Your thoughts on Quad Core?

[Rob Williams]

As you are probably well aware, Intels Kentsfield has been released from the grasp of NDA, and benchmark results are plenty.
Intel Core 2 Quad - Digit Life (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-core2-extreme-qx6700.html)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Hexus (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7129)
Intel Core 2 Quad - HotHardware (http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=897)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Legit Reviews (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/412/1/)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Motherboards.org (http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1669_1.html)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Neoseeker (http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2quad_qx6700/)
Intel Core 2 Quad - NordicHardware (http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?skrivelse=491)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Tech Report (http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/core2-qx6700/index.x?pg=1)
Intel Core 2 Quad - TechSpot (http://www.techspot.com/review/27-intel-core2-extreme-qx6700-quad/)
Intel Core 2 Quad - TweakTown (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/974/)My favorite review was from Anand (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866), and I can say that I am two-sided on the Quad Core release. Personally, I have absolutely no need whatsoever for a Quad Core... and I can't see anyone on this forum needing such a beast either.

But, games written for Dual Core will be released late next year. If you have a Kents and two cores are still being used up, then the other two can be used for DVD ripping, or what have you.

This is the same debate we had when Dual Cores were released. "Great, I can play a game and rip a movie at the same time!" Once games take advantage of two cores, we will have the same prediciment. Essentially, if you have a Dual Core and are playing a game that takes well advantage of both cores, then you may as well consider it a Single Core because you cannot add any additional processes without slowdown.

Whew... but that's a ways off. I look forward to games like Alan Wake and UT2007 that can take advantage of the additional cores though. Should allow a lot more freedom to the developers, and not require the gamers to pick up something like an AGEIA card.

What are your thoughts?

[b1lk1]

I think they are purely a waste of money for most of us. As you stated, dual cores are hardly pushed at the moment, never mind more. I can run 2 instances of folding @ home and play ANY game out and not notice any slowdowns or stutters. I too cannot wait until they start pushing off the physics on the other core and actually utilizing both. Too bad M$ is fubaring Vista so badly that I won't let it near my hard drives. DX-10 support needs to be added to XP. But I digress. Quad cores are for hardcore video editors, not gamers.

[Rob Williams]

I agree with you b1lk1.

Anyone notice that these things are going for WAY more than they were originally "intended"? How about $1499 (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5016) at NewEgg? So much for being the same price as dual E6700's. Oddly enough, the chip is actually $300 cheaper on Canadian website NCIX.com (http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=94156D22&vpn=BX80562QX6700&manufacture=INTEL%20-%20PROCESSORS).

I have to stress.. we Canucks never get anything cheaper than the States. We are in the same rut in a sense as the UK, although they still have it much, much worse.

Perhaps NewEgg is just reaming customers for all it's worth.

[b1lk1]

I agree. Although NCIX has been getting better lately, and if you have access to CanadaComputers, they also have cut their prices to become more competetive. Anyone outside of North America really gets nailed with really high taxes. I think they average 20%+ in most countries, besides the lack of availability of stuff.

[g-sixty]

I played around with a Quad Core at CES, and I have to say I was impressed, but I really see no need in one of these processors yet unless for video editing or 3D cad work. Maybe by mid 2008 these processors will become the norm.

[Rob Williams]

By 2008, it wouldn't surprise me if we had 8-Core CPUs all over the place. As it stands, Intel has the capacity to do something like this, but even then it will still not be needed.

I am still trying to figure out a real good way to exploit the Quad-Core I have lying around here.

[g-sixty]

Maybe you can encode high-def video, open up a 2gb solidworks file, play a couple of video games all at the same time :p

[Warpx9]

By 2008, it wouldn't surprise me if we had 8-Core CPUs all over the place. As it stands, Intel has the capacity to do something like this, but even then it will still not be needed.

I am still trying to figure out a real good way to exploit the Quad-Core I have lying around here.


You must have had a crystal ball, Intels 8+ Cores Nehalem chip is slated to begin produciton in 2008.

Here is Intels press release 3-28-07 Nehalem is at the bottom (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20070328fact.htm)

[madstork91]

WHY>>> WHY WHY WHY the **** do we need this?

You'd think a quad core would be enough... why can't they just increase the speeds now?

[JacKz5o]

WHY>>> WHY WHY WHY the **** do we need this?

You'd think a quad core would be enough... why can't they just increase the speeds now?

Seriously. I would rather have a higher clocked 3GHz+ dual-core than a 2.xxGHz quad-core. I guess its because its easier to slap on more cores and dies than to add more GHz while keeping its voltage use down :p

But once multi-threading gets more mainstream, more cores will be better.

[Rob Williams]

I guess its because its easier to slap on more cores and dies than to add more GHz while keeping its voltage use down :p

It's far easier. It's hard as hell to reach higher clocks than it is to add in a new core. Some CPUs just won't hit certain frequencies and be reliable. It's a slow start, but as months (and years) pass, we should be seeing additional cores being executed more efficiently by our favorite apps and games.

I just wish that process would hurry up...

[JacKz5o]

It's far easier. It's hard as hell to reach higher clocks than it is to add in a new core. Some CPUs just won't hit certain frequencies and be reliable. It's a slow start, but as months (and years) pass, we should be seeing additional cores being executed more efficiently by our favorite apps and games.

I just wish that process would hurry up...

Good thing most of the programs I use are already multi-threaded :D. Adobe products FTW. Most of the games I play will soon be too :)

[CoolAlex]

in my oppinion,quads are more future proof than their dual core counterparts.

[werty316]

The fastest clock speed war is over and now the amount of cores is the new war that has begun.

[b1lk1]

Once the price drops hit, Quads will start becoming mainstream. But if you ask me, no processor is worth $1K+, I don't care how fast it is.

[KaitenV]

They are expensive and unneeded. But some super cooling for your duel core, and you'll be happier. :)

[CoolAlex]

i guess the 45nm quads will be more cooler and you won't need badass coolers like ones for the current 65nm cpus

[b1lk1]

I would say you are wrong. Just because it is a smaller process does not guarantee a cooler chip. Until they put 4 separate cores on the die, and the 45nm are not going to do that, they will still be furnaces. The sad truth is that the Core 2 Duos and the Quads could care less about running hotter. In fact, they are seen everywhere routinely running 100% stable @ 60C+ unlike many previous Intel/AMD CPU's that would fall on their faces over 50C. The days of a small CPU cooler are gone. The real travesty is that they don't package a really good cooler with them. The stock coolers are fine for stock running, but they are just inadequate for much else.

[Rob Williams]

Well, with a smaller process and (maybe) the High-K transistor types, they should be more efficient overall with lower voltage. In that sense, they should run cooler. It wouldn't be a monumental difference though, especially once overclocking and increasing the voltage.

"The sad truth is that the Core 2 Duos and the Quads could care less about running hotter."

The Q6600 I have (overclocked) runs at around 80C - 90C completely stable. The motherboard is not so stable at that clock though.

[MacMan]

I think they are purely a waste of money for most of us. As you stated, dual cores are hardly pushed at the moment, never mind more. I can run 2 instances of folding @ home and play ANY game out and not notice any slowdowns or stutters. I too cannot wait until they start pushing off the physics on the other core and actually utilizing both. Too bad M$ is fubaring Vista so badly that I won't let it near my hard drives. DX-10 support needs to be added to XP. But I digress. Quad cores are for hardcore video editors, not gamers.

Not only I, but several leading online publications agree with you. I was all set to buy an eight-core Mac Pro, but after reading the reviews I now know what a waste of money they would be.

I am still planning to buy the special Apple commisioned ATI super graphic card this October. It totally blows the highest end Nividia cards out of the water. But that said, at 12 inches, these dual 1 Gigabyte each, red monsters are down right UGLY! Thank God they are hidden in the case.

All-in-all, a very good post.

[MacMan]

As you are probably well aware, Intels Kentsfield has been released from the grasp of NDA, and benchmark results are plenty.
Intel Core 2 Quad - Digit Life (http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/intel-core2-extreme-qx6700.html)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Hexus (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=7129)
Intel Core 2 Quad - HotHardware (http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=897)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Legit Reviews (http://www.legitreviews.com/article/412/1/)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Motherboards.org (http://www.motherboards.org/reviews/hardware/1669_1.html)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Neoseeker (http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/core2quad_qx6700/)
Intel Core 2 Quad - NordicHardware (http://www.nordichardware.com/Reviews/?skrivelse=491)
Intel Core 2 Quad - Tech Report (http://techreport.com/reviews/2006q4/core2-qx6700/index.x?pg=1)
Intel Core 2 Quad - TechSpot (http://www.techspot.com/review/27-intel-core2-extreme-qx6700-quad/)
Intel Core 2 Quad - TweakTown (http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/974/)My favorite review was from Anand (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866), and I can say that I am two-sided on the Quad Core release. Personally, I have absolutely no need whatsoever for a Quad Core... and I can't see anyone on this forum needing such a beast either.

But, games written for Dual Core will be released late next year. If you have a Kents and two cores are still being used up, then the other two can be used for DVD ripping, or what have you.

This is the same debate we had when Dual Cores were released. "Great, I can play a game and rip a movie at the same time!" Once games take advantage of two cores, we will have the same prediciment. Essentially, if you have a Dual Core and are playing a game that takes well advantage of both cores, then you may as well consider it a Single Core because you cannot add any additional processes without slowdown.

Whew... but that's a ways off. I look forward to games like Alan Wake and UT2007 that can take advantage of the additional cores though. Should allow a lot more freedom to the developers, and not require the gamers to pick up something like an AGEIA card.

What are your thoughts?

Just an interesting article on 8-Core machines vs a 4-Core machines regarding game performance. Apparently as the link below shows, a 8-Core machine is no faster than a 4-Core machine when used for gaming!

Hmmm, I never would have thought.

http://www.barefeats.com/octopro2.html

[Rob Williams]

That link is broken, but it's not much of a surprise. Games won't even take advantage of 4-cores currently (except a very select few), let alone 8-cores. I expect by this time next year, more games will take proper advantage of these additional cores.

[DarkSynergy]

I fully believe that DX10 is going to force programmers to account for the growing number of cores on CPUs. In all reality, 4 cores now doesn't equate to a better gaming experience in most games but it's gaining ground. Just because it's early doesn't mean that there isn't a future for it.

[b1lk1]

Well, depending on how far they drop the prices of the Q6600 with the upcoming April 20 price drops, I just might have to eat my own words if I buy one. Although, the E6420 is screaming my name out very loudly, LOL!

[DarkSynergy]

The Q6600 should be in the low to mid $500s. Do not quote me on that, but thats the buzz around the 'net.

[Rob Williams]

The Q6600 for $500 is a steal if true. E6600 in Canada costs $400 right now, so a Q6600 should wind up being $600 if conversion is accurate. 50% higher cost for 100% more cores sounds like a good deal.

[b1lk1]

I am hoping like hell the E6700 drops to the E6600 price and I am all over one like stink on you know what. $600+ is still out of my league, but $400 for a E6700 sounds delicious, especially since I am in the market for a new CPU with a high multi.

[NicePants42]

Well, the Q6600 is getting down there. (http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductList.jsp?ThirdCategoryCode=110514) They're even lower over here. (http://www.mwave.com/mwave/intel_drop.hmx?)

Initially I was of the majority opinion that 4 cores are a complete waste at this point in time - and to a large extent I think they still are. For the vast majority of people, the point at which 4 cores will make a noticeable difference is still a LONG way off.

But then you see a really pleasant surprise like Supreme Commander already making use of 4 cores (http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTMwNiwxLCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==), and it makes you wonder.

I think that a lot of enthusiasts are going to get 4 cores sooner than they originally thought - especially now that the prices are coming down significantly. $525 isn't chump change, but there are people who paid $350 for an E6600 and $250 for 2gb of DDR2 a few months ago - now you can buy the same RAM for ~$180, so add another $100 and you get two more cores.

For enthusiasts, I can't argue that $800 for Q6600+RAM is a waste when $700 for E6600+RAM was within reason 60 days ago.

[DarkSynergy]

I was one of those that paid $300+ for the E6600 when it launched. While I don't regret that purchase, the new pricing for the entire Intel lineup is a welcome sight and great for those who are about to build a machine. I am personally thinking about getting a Q6600 and then an E4400 for the wife's PC. I think the new prices are fantastic. Now where is a Q6400 damn it! 4 cores for the masses!

[madstork91]

Will the average joe ever actually need this though?

I know alot of us here on this forum enjoy games regularly, but the amount of gaming done on most computers is still relatively next to none. So why, how, and when will the average pre built PC ever need, have, and use a quad core?

And once these questions are answered... Do you really think they can force this transition?

[DarkSynergy]

I cant daily users needing four cores for a while. Most users, particularly in a business setting, have one or two core responsibilities so the amount of programs that they are using at any particular time isn't enough to justify giving everyone quad core PCs. The same can be said for the average daily user. Not to many people, I think, would truly benefit from the extra cores. Now with dual cores, I can see the need. Sometime, one core just isn't enough. Thats not to say that one core is bad, I mean how long have we gotten by quite nicely with single core CPUs, so we can suddenly say that they are pointless now but with dualies so cheap now, its a no brainer.

On servers, the more cores the merrier but for the average users at home or work, there honestly isn't a need for more than 2 cores.

[NicePants42]

Will the average joe ever actually need this though?

I know alot of us here on this forum enjoy games regularly, but the amount of gaming done on most computers is still relatively next to none. So why, how, and when will the average pre built PC ever need, have, and use a quad core?

And once these questions are answered... Do you really think they can force this transition?
Of course the average joe will need this eventually. No one can tell you when though, because average joe makes his own decisions.

What I can tell you is that you can get an X2 for $69 (http://www.mwave.com/mwave/viewproduct.asp?PID=CPU-A64X2AM2&updepts=CPU&DNAME=Processors+%2D+CPU) these days - and many average joes still don't use all that power. When average joe starts buying quad-cores, it isn't going to be because he needs them, it'll be because it's the best value around, and the lowest option offered by Dell/HP/etc. Have any average joes complained to you lately about being 'forced' to transition to dual-core? Do you think people will complain when they have to shell out $80 for a quad-core cpu?

[DarkSynergy]

Do you think people will complain when they have to shell out $80 for a quad-core cpu?

No, I doubt anyone will, just as no one is complaining that they are stuck with 2 cores. With that said though, how realistic is an $80 quad core in the near future. Man it would be glorious is they were that cheap now though.

[b1lk1]

Quadcores are really only suited for professionals that need the extra computational power for video editing and server needs. Games don't need them. There are not even any games that can put 100% load on both cores on a dual core out. I think things are just progressing much too fast, and people are buying into it. I just dumped my Core 2 Duo and got an AM2. My PC feels just as fast and the only way I can tell the difference is by running benchmarks. Some things even seem to run smoother now, but that is mostly my opinion and not really possible to prove. New tech can keep growing by giant leaps every 6 months like it has, but we don't need it. Hell, Nvidia is pumping out DX10 video cards as fast as possible when there are not even any proper drivers or games for them. I think we are getting ripped off as consumers since many people are willing to shell out the crazy money for new high end stuff that drops 1/3-1/2 in price 3-6 months later. OH well, I guess this just turned into a rant........ :p

[NicePants42]

As of 7/22/07, my new official thoughts on quad core will be, as Gary Larson once put it:

"YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! (http://forums.techgage.com/showthread.php?t=1787)"

[Voodoo3]

As of 7/22/07, my new official thoughts on quad core will be, as Gary Larson once put it:

"YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! (http://forums.techgage.com/showthread.php?t=1787)"

looks like a price drop on the Q6600 might be sooner then we all think. HP seems to be already taking advantage. 1099.99 for a whole Quad system is cheep!

http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/HP-Pavilion-Media-Center-TV-PC-M8120N/sem/rpsm/oid/185193/catOid/-12962/rpem/ccd/productDetail.do

[madstork91]

64 bit...

As soon as 90% of the avg. users daily programs are 64 bit, and they MUST run 10 of them at a time, that is when I will say that quad core and higher is necessary.

On another note, WYSIWYG programs, as bloated as some are foretold to be/are, might require some extra power.

[dvregan]

Some say we don't need more than dual core even if we fold, maybe. But I think as more of the world gets on 10/100Mpbs broadband, we'll be consistently on bit torrent and such. Dual core will be minimum, quad core if you wanna fold/BT/backup/work at the same time.

