Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel CEO announces Core 2 Quad

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 26, 2006 7:58:07 PM

/bump
September 26, 2006 8:08:29 PM

I think Intel CEO is retarded...but that's my personal opinion =). About the news, I think C2Q will be a great platform --momentarily 'til AMD's A64KRBK FX-70 or FX-74 appears. Just to think about 70% gains over a X6800 is more than enough reasons to wait until its release and get one.
Related resources
September 26, 2006 8:40:25 PM

I too think he is retarded especially because he said this

Quote:
Otellini briefly responded to concerns that Intel's first quad-core packages are simply "glued-together" dual-core processors while AMD is working on a native, single-die quad-core chip. "So what?," said Otellini . "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor." he said.


LOL, Otellini you moron, us gamers actually do care.

It is intriguing however to see that they have a
Quote:
Yorkfield (eight-core, 2009)
coming out

Also I whole heartedly agree with mpilchfamily (he's always on the money)

Games aren't designed with multithreading yet, but once they start to incorperate multithreading...all the good games will use it and they will require dual/quadcore processors. So for now they are really only good at multi-tasking...CS2,CS3 coming soon, and applications like that.

I'm still going with the e6600 or the e6700 and maybe in a year or two once i see the quad core as being "Viable" I'll upgrade.
September 26, 2006 8:46:54 PM

Quote:
I too think he is retarded especially because he said this

Otellini briefly responded to concerns that Intel's first quad-core packages are simply "glued-together" dual-core processors while AMD is working on a native, single-die quad-core chip. "So what?," said Otellini . "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor." he said.


LOL, Otellini you moron, us gamers actually do care.


LOL
September 26, 2006 8:54:18 PM

Quote:
I too think he is retarded especially because he said this

Otellini briefly responded to concerns that Intel's first quad-core packages are simply "glued-together" dual-core processors while AMD is working on a native, single-die quad-core chip. "So what?," said Otellini . "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor." he said.


LOL, Otellini you moron, us gamers actually do care.

Games aren't designed with multithreading yet, but once they start to incorperate multithreading...all the good games will use it and they will require dual/quadcore processors. So for now they are really only good at multi-tasking...CS2,CS3 coming soon, and applications like that.



Yeah, I completely agree with you on this one...how he could have the nerve to say that "the public doesn't care what's inside a processor." Once again, I think he lost it as the "mainstream" public won't be able to afford such system instantaneously.

On the other hand, I am planning to upgrade either to C2Q or QuadFather, lol sounds like Quake -when pronouced- when it first came out, anyway...like someone already mention, the benefit will be seen in cpu intensive apps...I don't know whay you mean by CS2-CS3=perhaps Adobe CS2 and the upcoming CS3? Well, you'll see the true power of such a beast using such tools.
September 26, 2006 8:59:04 PM

us Gamers make up how much of the product market? Last time I checked, Dell, HP/Compaq, Gateway didn't become multi-billion dollar buisness selling gaming computers... hmmmmm?

All my non-EE friends know diddly squat about computers, and they would care less about what goes into a processor. What he said is perfectly true from a marketing and buisness standpoint. He doesn't earn more than your whole family + relatives put together for nothing.
September 26, 2006 9:11:59 PM

But you realize that’s because it has 2 times as many cores right? I mean if it were kensfield vs. 4x4 then kensfield would win hands down. All both are is k8 and C2D doubled up, and sense C2D>K8 then its obvious who will win.
September 26, 2006 9:13:36 PM

So, basically what you're saying is that the "average joe" family out there will be able to afford a C2Q right off from system integrators like Dell, HP, and others? Please, enlighten me on how this will happen unless the system integrators themselves fit the systems with crappola hardware or (2) AMD comes out the next day with their QuadPapa out, mid-to more-than-average equipped, for not more than $1,200. In such a case, we're playing the same ball game!
September 26, 2006 9:22:20 PM

Yeah, thanks for the refresh on that point as I was already forgetting that fact. :!:
September 26, 2006 9:41:23 PM



What'd I think? I think I'm looking forward to my next upgrade cycle. There's a new Total War game due, don't you know.

Biggest question is, whether to go home-built quad core, single socket, or just buy a nice cheap Intel Powermac...

Either way, it'll be a system good for a few years.
September 26, 2006 11:05:13 PM

Quote:
I too think he is retarded especially because he said this

Otellini briefly responded to concerns that Intel's first quad-core packages are simply "glued-together" dual-core processors while AMD is working on a native, single-die quad-core chip. "So what?," said Otellini . "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor." he said.


LOL, Otellini you moron, us gamers actually do care.


LOL

Its a curious statement. Let's think about it.
Native dual core vs stacked dual core.

Now if they 'glued' 2 single CPU Core Architecture cores together, would it beat AMD's X2 solution?

That's what it all boils down to, right? That would be a fair comparison?

If yes, that means AMD's native core approach is a negative for them now. They're losing yields from the fabs while Intel's got the edge.

If no, that means AMD's doing the right things and has the performance edge. Theoretically they'll get more customers because of that edge.

So what's more important? A better architecture with some possible contention on a bus or an inferior architecture with no contention on the bus? I guess we'll find out w/ Kentsfield and AMD's quad-core.

The Pentium D's got worked over because of crappo netburst primarily, I haven't seen any evidence to point to the gluing.

