Core 2 Duo or Kentsfield?

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280
Current specs are in my sig.

I'm considering purchasing an e6700 at the end of the month, but being as we are seeing some *very* pretty Kentsfield ES chips floating into peoples hands already I'm wondering if I should hold off a bit.

I often have many things running in the background, and I do feel Quad core would be usefull to me. Even if I get the e6700 I'm likely to upgrade when Kentsfield is released, so does anyone know when its planned? I've heard Q1 07, is that Intels official stance? If so I feel it may be a waste for me to get an e6700 just for 4 months....
 

exit2dos

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
2,646
0
20,810
If you're truly set on a Kentsfield, Intel plans on having them out before the end of this year.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Intel-To-Reschedule-Kentsfield-s-Launch-33169.shtml
Intel hits the headlines with another statement in which it is said that the release of the quad-core desktop processor series, known up until now as “Kentsfield," is scheduled for the Q4 2006, instead of the previous launch date – Q1 2007

If you still want to buy a E6700 for now, go ahead. I hereby volunteer to take it off your hands when you get your Kentsfield. :D
 

darkstar782

Distinguished
Dec 24, 2005
1,375
0
19,280
Thanks people :)

At Q4 2006 I'm definately waiting for Kentsfield. Even if I dont fully utilise 4 cores (and I'd love to be able to play games WHILE encoding DVDs, and running Bittorrent with RC4-160 stream encryption, which does have a reasonable CPU hit), then why have 2 2.66GHz cores when I can have 4? :D
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
Ya... why not.

You could play games, burn CD's, convert videos/mp3, and run folding on 2-3 cores.

Just don't be too suprised if the prices are lingering closer to 1k when they come out.

Edit:

Or I should say be more affordable then Conroe cores.
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
It perhaps could affect Conroe prices, but then I think AMD is really what can force Intel in a pricing bind.

I mean if they are just adding another core, which is the same core as conroe, I see the doubling up the price on it.

So if they have different speeds like (E6300 for example)

1.83Ghz x 2 dual cores I'd see the price somewhere around 360=400 bucks.

Until AMD could get something out there to out do conroe, then I'd think they would fall in price.
 

function9

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2002
657
0
18,980
It perhaps could affect Conroe prices, but then I think AMD is really what can force Intel in a pricing bind.

I mean if they are just adding another core, which is the same core as conroe, I see the doubling up the price on it.

So if they have different speeds like (E6300 for example)

1.83Ghz x 2 dual cores I'd see the price somewhere around 360=400 bucks.

Until AMD could get something out there to out do conroe, then I'd think they would fall in price.
?
 

function9

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2002
657
0
18,980
Look, I can run many things in the background with NO hitch at all, quad cores are for heavy tasks, having MSN, Firefox, Winamp, AIM, burning a CD still doesn't slow things up. Not to add, firewall, and anti-virus....

You won't need more than two cores until everyday programs are multithreaded.
Definitely agree here. For some reason people equate a window on the desktop to a resource intensive application. I remember years ago long before dualcore chips, people worried whether or not they needed dual cpu setups because they would run winamp and IE at the same time or leave IE open when they played a game.
 

WR

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2006
603
0
18,980
Thought the only quad-core that will come out is Extreme Edition with 2.66ghz x 4.

I don't see much use unless you're doing folding@home on as many cores as possible. Current games simply don't use dual core that intensively.

Also, there may be complications with OS licensing - i.e., you may need an expensive version of Vista or XP Pro to see all 4 cores.
 

function9

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2002
657
0
18,980
Also, there may be complications with OS licensing - i.e., you may need an expensive version of Vista or XP Pro to see all 4 cores.
Actually no. If you read MS's documents on their OS licenses, you'll see that they use the general term processor which they are talking about the actual component you put in the socket, their license has nothing to do with the number of cores contained in said component. So you could have an 8-core cpu and running XP Home (which is only compatible with 1 processor), it'll recognize all 8 cores.
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780

:?

okay.. let me put it this way.

Kentsfield isn't a single die with 4 cores. Its basically 2 (conroe) dual cores, isn't it?

So basically what I was thinking (or assuming) what is to stop Intel from making a lil more cash on the lower end like the E6300's into a quad chip? (without effecting the Conroe prices too much)

All this should play out over the next 2 quarters or at least we will have a firm picture.

Jack

Ya, pretty much agree.
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,373
0
25,780

:?

okay.. let me put it this way.

Kentsfield isn't a single die with 4 cores. Its basically 2 (conroe) dual cores, isn't it?

So basically what I was thinking (or assuming) what is to stop Intel from making a lil more cash on the lower end like the E6300's into a quad chip?

