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
• Intel Core 2 Quad - Hexus
• Intel Core 2 Quad - HotHardware
• Intel Core 2 Quad - Legit Reviews
• Intel Core 2 Quad - Motherboards.org
• Intel Core 2 Quad - Neoseeker
• Intel Core 2 Quad - NordicHardware
• Intel Core 2 Quad - Tech Report
• Intel Core 2 Quad - TechSpot
• Intel Core 2 Quad - TweakTown

My favorite review was from Anand, 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 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.

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

 

[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

 

[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

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

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 . 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]

You said it!

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.