backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by symbolset.. on Oct 12 at 1:54 AM

Intel documents reveal two quad-core processors within the next six months

For those of you who hadn't seen this coming -- you should have -- Intel's desktop quad-core "Core 2" processor is on the way.  Intel's most recent launch update claims the chip will come in two iterations, the first of which will be here in November 2006.  Both chips have Socket 775 packaging and utilize a 1066MHz front-side bus.

The Extreme Edition 2.66GHz chip, dubbed Core 2 Extreme QX6700, is poised to launch this year in November.  Like other "Extreme" chips from Intel, the estimated price tag is $999 for the new processor. The CPU is compatible with all second-generation Conroe-compatible Intel 975X motherboards, but not all "965" series motherboards. Unfortunately, there are no more details on which motherboards are compatible yet.

A mainstream quad-core Kentsfield will launch early next year, dubbed the Core 2 Quadro Q6600, and will debut with a 2.4GHz core frequency.  A price tag for the Q6600 has not been set yet, but the processor will retail for less than the QX6700 but more than the Core 2 Duo E6700.  The E6700 has a street price of approximately $530 USD, but price cuts will bring the cost of the CPU down before the Q1'07 launch of mainstream Kentsfield.

Intel's original launch scheduled claimed that only the Q6600 would launch next year.  This has been revised several times by Intel representatives who have publically pre-empted AMD's quad-core plans.  AMD retaliated earlier this year stating that quad-core demonstrations would come before the end of the year. Given that AMD has a traditional habit of demonstrating its new processor technology during the Intel Developer Forums (IDF) that occur twice annum, it's quite likely that we will see these first demonstrations at next week's IDF.

A server version of Kentsfield, dubbed Clovertown, is also expected to ship this year with Socket 771 packaging.


Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Vista
By retrospooty on 9/19/2006 11:39:05 AM , Rating: 3
"These things will rock for Windows Vista.

Its not a perfect implementation of a quad core (I believe its 2 C2Ds stuck together), but its not like applications are really written to take advantage of 4 cores, at least not the ones I run on my home computer. "


How so? You are contradicting yourself. True most apps arent written to take advantage of 2, much less 4 cores, and Vista is. Its not like Vista itself is so CPU hungry it is waiting for CPU bandwidth to process instructions.

Here is what will happen.
Vista, XP or OSX or Linux variants for that matter- no difference at all.

Multithreaded apps - Will see significant improvement ONLY if CPU limited.

Now, what multithreaded apps are CPU limited using current C2D or A64 X2 architecure? Not much, not much at all. This is a great CPU, but for the price, its not worth getting until software catches up.


RE: Vista
By Targon on 9/19/2006 1:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
With all the services and "junk" that will come with Vista, the more cores that you have in your system, the faster your applications will run, just because the number of background processes/services per core will be lower.

Applications are clearly moving toward a multi-threaded design as well, even if there arn't many advertisements about the fact. That would be an interesting thing for a site like Anandtech to test for, and not just for things like first person shooters, but for other games, including MMOs.


RE: Vista
By Murst on 9/19/2006 2:59:30 PM , Rating: 3
No, no contradiction here.

Although no applications that I know of which I currently use are really multi-threaded, Vista certainly is.

It can manage its own processes & threads across multiple cores, and the more cores you have, the lower the load on each processor.

Also, keep in mind that each process (not just threads) are managed by Windows. If a core/cpu isn't doing much and another core/cpu is busy, Windows can assign a new process to a different core/cpu.

Therefore, even though I may not be running many multi-threaded processes, Windows will still manage multiple single-threaded processes across cores, while itself managing its own threads/processes across multiple cores.

Finally, I realize that Windows XP and earlier versions could do this, but this will really be great in vista as it is the most CPU hungry OS to date (at least from what I've seen in beta)


RE: Vista
By Ringold on 9/19/2006 3:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
Murst, you don't use WinRAR? I thought WinRAR magically appeared on everyones HD at some point or another, and since 3.6, has been multithreaded. Not just in name, either; that puppy really eats just about every cycle my X2 @ 2.6ghz can feed it, and really nearly doubles performance over single-core compression times.

I don't use any of those fancy rendering apps that can use any number of cores though so asides from WinRAR and BOINC, that's all I've got. Though multitasking is much better, but with almost all lag already removed with two cores I don't see the benefit there with 4. Not on the home side. But at these price levels we shouldn't be talking about the typical home user anyway, should we? Obviously Six-pack Joe won't be buying Quad-core for the balance of 2007 to run Deer Hunt XXX: State of Ranch.


RE: Vista
By Murst on 9/19/2006 5:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I don't use WinRar, but that's not really the point of my post. I'm certainly not saying that there is NO applications which aren't multithreaded.

This website also isn't for typical home users. I come here because I want to know what technology will be coming out in the future and how to improve my computer at home. Do I need the latest technology? Of course not, but I want it. I don't care if the average home user will be using this stuff. This is for my own personal use, and I can clearly see the benefits of moving to a quad core CPU.

Just because you don't don't believe that you will benefit from some new technology which is coming out does not make it useless ;)


RE: Vista
By symbolset on 10/12/2006 1:54:54 AM , Rating: 2
What benefits from multicore? Who runs just one app at a time is a better question. It's about responsiveness.

Most video rendering sofware. Blender. DVD Burning. CD burning. IE. Pro-E. Autocad. What, don't you post youtube? How do you do that while you're strolling around in WoW? Don't lag or your BF2 1LT will get fragged.

These are all going to see grand responsiveness improvements with multicore and the more cores the better. Who wants to wait for their video to render before they can burn a CD, listen to Internet radio, browse the net or all three? Who wants a Moment of Silence in their DVD just because a system event (BTW, what's up with that?) just kicked in?

Some of us like to do stuff while our computers are doing other stuff. Multitasking on a single core just ain't what it's supposed to be and judging by the resources it consumes Vista isn't going to help. Try it. You can play games while you're recording TV and watching a different channel and burning a DVD, and your teamspeak is crystal. All this and the whole time _quiet_ because it's just not getting hot tho the fan's a gentle breeze and not the leaf blower you're used to. You'll never go back.

About the money -- the cost is fading fast as they're retiring old procs much faster than they used to. Two cores cost less than one did just a little while ago. '386 servers used to cost $10,000. Pick your comfort point and go for it. If next year they're more and faster, upgrade. It's not like the new high end procs don't fit in the same 975X motherboard that hosts last year's P4. If you gotta get a low-end CPU today, those cool new procs will slide right in when their descending price hits your rising price point sweet spot.



"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki