JustinMcG67
BSOD
- Messages
- 2,519
Re: Quad Core Arrival Estimation
So, anyone have any other thoughts about this?
So, anyone have any other thoughts about this?
Quad Core's first arrivals!
- Thread starter G9
- Start date
TRDCorolla1
Golden Master
- Messages
- 12,592
- Location
- California
Re: Quad Core Arrival Estimation
Just waiting for it to come out and see benchmarks. Intel is revamping their lineup so that's good to see. Too bad I won't be building anytime soon. Spent way too much money on other things. I had high hopes to build a new PC this Spring now that I've had my PC for one whole year. I've got additional payments to make now since I've been getting laser treatments on my face. (getting rid of old acne scars).
Just waiting for it to come out and see benchmarks. Intel is revamping their lineup so that's good to see. Too bad I won't be building anytime soon. Spent way too much money on other things. I had high hopes to build a new PC this Spring now that I've had my PC for one whole year. I've got additional payments to make now since I've been getting laser treatments on my face. (getting rid of old acne scars).
PowerDragonBall
Beta member
- Messages
- 1
Re: Quad Core Arrival Estimation
Is the average PC user even gonna be abile to use next gen computers to there full compacity, What the heck will an app for a compuer with 4 cors even look like? anyways
Is the average PC user even gonna be abile to use next gen computers to there full compacity, What the heck will an app for a compuer with 4 cors even look like? anyways
Re: Quad Core Arrival Estimation
In a few years, who knows what average computer programws will be able to do.
1337DUD3. Wow, you are a genius at this stuff, I was reading through the posts, you know A LOT. You should be a mod.
Also, arent there already multi cores. I was on the apple site. they gave an option on the G% for 2 dual cores. So that means that it has 4 cores?
And the powermac G5 is capable of 16gb RAM.
alvino said:
In a few years, who knows what average computer programws will be able to do.
1337DUD3. Wow, you are a genius at this stuff, I was reading through the posts, you know A LOT. You should be a mod.
Also, arent there already multi cores. I was on the apple site. they gave an option on the G% for 2 dual cores. So that means that it has 4 cores?
And the powermac G5 is capable of 16gb RAM.
JustinMcG67
BSOD
- Messages
- 2,519
Re: Quad Core Arrival Estimation
Well, it's a little site called Tom's Hardware my friend. Most, if not all of my information, I have learned from THG (Tom's Hardware Guide) and Google, that and just general know-how.
I would liek to be a mod of this section, I visit it more then any other section in the entire forum, aside form the Social Lounge.
As for Quad-Core and Dual-Core processors. Well, I think the industry is REALLY rushing things. They're overwhelming the consumers by ten-fold compared to two years ago. I mean, can we just get a processor that has a good core and can multitask well without having to introduce double and quadroble core processors?
Apprently not. AMD and Intel definetly want us to buy whatever they can dish out from the fab labs. Intel is lacking behind by a good amount, hopefully they can ditch the NetBurst architecture, which ever since they used it in their Double-Core processors, is generating a TON of heat. Did anyone hear about the 90C load temps on the Pentium D 9xx series CPUs when they were testing them?
Since I live roughly 15 minutes away from Intel's headquarters, I think I should go visit it. Plus, apparently some kid at my school, who claims his father works in the fab area for Intel, has an "experimental" CPU, capable of EXTREME frequencies and excellent, did I put emphasis on excellent? Well, EXCELLENT, in games. Now, I doubt this to be true, but, should it be true, then we can expect something really nice form Intel in the very near future.
Expect AMD and Intel to go 'Balls Out' this year guys. New Sockets, new processors, new RAM standarization, just new everythign in general. But like I said before, it's goign to overwhelm us so much! Maybe, to much of a good thing is bad? Who knows, only time will tell.
The Power said:
Well, it's a little site called Tom's Hardware my friend. Most, if not all of my information, I have learned from THG (Tom's Hardware Guide) and Google, that and just general know-how.
I would liek to be a mod of this section, I visit it more then any other section in the entire forum, aside form the Social Lounge.
As for Quad-Core and Dual-Core processors. Well, I think the industry is REALLY rushing things. They're overwhelming the consumers by ten-fold compared to two years ago. I mean, can we just get a processor that has a good core and can multitask well without having to introduce double and quadroble core processors?
Apprently not. AMD and Intel definetly want us to buy whatever they can dish out from the fab labs. Intel is lacking behind by a good amount, hopefully they can ditch the NetBurst architecture, which ever since they used it in their Double-Core processors, is generating a TON of heat. Did anyone hear about the 90C load temps on the Pentium D 9xx series CPUs when they were testing them?
Since I live roughly 15 minutes away from Intel's headquarters, I think I should go visit it. Plus, apparently some kid at my school, who claims his father works in the fab area for Intel, has an "experimental" CPU, capable of EXTREME frequencies and excellent, did I put emphasis on excellent? Well, EXCELLENT, in games. Now, I doubt this to be true, but, should it be true, then we can expect something really nice form Intel in the very near future.
