intel plans quad core chip for 2006

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I've waited long enough for an upgrade. Im less than a month away from building my Intel Core 2 Duo.
 
Wow and I thought C2D beats everything now this? and a 70% increase? wow...
 
im calling a bluff on intel. remember that story they made up on how some "conroe" chip was supposed to be way better than the athlon 64? this is another example of intel manipulating the media. whether the chips are actually better or not is completely irrelevent... its all based on intentions...


oh, and to satisfy DMo.. "[/sarcasm]"

:D
 
aliasaid said:
remember that story they made up on how some "conroe" chip was supposed to be way better than the athlon 64?
Lol, it is. Does the E6300 not whip the FX-62 when overclocked on stock cooling?

Mabey it's a good thing I didn't jump on conroe. I see quad cores in my future.
 
the Core 2 Quad's as they will be called, are actually just two core 2 duo die's stuck on the one chip. it's nothing special.

on the other hand, AMD is making true quad core CPU's, along with a lot of other stuff.

K8L:
* 65nm die size

* improved DDR2 memory controller, and future support for DDR3

* improved architecture for more instructions per clock

* double the floating point units (it'll be about 1.5 times better in floating point instructions on average)

* another instruction decoder (total of four)
- note that the conroe does have 4 instruction decoders, but 3 are for simple instructions and one is for complex instructions. While AMD's three (K8) or four (K8L) decoders are for both simple and complex instructions

* improved transistor design (altering the shape for more surface area without a bigger footprint size)

* the use of Silicon-Germanium tranaistors - this has yet to be confirmed, but IBM did get these transistors to 350GHZ at room temperature.

* the possible use of Z-RAM (zero capacitor) - which is about 5 times as dense as current SRAM used in today's CPU cache.
this hasn't been confirmed for K8L specifically. though AMD will be using it in future.
 
Mind telling me what difference it makes to have 4 cores on one die versus 2 dies with 2 cores each? Also, whats "nothing special" about 2 dual core dies on one chip? It's a lot more "special" than a dual socket motherboard with two dual core processors... (in reference to AMD's quad-core plan) :rolleyes:
 
better communication between the cores themselves, and the hypertransport bus will be a lot better going to just the one die instead of two.

the one die is necessary for AMD, because they are planning to put level 3 cache into the CPU's, shared by all 4 cores

*edit*

and as for the 4x4 and stuff:
4 x 4 means the ability to put 4 quad cores in one PC.

no, they're not aiming it at gamers and such.
they're aiming it at server PC's. it'll be good for businesses (not the end user, because it is too expensive for even high-end gamers)

it means more cores in one PC, which = less PC's for a certain number of cores

and they're also trying to focus heavily on low power consumption per core

that means less physical CPU's, and less systems, but more actual cores, and a lot better power consumption.

not to mention, with less systems, that means less maintenance, therefore less costs.

so for businesses, 4x4 means better all round on price/performance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom