Conroe XE. (for those that don't know allendale is the 2MB Conroe core, so Kentsfield will have 2x2MB caches and 1066 FSB)

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Its not like bandwidth is jsut an Intel problem, AMDs quad core chips will still be using the same DDR2 memmory they use now, so they will also ahve twice the cores competing for the same bandwidth.

Also, the first quad core as schedualed now is the Kentsfield which is a 65nm dual allendale MCM which will replace the Conroe XE. (for those that don't know allendale is the 2MB Conroe core, so Kentsfield will have 2x2MB caches and 1066 FSB)

Yes, there will be some bottleneck regardless; but if you realize in a single socket system the bottleneck for CMA chips will be limited by FSB signal frequency at the upper bound; and usually would be quite a bit lower, due to graphics and I/O traffic over the same bus. While AMD64 chips would only be limited by the bandwidth of the memory controllers themselves, which can reach 12.8GB/s with some tweaks in optimization of the IMC, per socket. The bottleneck on Intel systems should become much more evident on a quad core system.

That's not to mention that Intel's initial "quad core" implementation is actually MCM, with snoop traffic going through that same FSB, this would further hamper Kentsfield and Clovertown from reaching its throughput potential.

 

[fixxxer0]

I think the hardware end is getting WAY ahead of the software end here.

I still have yet to see any game and software being written for multiple processors. Everyones in the rush for quad core and whatnot, the dual cores aren't even being utilized 100%

 

[Falloutboy]

The great thing about the athlon 64 is how modular it is. If it runs into a bandwidth snag at quadcore they can just put in another controller with very little R&D besides updating the socket for more memory traces.

On that subject does intel even have an answer to there bandwidth issue on the way?

 

[bluemax]

I get the impression that any quad-core that may be coming out in the future WILL NOT be compatible with the new generation of motherboards being released now.

Thus, it's pointless for me to shoot in the dark and should make my purchasing decision based on what's available NOW. (Well, maybe a month for Crusoe...but that may still be hype.)

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Falloutboy
The great thing about the athlon 64 is how modular it is. If it runs into a bandwidth snag at quadcore they can just put in another controller with very little R&D besides updating the socket for more memory traces.

On that subject does intel even have an answer to there bandwidth issue on the way?

CSI bus.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: fixxxer0
I think the hardware end is getting WAY ahead of the software end here.

I still have yet to see any game and software being written for multiple processors. Everyones in the rush for quad core and whatnot, the dual cores aren't even being utilized 100%

I believe AMD will have quad cores in the server socket (old 940) first, and servers can always use more cpu's.