Quad-core and Octo-core(8) CPUs in future - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-26-2006, 05:09 PM   #11 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Jumping_Bean514's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 752
Send a message via AIM to Jumping_Bean514
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by moisiss
Who needs 8 cores when you can get 16 cores next year?

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4704

16... cores... you could multitask you head off.... literally! WOW!!And 15 yrs from now, you might be able to get applications that are actually capable of using that many cores to their full potential (of course, by then they will be selling 17,849,098 core units so you can do even more multitasking... whaa-hooo!).

Seriously though, has the majority of software even caught up to dual core yet? Do all these companies expect us to shell out more money to get the latest software every time new hardware comes out? I mean, that's ok if you are buying like $50 games... but what about Pro apps. that can easily run from $250-$2500 a pop? And then they get mad when people pirate their software.

I know that the multicore CPU's are the wave of the future (right now at least)... but it all kinda reminds of the story (urban legend) of the guy who strapped a jet engine to his El-Camino....
rediculous
Hows that much different from this?

http://www.boxxtech.com/Products/APE...hspecsPop3.asp
__________________

Jumping_Bean514 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 05:49 PM   #12 (permalink)
True Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 146
Default

I don't know... except that it seems rediculously over-powered with little to no software support. I mean, I guess if you wanted to get it you could open 15,000,000 web browser windows at the same time.... which to me is a waste.

Does anyone know if there is any software that supports 16 cores, or 8, or even 4? Hopefully it would be good as a server (honestly, I don't know that much about servers or what makes a good one), but as a professional workstation or even a gaming rig... it seems useless right now (at least until the software catches up).

For me, I will stick to the single core for now... at least until I win the lottery and can afford to upgrade all of my software. It doesn't make sense to buy even a core 2 duo when, with the software I use the most (all single threaded), it will run just as fast on the single core AMD Athlon 64...
__________________

moisiss is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 06:07 PM   #13 (permalink)
Newb Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 11
Send a message via AIM to skullker
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by NosBoost300
This is off of wikipedia of course

Future processors
This section contains information about scheduled or expected future products.
It may contain unverified or unreliable information, and may not reflect the final version of the product.


[edit] Conroe
In October 2006, leaked Intel roadmaps unveiled that Intel plans to release four additional Core 2 Duo Processors. The release in 2007 will coincide with that of the Intel Bearlake chipset. The new processors will be the Core 2 Duo E6650, E6750, E6800, and E6850. Processor with a number ending in "50" will have a 1333 MHz FSB. The processors will all have 4 MB of Level 2 cache. Their clock frequency will be similar to that of the already released processors with the same first two digits (E6600, E6700, X6800).[7]


[edit] Penryn
The successor to the Merom, code-named Penryn will most likely debut the 45 nanometer process that will be also used for the Kentsfield sequel, Yorkfield. Announcements about Penryn are expected by mid-2007.


[edit] Kentsfield
Kentsfield is the codename for the first quad-core version of the Core 2 processor. The first model of Kentsfield, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700, will arrive with a clock speed of 2.67 GHz and two 4 MB L2 caches in November 2006, at a price of $999, the same as the Core 2 Extreme X6800.[8][9] Initial samples of the processor had substantially higher power consumption than their Core 2 Duo counterparts (approx. 130 watts), however the retail version is expected to have a thermal envelope of 80 W.[10] The top-of-the-line Kentsfield CPU will be branded Core 2 Extreme, while the mainstream versions will be called Core 2 Quad. Unlike AMD's 4x4 (which refers to two dual-core processors on one motherboard), Kentsfield will be a one socket solution; for example, the QX6700 will be two E6700 chips connected together by a 1066 MHz FSB on one MCM, resulting in lower costs but less bandwidth to the northbridge. As can be expected, 4 cores scale very well in multi-threaded applications, such as video editing, ray-tracing, or rendering, where the performance doubles compared to an equally clocked Core 2 Duo. However single or dual-threaded applications, for example most games, will not benefit from the additional cores. For single threaded applications, initial performance reports indicate that this relatively small increase in FSB and processor speed does not dramatically increase overall performance alone; however, it does leave more room for high-speed, low latency RAM to significantly boost the numbers. See the review on Tom's Hardware.


