Kentsfield Pricing - Only big $$$?

[FITCamaro]

Are quad cores only going to be for the idiots that spend way too much for a computer? Or is there going to be a $400-500 quad core for the enthusiast who is on somewhat of a budget?

If not, I'm not going to worry about quad cores for a while. I'm not an idiot who spends $1000 or more for a CPU.

 

[dimwhited]

I'd really like to know how much they are going to cost.

I'm running a 630 right now, and am dying to upgrade... but i cant afford to right now. I was planning on buying a kentsfreild when it comes out. if ANYONE has any idea how much it is going to be i'd be really interested..... I've looked all over the net and cant find anything

 

[RichPLS]

Intel's quad core Conroe (Kentfield) due later this year should be comparitively inexpensive... and take the performance lead too.
Then you will have Intel for fast dual core, and Intel for fast quad core too.

 

[Gary_Busey]

Better questions might be, will anyone really need a quad core when they come out? Kind of like does anyone really need the highest end Conroe? Will it be too much power, a little overkill? Will quad core's full potential be used or will current hardware limitations(i.e. GPU's) stifle it's power?

 

[ikjadoon]

There was one review where the 965 scored high in some multimedia program because it has dual core + hyper threading, which is somewhat like quad-core. Something about processing four threads.

~Ibrahim~

 

[Heyyou27]

I would expect the first Kentsfield cores to be pretty expensive, but that's what you get for having the best. I wonder what the clockspeeds will be; it’ll probably be a little lower to compensate for the higher energy consumption of a quad core CPU, although the TDP should stay relatively low thanks to Intel’s new design.

 

[ikjadoon]

True...AMD brags about how their quad-cores will consume the same power of dual-cores, though that is a lot compared to the current Core 2 Duo's.

~Ibrahim~

 

[mpjesse]

Better questions might be, will anyone really need a quad core when they come out? Kind of like does anyone really need the highest end Conroe? Will it be too much power, a little overkill? Will quad core's full potential be used or will current hardware limitations(i.e. GPU's) stifle it's power?

For anyone curious about the advantages of having 4 physical cores, check out this review:

http://techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=1

It's a dual core dual opteron setup. As you can see, Quad core will definitely have its advantages and disadvantages.

Pay particular attention to the Dual Opteron 275 setup in the benchmarks.

 

[Eviltwin17]

it is too early to know anything about it, my guess is that dual core processors will drop down to single core prices as single cores are not going to be around for much longer, and quad core prices will be at dual core prices now. Unfortunately when the quad cores release they will be incredibly expensive just as the dual cores were when the first models came out so it will be a small wait until prices drop dramatically. (about a year, year and a half)

 

[kamel5547]

Intel's quad core Conroe (Kentfield) due later this year should be comparitively inexpensive... and take the performance lead too.
Then you will have Intel for fast dual core, and Intel for fast quad core too.

According to DailyTech: "Kentsfield has always been slated as an Extreme processor, meaning it will carry a larger price tag than the traditional Core 2 Duo series."

That would suggest pricing of $999 if they are correct.

 

[FITCamaro]

Intel's quad core Conroe (Kentfield) due later this year should be comparitively inexpensive...

Yeah well a Corvette Z06 is comparitively inexpensive next to a Ferrari Enzo but that doesn't mean I can afford either of them.

Comparitively inexpensive compared to what.

And its not a matter of needing it. If its affordable for me I'll get it. Intel is in the toilet right now so they're selling everything cheap so if I can bank on their misfortune I will. Well, at least they think they are. I mean they "only" made an $885 million dollar profit for Q2. I think they should start selling things. :roll:

 

[dimwhited]

I dont think it would be an extreme processor

those are usualy marketed for gamers, and just how single core is better then pentium D for gaming, i expect that conroe will be better then kentsfeild for gaming.

1 die is better for gaming then 2, apparently

i expect it will follow the same pattern as pentium D did, or it will fill the hole in intel's pricing between five hundred and a thousand dollars

 

[ikjadoon]

I don't feel having two dual-core processors is the same as having one quad-processor. As you know, having two 2.0GHz provessors is much faster than having one 2.0Ghz Dual-Core.

I wish/hope that Vista can use multi-core correctly. I want two cores on my main app, one core for the OS, one core for background applications.

~Ibrahim~

 

[FITCamaro]

those are usualy marketed for gamers, and just how single core is better then pentium D for gaming, i expect that conroe will be better then kentsfeild for gaming.

