CPU/Mobo Coming: Quad-Core CPUs

D

dipdude

Skilled
source : pcworld

AMD and Intel have plans to produce competing CPUs equipped with four processor cores.

AMD and Intel once traded blows by pushing processor speeds higher, but heat issues brought the megahertz war to an end. Today's arms race is about introducing more processor cores. AMD fired the latest shot, announcing in November 2005 that it plans to produce a four-core chip by 2007. Intel has four-core CPU plans, too: The company plans to roll out its first multicore processor, code-named Tigerton, that same year.

Does this news mean your new dual-core desktop is already old news? Not really. The first quad-core chips will target servers; so far, neither AMD nor Intel has announced plans for a quad-core desktop chip. "Quad core won't make a lot of sense on the desktop for a while," comments AMD's Damon Muzny.
 
First of all, I apologize for the long post :p

Hmmmm good news, but theres a slight technicallity - These advancements in technology are amazing, but still there are hardly any apps used by mainstream users (a few games are an exception) that use SMP technology to take advantage of multiple cores (even logical cores such as HT in Intel CPUs). Most games benefit by a faster single core CPU rather than a dual core CPU with a higher PR rating, but lower clock speeds.

In the past 2 months, I've been through a 3000+ venice (bought new after i sold my old LGA 775 mobo and CPU to use until the opterons were back in stock), a 3800+ X2 (got it for a very good price - £150, but then sold it (for £205 :p) as i couldnt get it prime stable at even 2.5 GHz) and now am on my opteron 146.

I didnt notice any difference at all in gaming or general windows usage. The only difference was, i got like 6.5k in pcmark04 with it compared to 1k less with the opteron.

At the end of the day, its really about real world performance, not big numbers in benchmarks. Until apps. really start to benefit from multiple cores, I wont be wasting my money on something which will be of no use to me. its like going out there and buying a 7800GTX just to get 10k in 3D Mark 05, even though they have a 14" CRT which cant run at over 1024 x 768. How the guy gonna benefit from that? :p
 
Well, all UT, Quake games are MultiThreaded.

So will be UT2007.

I would defiantely go for a Dual Core and Quad Core too.

This is really good news. Imagine the multitasking with a Quad Core.. Now you can really, encode a movie in the background while playing a really CPU Intensive game!
 
@KITT : At the end of the day, its really about real world performance, not big numbers in benchmarks. Until apps. really start to benefit from multiple cores, I wont be wasting my money on something which will be of no use to me. its like going out there and buying a 7800GTX just to get 10k in 3D Mark 05, even though they have a 14" CRT which cant run at over 1024 x 768. How the guy gonna benefit from that?
Click to expand...

^^SPot on..boss...i fully agree wid u...infact thr has been a revu in toms, 'single core aint dead yet'...and the tests prove tht thr simply aint enough apps to take advantage of the multiple core cpus except for a few games and the situation aint gonna change anytime soon..

i simply dont believe in paying more than double the amount for a multiple core cpu just to see the benchmark results, when in the real world performance it wudnt be any better than a similar single core cpu.. moreover if the oclockability of dual cores is anything to go by, then its nothing short of pathetic....:no:
 
Back
Top