Quad-Core Wars

[yodoso]

Both Intel and AMD are scheduled to release their quad-core offerings before 2007. If these companies release quad-core processors immediately where each core is equal or better than its previous dual-core offering, this would instantly make the dual-core obsolete. Knowing that, I think the first quad-core processors will have cores that are clocked less than its dual core brother. What the new processor looses in MHz, it's makes up in cores. This promises a longer life to the dual cores.

Fully clocked quad-core processors would be the equivalent of AMD releasing the 3200+, then immediately releasing the x2 4800+. It would be the equivalent of Intel releasing the P4 3Ghz, then immediately releasing the Pentium D 950. All these processors were at least a year apart in release.

Why am I posting this? Well I was going to hold off on the core 2 because I knew the quad-core processors would be out soon. I'll probably wait till the first quad-core benchmarks to make my decision. But right now I’m thinking that in the beginning of the quad-core processor's life, it will only be marginally faster than its dual-core brother.

What I’m not saying is that quad-core isn't superior to dual. I'm sure both manufactures will eventually raise the clock on each individual core. Upon doing so, I’m sure it will blow the dual-core out of the water. But this won't happen on its initial release.

 

[FITCamaro]

Quad cores might be released, but I don't think the average enthusiast will be able to afford one until probably late 2007. They will most likely be in the $999+ range.

 

[chuckshissle]

One major thing to consider is the price for a quad-core cpu. The Dual core will still reign for the rest of the year and maybe several months next year. There's a big advantage to quad-core no doubt about that but as to regular pcs and high performance gaming a single core and dual core would still be the norm. Server wise and higher application pcs then the quad core would come in handy. But when Vista comes out all software base on it will be more demanding to include games and so we would likely need the quad-core and more capable hardwares. But as for now and maybe several moths next year the dual core would be the norm for high-performance.

My question is who would win or produce the most performance-to-cost quad core. I know Intel has now produce a new architecture and could easily come out with a powerful quad-core but as AMD loss to their AM2 X2 series would be just their motivation to launch a much better quad-core version of their own. AMD is focusing on the server side and they might tightened the grip with thier upcoming quad-core.

I haven't following this topic lately and would be glad if someone could give more info about Intel and AMD quad-core architecture.

 

[CannedTurkey]

Intel's Quad-Core is codenamed Kentsfield and is scheduled for release early 2007. It's built on the 65nm production scale and is essentially 2 dual-cores on one chip.
Google hits on Kentsfield

I found this fairly recent article on AMD's quad core --> PureOverclockers <-- that sheds some light on the K8L architecture.

2007 looks like it's shaping up to be quite the year.

 

[Artmic]

If you have a quad core, how much memory do you need to feed it?
8Gig ?

 

[chuckshissle]

Thank you.

 

[Grinch123456]

Intel's Quad-Core is codenamed Kentsfield and is scheduled for release early 2007. It's built on the 65nm production scale and is essentially 2 dual-cores on one chip.
Google hits on Kentsfield

I found this fairly recent article on AMD's quad core --> PureOverclockers <-- that sheds some light on the K8L architecture.

2007 looks like it's shaping up to be quite the year.

I'm afraid you're wrong, but in a good way. Intel recently bumped up the Quad Core to Q4 '06. AMD will have a working prototype Q4 '06. Some food for thought.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Both Intel and AMD are scheduled to release their quad-core offerings before 2007. If these companies release quad-core processors immediately where each core is equal or better than its previous dual-core offering, this would instantly make the dual-core obsolete. Knowing that, I think the first quad-core processors will have cores that are clocked less than its dual core brother. What the new processor looses in MHz, it's makes up in cores. This promises a longer life to the dual cores.

Fully clocked quad-core processors would be the equivalent of AMD releasing the 3200+, then immediately releasing the x2 4800+. It would be the equivalent of Intel releasing the P4 3Ghz, then immediately releasing the Pentium D 950. All these processors were at least a year apart in release.

Why am I posting this? Well I was going to hold off on the core 2 because I knew the quad-core processors would be out soon. I'll probably wait till the first quad-core benchmarks to make my decision. But right now I’m thinking that in the beginning of the quad-core processor's life, it will only be marginally faster than its dual-core brother.

