Intel's 32nm Core i7 Coming this Year

[Luscious]

[citation][nom]cl_spdhax1[/nom]intel pushing out new chips as fast as that lady pushing out kids[/citation]
and the fire marshal was called to shut her vagina.

BTW: looking forward to those Clarksfield notebooks later in the year.

 

[zedx]

What can I say... Intel just wants to make money and does it so very well. Lynnfield guns down Phenom II, Phenom II 3ghz gets to $170, Then Intel introduces dual cores with IGC's that defeat them (I think it will defeat the Phenom II.) instead of high end CPU's. Arrandale and Lynnfield would sell great. Also, Intel is protecting it's X58 CPU's with high end mobo's by giving hexa cores only on X58. Thus making Lynnfield more mainstream. I was expecting a 32nm Lynnfield hexa core. Intel gains market and completes tick-tock. How ingenious.

Please, AMD, bring the loooooong awaited Bulldozer FAST and surprise us...

 

[gnesterenko]

[citation][nom]rocketw31[/nom]The fact that a common user may be ripping and encoding dvd's completely puts to bed the idea that a common user doesn't have a need for 4 or more cores. Do you realize that a blu ray rip takes hours even on a high end 4 core machine. To rip and encode my blu ray discs for my portable media player takes ages. I need more and faster cores and so do alot of other people.The idea that people aren't using their 4 core machines is a load of hogwash.[/citation]

If you think that the average user is encoding blue rays, you are way off. Average user doesn't even have a blue ray player, and if they do, they sure as hell don't have a blue ray burner. I'm not saying that people don't. You are an example. A friend of mine is another. And you do in fact have a use for a high core count. The rest of computer users on the other hand, that do not do some sort of digital content creation, are throwing their money away on quad-core machines.

 

[rocketw31]

Here we have more total conjecture. Market data from Nielsen January 25th indicated that 17% of all media sales were Blu Ray. To say most people don't have Blu Ray is way off base. Do a majority of people not have Blu Ray, sure, but following the curve we are probably only 24 months from the majority of sales being Blu Ray, give or take a little for the economy. You provide no facts, only speculation. Riping Blu Rays will be very common sooner than you think.

Of course we all used Windows 95 at one time too, or at least some of us did, or did we? That's total conjecture, cause I pulled it out of my ass.

 

[gnesterenko]

Do you realize you just told me what I told you? Majority just OWN a blue ray player - they aren't encoding their own. In fact, I can think of two major users of blue ray encoding. Small scale professionals which can't be a large user base. The second is pirates. And even these are abandoning Blue Ray in lieu of hard disk storage, so blue ray becoming common is arguable at best. I already have no need for blue rays ever - my PC streams full HD content to my HDTV with no need for physical media - and THAT my friend is the future. Physical storage in 24 months will be irrelevant. I mean common. Straight economics here. Buy an expensive blue ray burner and keep paying to feed it disks, which I then need to store and cataloge. OR I keep all my movies and media on a 2TB drive which cost less then the BR burner to begin with.

You provide raw statistics with no thought as to their possible meaning, followed by your own speculation, so please, lets stop with the pot calling the kettle black. The POINT is, as you've agreed to with your own little tid bit is that most users are not using their computers for video encoding or digital content creation - which is what quad cores are really good for. The other 80 percent of us or so will get all we need from a dual core.

The small portion of us that are gamers couldn't care less about quad cores - we want max frame rates and quick load times. THat means fast, overclocked CPUS. Which is why I am excited about an i7 dual core, which I will be able to push much further then I would a quad core due to heat issues.

 

[bigman_dfn]

Will the 32nm chip fit in existing boards? or do we wait?

 

[Tindytim]

[citation][nom]bigman_dfn[/nom]Will the 32nm chip fit in existing boards? or do we wait?[/citation]
I would guess the processors mentioned in this article will need a new board, as they will likely be LGA 1160.

But when they release performance 32nm processors, I'm sure they'll be on LGA 1366. (LGA 1160 is for low end machines).

 

[Guest]

I've decided to push my 3+ year old AMD 4200+ system another year or two buy upgrading my ram. No need for any of this fancy stuff. In fact, I want to dump my high end sony laptop for a netbook.
If all you do is surf the web and use office and non-gaming/non-data-intensive apps you are fine with anything produced in the last 3 years.

 

[jroc]

I agree 100% with gnesterenko. I just got a Core 2 Duo last year. For me and most folks, Quad Core is overkill. I dont even play PC games on my PC. Maybe the Sims 3, thats it. I dont and might never attempt to overclock. Reading about heat vs a quad core, I will definitely be getting one of these new 2 core Intels.