[edit] Yorkfield
Earlier media reports suggested Yorkfield to be an octa-core (eight-core) processor consisting of 2 dies with four cores each. However the newest rumours indicate that Yorkfield will be the quad-core successor to the Kentsfield processor[11]. It will have a 45 nanometer process, and be a single die design, unlike the Kentsfield, which has been compared to basically two separate Conroe cores in one socket. The Yorkfield will have 8MiB of fully shared L2 cache (the Kentsfield has two separate 4M L2 caches, shared separately by each pair of processors). An across-the-board increase in bus speed (connection to the northbridge, etc.) to greater than 1333 MHz is hoped for by this point, as all processors will be primarily limited by the bus bandwidth. This may prove to be difficult, as past advancements in bus speed have come coupled with changes in how the data is sent. Yorkfield is also expected to be released supporting DDR3 memory (1333MHz DDR), as suggested by certain enthusiast websites.


[edit] Allendale
An E4300 Allendale (1.8 GHz, 800 MT/s FSB) will be released in the 1st quarter of 2007.


[edit] Merom
Merom was released on July 27, 2006, and has since been adopted by notebook manufacturers.

A second wave of Merom processors featuring an 800 MT/s FSB and using the new Socket P is expected to launch in April 2007. [12] These chips will be part of the platform codenamed Santa Rosa.[13] Low voltage versions are also planned for release in the same timeframe.


[edit] Conroe-L
Intel will offer a low-cost single-core version of Conroe, code-named "Conroe-L", starting from the second quarter 2007, according to an article on DailyTech[14]. The new Conroe-L processors will not carry the Core nomenclature. Instead Intel is resuscitating the Pentium and Celeron brands for Conroe-L based products[15].


[edit] System requirements

[edit] Motherboard Compatibility
Conroe, Conroe XE and Allendale all use Socket LGA775; however, not every motherboard is compatible with these processors. Supporting chipsets are: Intel: 865PE, 945P/PL/G, 955X, 975X, P/G/Q965, Q963, 946GZ/PL; ATi: ATI's Radeon Xpress 200, RD600 and RS600 nVidia: nForce 4 SLI Intel Edition and nForce 570/590 Intel Edition VIA: PT880/PT880 Ultra, PT890, PM880 and PM890.

Although a motherboard may have the required chipset to support Conroe, many motherboards based on the above mentioned chipsets do not support Conroe. This is because all Conroe-based processors require a newer voltage regulator module (VRM), named VRM 11. This requirement is a result of Conroe's significantly lower power consumption, compared to the Pentium 4/D CPUs it is replacing. A motherboard that has both a supporting chipset and VRM 11 supports Conroe processors, but even then some boards will need an updated BIOS to recognize Conroe's FID (Family ID) and VID (Voltage ID).


[edit] DDR2 Memory Modules
Unlike the previous Pentium 4 and Pentium D design, the Core 2 technology sees a greater benefit from memory running synchronously with the Front Side Bus (FSB). This means that for the Conroe CPUs with FSB of 1066 MT/s, the ideal memory speed is PC2-4200. In some configurations, using PC2-5300 can actually decrease performance. Only when going to PC2-6400 is there a significant performance increase. While expensive DDR2 memory models with tighter timings do improve performance, the difference in real world games and applications is negligible.[16]


[edit] Pricing
Core 2's pricing in lots of 1000 to OEMs is as follows (all prices in USD):

Desktop Versions

X6800 (Core 2 Extreme)- $999
E6700 (Core 2 Duo)- $530
E6600 (Core 2 Duo)- $316
E6400 (Core 2 Duo)- $224
E6300 (Core 2 Duo)- $183
Laptop Versions

T7600 (Core 2 Duo) - $637
T7400 (Core 2 Duo) - $423
T7200 (Core 2 Duo) - $294
T5600 (Core 2 Duo) - $241
T5500 (Core 2 Duo) - $209
It should be noted that these prices are what it costs system builders such as Dell and HP to stock Core 2 processors. There are no set MSRPs for Core 2 CPUs in the retail channel - prices at retailers are usually very close to the above mentioned prices, but are dependent on what the supplier is charging to stock these CPUs as well as supply and demand.


[edit] Nomenclature/Abbreviation
Abbreviations quickly develop in all facets of language. In the case of Pentium processors, standard abbreviations include P1 (Pentium), P2 (Pentium II), P3, P4, P4-M, and so on.

With the release of the new Core 2 processor, the abbreviation C2 is often used, as well as C2D to distinguish the Core 2 Duo from future Core 2 Quad and Core 2 Solo processors.

sorry dude your wrong its out of Maximun pc... duh
skullker is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 06:22 PM   #14 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Jumping_Bean514's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 752
Send a message via AIM to Jumping_Bean514
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by moisiss
I don't know... except that it seems rediculously over-powered with little to no software support. I mean, I guess if you wanted to get it you could open 15,000,000 web browser windows at the same time.... which to me is a waste.