1 die is better for gaming then 2, apparently

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't mistake programmer laziness for product superiority. More cores is always better than one. Just current games don't all take full advantage of multi-core processors yet.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Are quad cores only going to be for the idiots that spend way too much for a computer? Or is there going to be a $400-500 quad core for the enthusiast who is on somewhat of a budget?

If not, I'm not going to worry about quad cores for a while. I'm not an idiot who spends $1000 or more for a CPU.

I would say this will be the new EE and E6800 will go down to under $600.

I would think it may beat the record for most expensive chip.

 

[FITCamaro]

I don't feel having two dual-core processors is the same as having one quad-processor. As you know, having two 2.0GHz provessors is much faster than having one 2.0Ghz Dual-Core.

Another statement that made me laugh.

http://www.frameworkx.com/Frameworkx/blog.aspx?blog=56&id=66

As you can see, theres almost no difference between a dual core and two single cores with the dual core having a slight advantage for both AMD and Intel platforms.

 

[ikjadoon]

I don't feel having two dual-core processors is the same as having one quad-processor. As you know, having two 2.0GHz provessors is much faster than having one 2.0Ghz Dual-Core.

Another statement that made me laugh.

I might have overestimated, but I've always been under the impression that one dual-core won't perform as fast as two single cores....

I may be looking at this the wrong way, but does 2 processors in two sockets increase the raw processing power or just let the computer do multiple thread programs quicker, like dual-cores?

~Ibrahim~

 

[FITCamaro]

Two single cores in a dual socket configuration and 1 dual core accomplishes the same exact thing. The only advantage two physical processors has, is that each one can have its own memory. But even that can have disadvantages because then if processor 1 wants something in processor 2s memory, it has to go and get it asking processor 2 for it. If processor 2 is already really busy, processor 1 might have to wait.

 

[BaronMatrix]

True...AMD brags about how their quad-cores will consume the same power of dual-cores, though that is a lot compared to the current Core 2 Duo's.

~Ibrahim~

Core 2 TDP is 65W. AMD processors are at 65W - not all but AMD is still at 90nm. They have 55W AND 30W Opterons. Next the AMD quad TDP is 95W (Anand).

 

[dimwhited]

those are usualy marketed for gamers, and just how single core is better then pentium D for gaming, i expect that conroe will be better then kentsfeild for gaming.

1 die is better for gaming then 2, apparently

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Don't mistake programmer laziness for product superiority. More cores is always better than one. Just current games don't all take full advantage of multi-core processors yet.

I'm aware that single cores are better for games just because most games are multithreaded, but I dont expect that to get any better before kentsfeild ships. some games may have 2 threads, but i doubt any will have four. this means that the conroe will still be better then kentsfeild for gamers, who will primarily be the ones buying expencive chips. Intel cant market the kentsfeild as better for FUTURE games... because by the time the games catch up, we'll be up to 8 cores or something. Intel is limited marketingwise by current games, not theoretical games

 

[Ycon]

Not 100% sure but Kentsfield is a Core 2 Extreme only.

 

[ikjadoon]

Sounds like the bathroom line in my house, lol.

I think a few games have so-called "Dual-Core" patches. Has this made any difference, to anyone who has played one?

I have a question: Is making a game "multi-threaded" a very hard thing to do? Does it game the games main game engine? Built-in physics engine? Would a single-core machine run very slow on a multi-threaded game?

What I am trying to say: Is it hard for a game to be multi-threaded?

~Ibrahim~

 

[FITCamaro]

It takes more effort. You have to make sure all the different threads stay synced. If graphics are running in one thread and AI in another, you can't render where the enemy is going to run if the AI hasn't decided yet. It certainly presents new challenges to games developers. Why you think it costs so much to produce a good game though?

 

[ikjadoon]

True, true. I forgot about them having to be synced. If a game is multi-threaded, then will a single core machine have difficulty playing it?

As more and more dual-core machines are released, I think we will see more and more. Once there is an eMachine that is Dual-Core, then we will see multi-threaded games. It is like a standard.

Have fun trying to run a game on onboard, though.

~Ibrahim~

 

[Artmic]

Intel's quad core Conroe (Kentfield) due later this year should be comparitively inexpensive... and take the performance lead too.
Then you will have Intel for fast dual core, and Intel for fast quad core too.

According to DailyTech: "Kentsfield has always been slated as an Extreme processor, meaning it will carry a larger price tag than the traditional Core 2 Duo series."

That would suggest pricing of $999 if they are correct.

if it is the Extreme edition, they better clock that Quad core at least at the 2.93Ghz level or more, or it will suck IMO.