CrunchGear

Mmmm….. quad-core. ::drool::

So when can we expect the same from AMD?

Great. too bad xp doesn’t support more than two cpu’s.

XP home support is for one socket.
So you can have 4 cores on one die, running under XP home.
Or as many people have, Pentium 4 with Hyper-threading, which is seen as two logical CPUs.
Source
I would therefore assume that Pro would support at least two sockets.
(8 cores, tasty :P).

However AMDs plan is more ambitious. They’re 4×4x4×4x4 approach (i think that’s right). 4 cores, in each of the 4 sockets. 16 cores. With quad hard disks, 4Gbyte of RAM and quad GPU.

To power all this we’ll need quad PSU’s…..

I thought quad core was 4 cores in one die…. Intel has already done 2 die with 2 cores each…its called Xeon…

not a true core core solution, this is the same stun intel pulled when the released the Pentium D’s… 2 pentium core on a single package.

This is why I own stock in intel now

Just wait until people try to run XP on it and find that it’s only licensed for 2 processors…

For everyone that’s stating XP won’t run on these because of multiple core issues, from the MS website:

Q. How does this licensing policy affect products such as Microsoft Windows XP Professional?

A. Microsoft Windows XP Professional and Microsoft Windows XP Home are not affected by this policy as they are licensed per installation and not per processor. Windows XP Professional can support up to two processors regardless of the number of cores on the processor. Microsoft Windows XP Home supports one processor.

So you can definitely run XP on these - even XP Home on the quad core chip, as long as there’s only one chip in the machine.

Sorry, forgot the link to the MS website where I got the info:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx

XP will run just fine on it the same way it runs fine on a Pentium D Ex Ed with hyper threading turned on. got two of those sitting next to me right now.

I own INTC too, but their stock has been a major laggard, same as MSFT for many years now.

Question,
If the speed is 2.67Ghz why bother. Its slow. Or is it 2.67 per core?

Couse it sounds stupid, people want speed not multitasking, I turn off HT when doing like videos or photos so that I could utilize full speed not just 50%.

Multitasking is great, but who really uses theres computer so that both cores or 4 cores be utilized.

You need expensive maschine with 3 monitors to be able to keep up with the CPU at full speed. Most of people in my opinion just do one thing at a time like typing, like me now.

I’m sick and tired of waiting for Intel or AMD to advence their CPUs I think AMD will win, couse they doing the fusion of cores. Having many cores but they will run like one. So like 2 x 2.0Ghz cpus will actually be 4.0Ghz.

I WANT SPEED. AND MORE POWER

Recent news of affordable 1TB hard drives, dual cpu, quad core, 8mb l2 cache and 64bit native support and hd-dvd on the rise.

Should we wait for 10.5 of mac os x to be released, and buy a new mac pro+ summer 2007 instead of the current mac pro? I think it’s worth an extra bit of money

Now Apple will have an Oct core computer :-p

Seen as how they’ve had a quad for the past year.

Who is Inteal?

kakarot
having 4 cores is like having 4 processors all put onto one. they have advanced enough to make them so small they can fit more than one per die. so instead of having 4 seperare processors they put it all onto one, make sense? so really what you got is 4 2.67ghz processors tell me that is not fast enough?

I am running a Boxx TWO DUAL CORE OPTERONS on XP PRO (effectively 4 processors) and it uses all four for rendering, and all other multi threaded apps no problems. Trust me it works and it’s AWESOME!

Inteal, is the color of Intel

‘Kakerot’, you sound stupid.

You obviously don’t understand it well enough to have a guided opinion.

Apple is going to have some Rocking Computers…

Kakarot you know nothing about cpus. Raw clock speed doesnt mean shit to performance these quadcores will kill a 6-8ghz single core with the proper software.

Has progress stalled, that’s why we are getting more ‘cores’ in chips instead of actually getting faster CPUs?

If you think that a 4 core system is better than a 1 core system that is 4x faster then you are brain-dead wrong. Multi-core systems are much worse. Read up on it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

O_o. Who said that a 4core system is 4x as fast? I think there are a lot of noobs throwing their guestimations around as facts here. tsk tsk.

In defense of Kakarot and other n00bs around the world ;-) what Kakarot is saying is partly right. Intel & AMD should focus more on shrinking die sizes, reducing heat, and other developing other technologies & tricks to improve single-thread processes. Afterall, multi-threaded applications are only as fast as the slowest thread. Simply throwing more cores into a CPU is going to end up like the Pentium GHz wars — eventually it will hit it’s limit and we wont see any real-world performance increase. Then we’ll have to depend on synthetic benchmarks to increase our ePenis size. :p

Too any of you folks who doubt Kentsfield… see the following links:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=103982&highlight=kentsfield

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=105352&highlight=kentsfield

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=109054&highlight=kentsfield

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=108745&highlight=kentsfield

Ye thats what I mean. Its all cool. Multi core is best seen working fast on a Server. Couse it gets hundrets of small process like ASP pages into it. on Single threat one big and stupid code would ruin the whole thing for evrybody.

When You gaming FSB and Ghz is the most important. 2 cores are fine and a game can run nice, but when going overboard with it, its just stupid. Instead of moving forward with speed, we stand on the same spot and do nothing.

Compare 2 PCs one with dual core and other with single that are having same parameters. And do a Video encoding. And Tell me witch one is faster.

In the matter of fact I have compared my old CPU to a new Pentium D cpu. both of us have exactly same speed and L1 cash. But mine is older Pentium 4 cpu. Guess what, I won on encoding video and benchmarking on Prime95.

Both Intel and AMD is stuck on speed. They dont know What to do.

I believe AMD will move a lot into personal computers, While Intel will Move more into Servers.

quik cash quik cash

The whole speed vs multi-core thing seems a bit misunderstood here. Yes, more speed is good when you are looking at one thread. The real trick here is that with more and more multi-core processors on the market, software designers will create more and more programs to take full advantage of the multi-threaded architechture. Comparisons between a quad-core CPU and a single core CPU that is 4x faster are useless unless you are using a program that is multi-treaded. Otherwise the program will only utilize one of the four cores. Since each core has a slightly slower clock speed, it would loose in this unfair case.

A prime example is 3D rendering software. If companies like PIXAR used single threaded renderers to create their movies, each film would take about 10 years just to render. Instead they use hundreds of CPUs, processing tons and tons of frames at the same time.

A more real world example: You need to dig a well. One person can move a shovel-full of dirt only so fast (like the GHz limit we have reached). With this limit, you have two ways to dig the well faster: use a bigger shovel (like 64 bit vs 32 bit) or use more people with more shovels digging at the same time (like mutli-core systems).

Since there are far more multi-threaded progams out there than 64-bit programs, Intel and AMD are going the multi-core route.

If you think a single core CPU will beat out a dual or quad core CPU in something like video encoding, try running two encoding sessions at once on each PC and see which one will win. The Dual and Quad core CPUs may have slightly slower clock speed, however they can complete multiple comands for every one of the single core’s. If the encoding sofware is written multi-threaded, a single session will use all cores at the same time and finish a hell of a lot faster. Period.

Well I have a Core 2 duo extreme and its far from impressive. Despite this Intel chip sitting on an Intel motherboard it doesn’t run on Win XP Pro 64-bit. By that I mean it doesn’t run at all. It falls over with error messages shortly after boot. What a load of cr*p. So called “64-bit” chip can’t run with a 64-bit operating system.

If you’re using a crap video encoder, sure. Adobe Premier will use the extra cores no problem, so I suggest you contact your video encoder team and ask them to please get their code up to 1990s standards.

have 4 cores won’t get you done faster on a render even if the software is written to take advantage of a multitude of threads, if your bottleneck is the harddrive subsystem.

it all depends on what the pinch point in your system is. cpu, memory, harddrive. there is a decent argument that for most media applications, quadcore is overkill for even a very nice RAID system. there’s also a good argument that the memory subsystem, even at ddr3, doesn’t have enough throughput for a quad.

anyway, just sayin.