Does anyone know if there is any software that supports 16 cores, or 8, or even 4? Hopefully it would be good as a server (honestly, I don't know that much about servers or what makes a good one), but as a professional workstation or even a gaming rig... it seems useless right now (at least until the software catches up).

For me, I will stick to the single core for now... at least until I win the lottery and can afford to upgrade all of my software. It doesn't make sense to buy even a core 2 duo when, with the software I use the most (all single threaded), it will run just as fast on the single core AMD Athlon 64...
3d studio max can use all the cores for rendering and I believe other CAD and 3D programs can use them such as Massive and Maya.
Jumping_Bean514 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 07:01 PM   #15 (permalink)
Hard Gay Nahalem! Fooo!
 
NosBoost300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bellflower, CA
Posts: 10,154
Send a message via AIM to NosBoost300
Default

skulker did you really need to quote me... that was a big waste of space to have that huge thing posted pretty much twice... lol.... well i dunno where wiki got it from, and i don't care! thats just where i got it from! lol... and that other thing up there is multi-cpu not multi-core.... i look forward to technology advancing.. soon pc's will affordable and still manage to actually do things without having to spend an arm and a leg, and not to mention how it'll help out research with things like folding@home n such.. i saw bring out the octa core
__________________
Current Build:
Intel 3770k @ 4.4 GHZ | Galaxy GTX 770 SLi | 16 GB G.Skill Sniper | ASrock z77 Extreme4
2xSamung 840pro 128GB in Raid | 2x1TB Seagate | Antec 750 Watt GamerSeries
Media Build:
Intel Core i3 3220 | Galaxy GTX 650 | 8 GB Corsair Vengeance | ASrock B75M | Samsung 840 120GB
NosBoost300 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 08:30 PM   #16 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Disillusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 810
Default

It used to be who had the most GHz, but it's going to be who has the more cores. Do you think they will ever break 4 GHz with this new stupid multiple core rage going on?

I just hope that AMD doesn't act stupid by throwing in a thousand core CPU just to compete. I would like to see clock speeds go higher and architecture getting more efficient before seeing 20+ cores in a CPU.
__________________
CPU: Intel i7 2600k @ 4.4 GHz
Cooler: Cooler Master V8
Mobo: ASRock Z68 Extreme3 Gen3
RAM: Corsair Vengeance 16 GB DDR3 1600 MHz
GPU: EVGA 560 Ti
HDD: Cruicial M4 SSD 128 GB
HDD 2: WD VelociRaptor 300 GB
PSU: Corsair TX650w
Case: Corsair 600T Graphite Series
Disillusion is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 09:28 PM   #17 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,732
Default

actually a few months ago intel found a way to "Plug" some elctron leaks, basically it means up to 30-60% higher clock speeds. or so i read
TheEnd187 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 10:41 PM   #18 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 793
Default

pfft, this is just a bunch of crap to me, most games (not all though) and programs the average gamer and home owner are going to use on a computer dont even utilize dual core yet. I'm still running single core and am happy, yet, i've noticed companys saying dual cores will perform better, well, you know what? they wont unless the programs support it.

I think Intel is going crazy with the big jump ahead of AMD and will eventually fall because AMD is just sitting back, keeping it cool and working on something to crush intel again
__________________



\"I may or may not have put a loaf of bread in the dish washer\"
\"Once you go white a trailer is in sight\"
COD2_fanatic is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 10:44 PM   #19 (permalink)
Hard Gay Nahalem! Fooo!
 
NosBoost300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Bellflower, CA
Posts: 10,154
Send a message via AIM to NosBoost300
Default

i dunno if intel is really just focusing on the home consumer... this octa core will do great good in the server world... then companies can stop relying on the ps3 cell processor.. god i hate that thing... finally a console has something better than a pc!
__________________
Current Build:
Intel 3770k @ 4.4 GHZ | Galaxy GTX 770 SLi | 16 GB G.Skill Sniper | ASrock z77 Extreme4
2xSamung 840pro 128GB in Raid | 2x1TB Seagate | Antec 750 Watt GamerSeries
Media Build:
Intel Core i3 3220 | Galaxy GTX 650 | 8 GB Corsair Vengeance | ASrock B75M | Samsung 840 120GB
NosBoost300 is offline  
Old 10-26-2006, 11:14 PM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,732
Default

PS3 RuLz Im #41 at gamecrazy but i know a place where they are preordering so looks like im camping out, everyone gots to go to www.playb3ond.com shows you how much Xbox Sux
__________________

TheEnd187 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.