All this should play out over the next 2 quarters or at least we will have a firm picture.

Jack

Ya, pretty much agree.


Well, remember, according to horde:
1) Kentsfield isnt a quad core because its 2 dual cores on a die
2) its all irrelevant in any case as Intel will be bankrupted by AMD soon.
 

Grimmy

Splendid
Feb 20, 2006
4,431
0
22,780
Umm..Geesh and what is that suppose to mean to me? I don't consider myself in part of any horde.

I'm in no arguement, whether kentsfield is a true quad core or not.

It doesn't really matter to me, I mean it has 4 cores, just not on a single die. Just saying what cost maybe perhaps using cores that are allendale based.

And if any company between the 2 goes bankrupt, then that will be a very sad deal for all of us, in my opinion.
 

306maxi

Distinguished
Feb 7, 2006
679
0
18,980
Umm..Geesh and what is that suppose to mean to me? I don't consider myself in part of any horde.

I'm in no arguement, whether kentsfield is a true quad core or not.

It doesn't really matter to me, I mean it has 4 cores, just not on a single die. Just saying what cost maybe perhaps using cores that are allendale based.

And if any company between the 2 goes bankrupt, then that will be a very sad deal for all of us, in my opinion.

True quad core or two dual cores. It's probably not going to matter much at all.
 
Well, remember, according to horde:
1) Kentsfield isnt a quad core because its 2 dual cores on a die
2) its all irrelevant in any case as Intel will be bankrupted by AMD soon.

The problem is that it will still take years before Intel goes bankrupt thanks to AMD. Intel currently has roughly 15 BILLION dollars in liquid assets....versus the only 4 Billion that AMD has. Intel also has a lot less liabiltiies to deal with, percentagewise, thus making more of that money free to use as Intel wishes. It would take years of loss to cut Intel down into a position that would force bankruptcy.

AMD Balance Sheet

Intel Balance Sheet

If Intel were to fear for bankruptcy, they would naturally do what they have to do to regain marketshare and restore profitability. The only way Intel would go bankrupt would be due to market pressure against Intel. Over the past couple of years, AMD has make great gains in denting the publics perception of Intel, and that AMD has good products. However, Intel is still the best in the public's eye. That being due to Intel's very highly successful marketing campaigns. Thus, Intel would regain marketshare, by reinstituting the belief that they are the best. Currently, with the Conroe core line, and the extremely competitive pricing, they have just that ability.

Based on current market conditions, Intel would just lower prices on their products, flooding the market with processors that are twice the bang for buck as any AMD processor, thus making AMD processors a desire to only those on a bargain budget, or manufacturers looking for a quick buck. AMD would have to compensate and drop their prices to match, and that would cut into AMD's profitability, very likely forcing AMD to go into the red again. AMD cannot handle the profit loss like Intel, and would have to make cuts. However, AMD can't make cuts and still keep operating at 100%, as such Intel can.

With Intel "trimming the fat" currently, by laying off all those employees, and streamlining their business, they are setting up for the future, where there is a tighter market for processors, and less profit to be made. Yet, this will also equate into higher profitability, thus giving them more of an ability to deal with AMD.

The real question then, is whether AMD can go into the red again in terms of profitability. Most people who own AMD stock, typically also own larger amounts of Intel stock, and they would rather see AMD, the smaller company, lose money, than Intel.

Even better, what is Intel's goal in the price wars that are currently going on? Is Intel attempting to weaken AMD's marketshare? Is Intel simply reorganizing to be more competitive? Is Intel looking to restore the status quo of 4 years ago, before the Athlon line came out, and AMD had less than 20% marketshare? Any of these questions can be answered yes, and yet, if any of these questions are answered, that means bad news for AMD.

Intel isn't going to be bankrupted by AMD anytime soon. In fact, it is more likely that AMD could be going bankrupt if Intel is too aggressive with their current marketing campaign.
 

exit2dos

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
2,646
0
20,810
I think Turpit was just acknowledging Sharikou, Ph. D., who is the reigning master of all things 64-bit. :?

Laying off 20,000 workers will delay Intel's BK time by 1 quarter. If the layoff is confirmed, we should adjust Intel's BK time to 1Q08 to 3Q08.

To avoid the BK scenario, Intel needs to layoff 80,000 workers. AMD has only 10K people, Intel should have no more than 20K.
He's always good for a laugh.

Back on topic -> I think Kentsfield is worth waiting for if one is thinking of purchasing a top-end C2D, specifically the E6800. I would wait, however, for more Mobos to support 1333fsb, or maybe the Bearlake chipset.
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,373
0
25,780
Umm..Geesh and what is that suppose to mean to me? I don't consider myself in part of any horde.

