Print 55 comment(s) - last by Viditor.. on Mar 15 at 8:47 AM

Intel's Kentsfield CPU (top) will be the first quad core desktop chip, Clovertown will be the server equivalent - Courtesy
According to Intel, it says quad-core for desktops will be ready by 2007

IDF is definitely showcasing a host of exciting technologies, but today Intel showed details of some very interesting technology in regards to where servers and desktops will be heading in 2007. According to company slides, Intel expects to be shipping multi-core Xeon processors based on the Montecito core by mid-year 2006. Targeting the MP segment, Intel's next-generation Tulsa processor will be manufactured using 65nm fabrication technology with large 16MB caches.

For the desktop segment, Intel indicated that Kentsfield will be the first quad-core processor and will be released in Q1 of 2007 after Conroe. During mid-year 2006, Intel will introduce its Bridge Creek platform but it did not indicate whether or not it will be Kentsfield ready. Recently, AMD also indicated that it will be introducing quad-core processors in 2007 for the server segment, but did not talk about the desktop space. According to Intel slides, Kentsfield will be focused on immediately after Conroe.

Intel indicated that quad-core processors will only be needed for the very highest-end desktops. Corporate users and enterprise level productivity software will also be a target for Kentsfield. Tigerton, Intel's quad-core MP processor, will also be released in early 2007.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By ChronoReverse on 3/9/2006 5:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
So that makes it... still a quad core chip. Your point?

In any case, each pair talks to each other even better than with a point-to-point connect. Futhermore, our very own Anandtech has shown that the benefits from the AMD solution (while theoretically much better) don't seem to (currently) translate to measureable performance boosts (on the desktop level).

Which, frankly, isn't surprising on the desktop level. How many tasks can you think of would use multiple cores with huge inter-thread communications? On server systems definitely, on desktops not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I like AMD, all of my machines are either AthlonXPs or Athlon64s. My last Intel CPU was a Pentium 3.

But if Intel has the better CPU in 2007 (my next upgrade time) with a price/performance better than AMD, there is absolutely no reason I wouldn't buy it.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki