PDA

View Full Version : Intel Quad Core Chips Early Next Year?



zippyjuan
03-31-2006, 02:05 PM
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060327232848.html

Intel’s Quad-Core Desktop Chip to Debut in Q1 – Rumours.
Intel’s Kentsfield to Be Released in Q1 2007

Category: CPU

by Anton Shilov

[ 03/27/2006 | 11:29 PM ]


In just about one and a half years after the first desktop x86 dual-core chip entered the market, Intel Corp. is expected to introduce a processor with four processing engines to target the same market segment. According to unofficial information spread over the world wide web, Intel’s code-named Kentsfield processor will be available in the first quarter next year.

DigiTimes web-site reported citing sources within makers of mainboards that the world’s largest chipmaker Intel had scheduled to launch its quad-core processor, code-named Kentsfield, in the first quarter of 2007. It is also reported that at about the same time, rival Advanced Micro Devices would debut its K8L-series, which are claimed to be quad-core processors as well.

Earlier it was reported that Kentsfield is a code-name for next-generation “extreme” desktop processor from Intel, a breed that is expected to succeed the code-named Conroe processors. It is highly likely that Kentsfield features two Conroe chips on the same piece of substrate. Provided that every Conroe chip features two processing engines, the Kentsfield will have four cores, 4MB or 8MB cache, 1066MHz or 1333MHz processor system bus and other characteristics similar to Conroe.

It is unclear whether AMD also has plans to produce quad-core processors for the desktop market, but the company has confirmed its intention to supply server versions of its chips for enterprise computers in early 2007. Intel Corp. may also ship its server-oriented code-named Clovertown processor as early as late this year, in order to let customers deploy the chip in the first quarter of next year, the company has said.

The launch of quad-core chips will coincide with broad availability of Microsoft Windows Vista operating system, which is scheduled to be released widely in Q1 2007.

zero2dash
03-31-2006, 06:28 PM
Conroe is going to be a monster chip...I can't wait to see some final benchmarks of Conroe vs. an M2 A64. I want to build another PC but now is a prime time to wait 'til later this year.

shocky123
04-02-2006, 07:34 PM
*laughs*
Quad-Core fo the mainstream desktop market! Are you joking?

I'm sorry, but games are just figuring out dual-core systems.
And on another disturbing note.. it seems that Intel is bum-f**king this quad-core chip in the same fashion as it did it's initial dual-core chips. --When will they figure out you cannot just cram a crap-ton of cpu's onto a chip and expect it to perform like a real multi-core system.

2x P4's != 2x's the performance of a P4!
You need Instruction fetching mechanisms as well as the proper ALU's to actually achieve a real multi-core system.

~Kyle

redcolours
04-02-2006, 07:45 PM
like he said.

programs and apps need to written SPECIFICALLY for such systems to take advantage of its power.

im old school - i still want MORE GHz/Faster bus speeds. :shrug:

zero2dash
04-03-2006, 07:39 PM
*laughs*
Quad-Core fo the mainstream desktop market! Are you joking?

I'm sorry, but games are just figuring out dual-core systems.
And on another disturbing note.. it seems that Intel is bum-f**king this quad-core chip in the same fashion as it did it's initial dual-core chips. --When will they figure out you cannot just cram a crap-ton of cpu's onto a chip and expect it to perform like a real multi-core system.

2x P4's != 2x's the performance of a P4!
You need Instruction fetching mechanisms as well as the proper ALU's to actually achieve a real multi-core system.

~Kyle

Not Conroe and Kentsfield man...:hmm:
Early tests off Anandtech had Conroe (literally) destroying an A64 X2 4800+ including gaming. (http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2713) (There's a lot of flaming going on around the net about this article, claiming that Anand was using a crippled A64 setup, but they didn't find anything unusual, and they also ran their own F.E.A.R. benchmark that they wrote themselves and the Conroe wholly outperformed the A64.)

Conroe could actually overthrow the PPC as the best performing processor out there; I hear a lot of reports that it may possibly have (something) native that outperforms AltiVec. Also a lot of rumors abound that Conroe will be what is put in the Intel PowerMac lineup.

If Kentsfield is based off Conroe, and Conroe is already looking very promising (ie no more botched Intel hardware design)...Intel doesn't appear to be playing around anymore. :shrug:

I agree that Quad Core is severely overkill at this point, but then again, there's already companies out there that are selling "overkill" like hotcakes (*cough* Dell XPS Renegades are sold out *cough*) so if it sells - they'll do whatever will make a fast buck.

shocky123
04-03-2006, 08:39 PM
I wasnt trying to debate the results of that "benchmark".
I was meerly stating that with Intel's past 'multi-core' systems, their initial swings at design have been hit-or-miss at best. 2 Conroes will be nice, but if they use the same techniques for multi-core design as they ahve in the past, it won't be anything special, or for that matter, it probably wont show a whole lot of difference in the benchmarking areas.

~Kyle

zero2dash
04-03-2006, 09:52 PM
No, I understand what you meant...:)
I was just saying that since they've obviously done their homework with the design on Conroe - if Kensfield is essentially 2 Conroe cores - and they put the same amount of "work" into Kentsfield that they have into Conroe...well they may finally have something that is productive instead of counterproductive.

But at the same time I also agree with what you and redcolours said, which is that there's really no reason for anyone to have Quad core cpus right now since (again, I agree) that there's not even a 25% (total) optimization rate across the board for dual core yet. Maybe once 50 or 75% of all software is optimized for dual core, then there could be a minimal reason to have a Quad core solution. But (agreeing again), the way things are now...in most areas, dual cores are even a little underutilized.