I'm in no arguement, whether kentsfield is a true quad core or not.

It doesn't really matter to me, I mean it has 4 cores, just not on a single die. Just saying what cost maybe perhaps using cores that are allendale based.

And if any company between the 2 goes bankrupt, then that will be a very sad deal for all of us, in my opinion.

Lol,

No Grimmy, I wasnt accusing you of being a horde member or attacking you, it was humor pointing out the "change or redefine parameters to win mentality" of the Horde. As in how they would respond to your post.

Peace
 

function9

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2002
657
0
18,980
okay.. let me put it this way.

Kentsfield isn't a single die with 4 cores. Its basically 2 (conroe) dual cores, isn't it?

So basically what I was thinking (or assuming) what is to stop Intel from making a lil more cash on the lower end like the E6300's into a quad chip? (without effecting the Conroe prices too much)
Sorry, I got the impression that the poster was talking about was basically how will new tech effect the price of already existing tech type of thing.

I'm just looking at it as whenever they put 4 cores on a chip (doesn't really matter how) 2 core chips I would assume would naturally lower in price to some degree (aside from maybe Extreme Editions).
 

exit2dos

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
2,646
0
20,810
Lol,

No Grimmy, I wasnt accusing you of being a horde member or attacking you, it was humor pointing out the "change or redefine parameters to win mentality" of the Horde. As in how they would respond to your post.

Peace

I thought you were just being Pervasive. :wink:
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,373
0
25,780
Lol,

No Grimmy, I wasnt accusing you of being a horde member or attacking you, it was humor pointing out the "change or redefine parameters to win mentality" of the Horde. As in how they would respond to your post.

Peace

I thought you were just being Pervasive. :wink:

:tongue: :trophy:
 

turpit

Splendid
Feb 12, 2006
6,373
0
25,780
Umm..Geesh and what is that suppose to mean to me? I don't consider myself in part of any horde.
I'm in no arguement, whether kentsfield is a true quad core or not.
It doesn't really matter to me, I mean it has 4 cores, just not on a single die. Just saying what cost maybe perhaps using cores that are allendale based.
And if any company between the 2 goes bankrupt, then that will be a very sad deal for all of us, in my opinion.


Turpit was just being facetious, 9-inch, Baron etc. will argue that Kentsfield is somehow ultra inferior because the core are not built into the same die.... of course without any data.

Not to long ago, they would have argued that any Intel CPU is inferior because they did not have hypertransport and on die memory controllers, yet there exists CPUs without those technologies handing AMD's butt to them in a Folgers coffee can. Make one wonder just how important hypertransport and IMCs really are?

Jack

^^^^^^^^^^^^
What Jack said
 

exit2dos

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
2,646
0
20,810
:tongue: :trophy:
trollhq0.gif
 

exit2dos

Distinguished
Jul 16, 2006
2,646
0
20,810
Turpit was just being facetious,
Somebody one told me that there is no word that uses all the vowels, including "Y", in alphabetical order. I said, "Sir, you are speaking facetiously." :roll:


9-inch, Baron etc. will argue that Kentsfield is somehow ultra inferior because the core are not built into the same die.... of course without any data.
I wonder how much more the "true" quadcores are going to cost. I can see AMD marketing the chips with 2 failed cores as a dualcore, but what are they going to do with one failed core? Make a tricore chip?

Not to long ago, they would have argued that any Intel CPU is inferior because they did not have hypertransport and on die memory controllers, yet there exists CPUs without those technologies handing AMD's butt to them in a Folgers coffee can. Make one wonder just how important hypertransport and IMCs really are? :)

Jack

Makes you wonder what they'll be saying when Intel does incoporate an IMC.
 

quantumsheep

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2005
2,341
0
19,790
Current specs are in my sig.

I'm considering purchasing an e6700 at the end of the month, but being as we are seeing some *very* pretty Kentsfield ES chips floating into peoples hands already I'm wondering if I should hold off a bit.

I often have many things running in the background, and I do feel Quad core would be usefull to me. Even if I get the e6700 I'm likely to upgrade when Kentsfield is released, so does anyone know when its planned? I've heard Q1 07, is that Intels official stance? If so I feel it may be a waste for me to get an e6700 just for 4 months....

Kentsfield is slated to release at the beginning of November from what I recall reading, not entirely sure. However, it has been pulled into Q4 2006 as has Clovertown.

Jack

Can you remind me what Clovertown is again, i seem to have forgotten!

Is it that E4300 that i'm reading stuff about?