Expect AMD and Intel to go 'Balls Out' this year guys. New Sockets, new processors, new RAM standarization, just new everythign in general. But like I said before, it's goign to overwhelm us so much! Maybe, to much of a good thing is bad?
Who knows, only time will tell. 
Re: Quad Core Arrival Estimation
The Pentium D's and revisions to NetBurst are a stop-gap - Intel would rather try and make their processors leading up to the launch of Core competitive than to just leave them in the dust, and so this is what it has done (Not to mention making use of it's 65nm process). And LGA775 is a relatively new socket - and will be their "new" socket that they "should" release - so this is not an issue. Integrating the memory controller would be expensive for a company of Intel's production capacity - and is not planned until later, because there are other ways Intel can produce similar performance benefits for a price their bead counters won't gasp at.
The new Pentium D's, and a number of other Intel solutions, are actually very good for a price/performance ratio - although it can be said that where stock speeds are taken into consideration, AMD wins the performance hands-down. Only an overclocker will truly unlock the greatest amounts of potential from both sides.
Their massive restructuring to NetBurst is called Core, perhaps you've heard of it. Contrary to popular belief, our market isn't big enough to make either company serve us with platters of fruit or chicken - but rather, a company like AMD pleases us with their architecture because the many aspects of it provide things that gamers need. Core has aimed to give similar performance - with it's 4 issue wide and 14 stage pipeline. Intel is a powerful company and knows exactly what it needs to (And can) do to beat AMD's offerings - NetBurst and AMD64 were built with different purposes in mind, and that is the main reason we see the performance difference. Intel took a long look at NetBurst with their Prescott - and when Pentium M came it was decided - they needed a shorter pipeline, a more efficient architecture, and a "performance per watt" kind of outlook. Everything is well at Intel right now - I'm more interested in seeing what AMD is working on in the shadows.
The Pentium M is dominating the mobile market.JustinMcG67 said:Well, with Intel's current line up, and last years line up, Intel is definetly not performing so well in terms of performance and raw processing. AMD has the CPU market dominated with all sorts of processors, from the mobile to the hard core gaming and the dual-core. Intel has all those processors, but they lack the power to beat AMD's Athelon line up. They're using older technology, for instance, the netburst architecture. Not to mention, the quad-pumped FSB that the new "double-core" Pentium D uses actually doesn't allow the CPU to process all that fast.
Intel needs to release a new Socket, as well as a new architecture for it's processors. They should also adopt AMD's built in memory controller. This would further enchance their CPUs. Intel's prices are good, but I think if you compare it to AMD, then the price-to-performace ratio goes to AMD. I used to think that it was Intel who had the price-to-performance ratio won, but lately, after looking at the benchmarks and reading up on processr architectures, AMD has it made.
Intel needs a massive redo on their CPUs. The netburst architecture is dying, the quad-pumped FSB idea actually failed to utilize all the CPU. They just need to get their heads straight and focus on a CPU that gamers can use to really take advantage of gaming programs. Not to mention, they need a true dual core, not a "double-core". Either way, Intel has a long way to go if they want to reclaim the CPU thrown.
The Pentium D's and revisions to NetBurst are a stop-gap - Intel would rather try and make their processors leading up to the launch of Core competitive than to just leave them in the dust, and so this is what it has done (Not to mention making use of it's 65nm process). And LGA775 is a relatively new socket - and will be their "new" socket that they "should" release - so this is not an issue. Integrating the memory controller would be expensive for a company of Intel's production capacity - and is not planned until later, because there are other ways Intel can produce similar performance benefits for a price their bead counters won't gasp at.
The new Pentium D's, and a number of other Intel solutions, are actually very good for a price/performance ratio - although it can be said that where stock speeds are taken into consideration, AMD wins the performance hands-down. Only an overclocker will truly unlock the greatest amounts of potential from both sides.
Their massive restructuring to NetBurst is called Core, perhaps you've heard of it. Contrary to popular belief, our market isn't big enough to make either company serve us with platters of fruit or chicken - but rather, a company like AMD pleases us with their architecture because the many aspects of it provide things that gamers need. Core has aimed to give similar performance - with it's 4 issue wide and 14 stage pipeline. Intel is a powerful company and knows exactly what it needs to (And can) do to beat AMD's offerings - NetBurst and AMD64 were built with different purposes in mind, and that is the main reason we see the performance difference. Intel took a long look at NetBurst with their Prescott - and when Pentium M came it was decided - they needed a shorter pipeline, a more efficient architecture, and a "performance per watt" kind of outlook. Everything is well at Intel right now - I'm more interested in seeing what AMD is working on in the shadows.
Similar threads