[sbrehm72255]

I may opt for a Quad next year when the new Intel cores are released and if the prices are close to what's being predicted right now, but only time will tell. Right now I'm plenty happy with my C2D.........;)

http://www.tcmagazine.com/comments.php?id=16193&catid=2

[b1lk1]

I bought the cheapest Quad possible (Xeon X3210) and I cannot honetsly tell the difference from the E6600 I had.

[madstork91]

I still think that there will never really be a need for it among 90% of all computer users.

Think about everyone you know that uses a comp. That includes some grandma's these days. Do the mammy's mimi's tipi's and mema's need it? Does your mom? dad? little sister for looking at myspace? Hell, the avg college student?

no.

[b1lk1]

I cannot agree more. I almost feel foolish that I spent the money myself.

[sbrehm72255]

Most won't ever "NEED" a quad, even when more apps start taking advantage of them. Gamers on the other hand "MAY" in the future when future games come of age, that's why I'm still waiting, maybe the next gen..................;) But I'll still be looking at what supports them and what doesn't.

[DarkSynergy]

I bought the cheapest Quad possible (Xeon X3210) and I cannot honetsly tell the difference from the E6600 I had.


Yes, but you, like most of us here, simply want the latest and greatest because it's just that... the latest and greatest. Swieb and I got into that micro arms race a couple of years ago, trying to beat each other's Aquamark3 scores. He ultimately won when he got the FX-57, but it was fun (read: foolish) to keep upgrading for no damned reason.

That said, I can see quad cores becoming the norm in 4-5 years, simply because thats the way the industry is heading. That and Intel can hurt AMD significantly by pressing the 4 core issue. Intel is in a much better position to pump out A LOT of CPUs, with multiple cores. Far more than AMD can. Dual cores are standard now and as more and more people are given more cores on their PC, it gives the developers and programmers more and more initiative to make their programs multi-threaded.

Is there an absolute need for 4 cores now for the masses? No, but I can see the day that there will be. Just not now.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to save up for my own Yorkfield. Quad cores FTW! :p

[sbrehm72255]

Just read this morning that Intel is releasing their first Yorkfield on November 12 of this year.......;)

Intel's Extreme Edition "Yorkfield" processor will launch on November 12; sub-3.0 GHz variants will launch in the first half of January 2008

Intel’s latest roadmap reveals upcoming additions to its desktop processor lineup. Unfortunately, anybody awaiting a straightforward naming convention will need to hold out a bit longer as the processor numbers for desktop Yorkfield and Wolfdale chips complicate the naming situation even further.

The launch of an Extreme Edition version of a chip before mainstream offerings follows Intel’s modus operandi, and as such the rest of the Penryn family will not be seen until the first half of January 2008. The company ambiguously names January 2nd through 20th as the slated launch date for the processors, though companies generally tend to time launch events with trade shows. The 2008 International Consumer Electronics Show starts on January 7, 2008.

http://www.dailytech.com/Intel+Preps+45nm+Quadcore+Desktop+Launch/article9070.htm

[b1lk1]

Yes, but you, like most of us here, simply want the latest and greatest because it's just that... the latest and greatest. Swieb and I got into that micro arms race a couple of years ago, trying to beat each other's Aquamark3 scores. He ultimately won when he got the FX-57, but it was fun (read: foolish) to keep upgrading for no damned reason.

That said, I can see quad cores becoming the norm in 4-5 years, simply because thats the way the industry is heading. That and Intel can hurt AMD significantly by pressing the 4 core issue. Intel is in a much better position to pump out A LOT of CPUs, with multiple cores. Far more than AMD can. Dual cores are standard now and as more and more people are given more cores on their PC, it gives the developers and programmers more and more initiative to make their programs multi-threaded.

Is there an absolute need for 4 cores now for the masses? No, but I can see the day that there will be. Just not now.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going to save up for my own Yorkfield. Quad cores FTW! :p

Agreed 110%. I got it because I could at the time, definitely not because I really needed it. I would advise most of the world to wait since there is nothing really using it yet.

[madstork91]

in the world of computers... next gen is tomorrow.