What I’m not saying is that quad-core isn't superior to dual. I'm sure both manufactures will eventually raise the clock on each individual core. Upon doing so, I’m sure it will blow the dual-core out of the water. But this won't happen on its initial release.

Id' sa don't wait. If you're waiting for MD the K8L will originally be for servers. They make make a single socket version for AM2, but the 2xxx and 8xxx will more than likely exist alone for a month or two.

Since it was moved up you may see a single socket version by Mar07. I would still just go for AM2 becuase either 4x4 will come out or quad core. There may even be a quad core based on X2. It was called Greyhound I believe, but no one know sif it will still come out.

BTW, it won't obsolete the dual core just move them down on the perf scale. SW won't catch up to quad core before the middle of next year.

 

[yourmothersanastronaut]

Quad cores might be released, but I don't think the average enthusiast will be able to afford one until probably late 2007. They will most likely be in the $999+ range.

LOL

 

[MatTheMurdera]

I wouldnt recomend you wait, quad core wont be affordable by most and wouldnt make much of a performance difference on its own. When KL8 comes out maybe it will be better than current intel offerings and Kensfeild, maybe not. What you should consider geting now is ether AM2 or Conroe, Id go for the Conroe, the performance is better than AM2 now and if KL8 doesnt do so hot you have nothing to regret.

 

[clue69less]

If you have a quad core, how much memory do you need to feed it?
8Gig ?

It's a vicious circle, isn't it? Pretty soon, we'll be multitasking so damn fast, we won't remember why we started the first 13 simulations we have running.

 

[JohnWeldt]

If you have a quad core, how much memory do you need to feed it?
8Gig ?

I had a dual opteron (4 cores) running with 1gb ram and saw no performance difference going 2 to gb ram for encoding uses.

 

[bmouring]

JohnWeldt brings up a good point: so long as you are using one stick per channel, you should choose the amount of memory that is reasonably useful for the applications you'll be running. Do research first and avoid getting way more than you need.

 

[sepuko]

Wouldn't Intel's and AMD's quad core cpus require new socket? Like if AMD releases quad core(not 4x4) i think it would most likely require the new socket F. And maybe it will take socket 771 for the first intel quad core. So why bother? As for gaming with the new dualcore cpus the limitation is mostly in the storage area and video processing. I don't think you'll feel the need for quadcore anytime soon. Server apps will benefit it though.

 

[Artmic]

If you have a quad core, how much memory do you need to feed it?
8Gig ?

It's a vicious circle, isn't it? Pretty soon, we'll be multitasking so damn fast, we won't remember why we started the first 13 simulations we have running.

it does get nutty sometimes, i want all my cores to have the same amount of memory and "Headroom" to operate, so that they won't get jealous of each other So yeah i will feed them 8Gig so their are happy.

 

[HardWareBoss]

Intel's Quad-Core is codenamed Kentsfield and is scheduled for release early 2007. It's built on the 65nm production scale and is essentially 2 dual-cores on one chip.
Google hits on Kentsfield

I found this fairly recent article on AMD's quad core --> PureOverclockers <-- that sheds some light on the K8L architecture.

2007 looks like it's shaping up to be quite the year.

Yes Intel's will be 2 dual-core. AMD is called 4x4. But AMD says it's Quad-Core in mid 07 will be true Quad-Core single chips on 1 die.

 

[yodoso]

Some of you guys are missing the point. What I was saying is that the first quad-core processors will balance a lower clock speed with more cores. This will force the buyer to debate to go with the slower clocked quad, or the faster clocked dual. It's sorta like when the dual-cores were released, in some benchmarks the single core processors beat the dual, in others it didn't. This is why I'm thinking all the quad-core processors will not be in the $1000 range, well atleast not the consumer version. Some of you guys are talking about the server quad, i'm still talking consumer. Intel may have a $1000 quad core processor, but I think they'll also have a main stream version as well

 

[sepuko]

Several words: PD8xx;9xx;Core Solo;Core Duo;Core 2 Duo. Not to mention the Celeron line. They still produce them. What about selling the quantities they already have and releasing new mainstream product later? You're ignoring certain market logic. After all it's the revenues and profit that dictate the company's politics. Not the gamers.