Besides, he's right... the public doesn't care. Sorry to say it, but us enthusiasts aren't exactly the majority here. We're probably about 5% of the people out there, perhaps?
September 26, 2006 11:12:48 PM

Quote:
I too think he is retarded especially because he said this

Otellini briefly responded to concerns that Intel's first quad-core packages are simply "glued-together" dual-core processors while AMD is working on a native, single-die quad-core chip. "So what?," said Otellini . "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor." he said.


LOL, Otellini you moron, us gamers actually do care.


LOL

:lol: 

8O . o O (Well it better be a high quality glue)
September 26, 2006 11:13:32 PM

Quote:
LOL, Otellini you moron, us gamers actually do care.


There is a difference between glued and native in performance? Frankly gamers as you put it are a very small % of the market. So as the Otellini said "who cares".
September 26, 2006 11:25:36 PM

I'm sorry, but I still think Otellini is right.

His comment is quite true. We do not care what is inside. As enthusiasts, we might even know what is in there, but care? No sir.

We care about what we can get from what is there.

After all, why the hell are we heartily recommending C2Ds if C2Ds still use an obsolete (or at least less-than-optimal) front side bus?

Nossir, we don't care and he's right. What I care about is performance in executing code. I don't care how, because it simply doesn't matter. If one CPU takes 5 minutes to do a given task and the other takes 4 minutes, I don't care why that is, though I might be able to explain it convincingly if asked.

As end users, we can only perceive perfomance and energy consumption, that's it. All other architectural concerns, like FSB/HT/and so on are merely things for us to quabble about in forums like this one. We don't actually "want" a CPU for a given internal architectural trait; we "want" it for an external, measurable advantage, either feature- or performance-wise.

Being 2 chips on a wafer is one such irrelevant trait, as long as it doesn't affect performance. As is HT vs FSB.

Will I get flamed by "the horde" for this? :oops: 
September 27, 2006 12:05:36 AM

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I still think Otellini is right.

His comment is quite true. We do not care what is inside. As enthusiasts, we might even know what is in there, but care? No sir.

We care about what we can get from what is there.

After all, why the hell are we heartily recommending C2Ds if C2Ds still use an obsolete (or at least less-than-optimal) front side bus?

Nossir, we don't care and he's right. What I care about is performance in executing code. I don't care how, because it simply doesn't matter. If one CPU takes 5 minutes to do a given task and the other takes 4 minutes, I don't care why that is, though I might be able to explain it convincingly if asked.

As end users, we can only perceive perfomance and energy consumption, that's it. All other architectural concerns, like FSB/HT/and so on are merely things for us to quabble about in forums like this one. We don't actually "want" a CPU for a given internal architectural trait; we "want" it for an external, measurable advantage, either feature- or performance-wise.

Being 2 chips on a wafer is one such irrelevant trait, as long as it doesn't affect performance. As is HT vs FSB.

Will I get flamed by "the horde" for this? :oops: 


Word.
Most Likely!
September 27, 2006 12:25:37 AM

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I still think Otellini is right.

His comment is quite true. We do not care what is inside. As enthusiasts, we might even know what is in there, but care? No sir.

We care about what we can get from what is there.

After all, why the hell are we heartily recommending C2Ds if C2Ds still use an obsolete (or at least less-than-optimal) front side bus?

Nossir, we don't care and he's right. What I care about is performance in executing code. I don't care how, because it simply doesn't matter. If one CPU takes 5 minutes to do a given task and the other takes 4 minutes, I don't care why that is, though I might be able to explain it convincingly if asked.

As end users, we can only perceive perfomance and energy consumption, that's it. All other architectural concerns, like FSB/HT/and so on are merely things for us to quabble about in forums like this one. We don't actually "want" a CPU for a given internal architectural trait; we "want" it for an external, measurable advantage, either feature- or performance-wise.

Being 2 chips on a wafer is one such irrelevant trait, as long as it doesn't affect performance. As is HT vs FSB.

Will I get flamed by "the horde" for this? :oops: 


Well said!!!

native quad core or "glued" quad core? Doesn't matter to me. Performance is all that matters at the end of the day.

Besides, once you put the heatsink on it, you aren't gonna ever see it anyway.
September 27, 2006 12:51:53 AM

Quote:
I think Intel CEO is retarded...but that's my personal opinion =). About the news, I think C2Q will be a great platform --momentarily 'til AMD's A64KRBK FX-70 or FX-74 appears. Just to think about 70% gains over a X6800 is more than enough reasons to wait until its release and get one.


the FX-70s, whcih are still 90nm, will provide barely any performance gain over the current line of FX-60 processors, only until AMD makes the move to 65nm will we see AMD bring a processor worthy to challenge the C2D. the FX-70 line is for AMDs 4x4 setup
September 27, 2006 3:04:52 AM

I agree as well. I keep up with things and have for years. At the end of the day do I care what each piece of silicon is made of? No, I care what it does for me.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the mainstream CAN afford the new quad or whatever comes out. Marketing the chip to the masses is no different than a car company marketing their most awesome sport car or SUV on TV to draw people into their dealership. The people who can't afford those are still sucked in to look at the brand and then they might drive off in a new cheaper car they can afford. But that dealer got the customer on the lot and with their brand in their minds. Same thing really, marketing.

I have waited for better mobos, I will now get quad instead of C2D since I waited this long. I can actually use the extra threads in some things I do so win win for me. To each their own but the CEO wasn't speaking out his ass either way.
September 27, 2006 3:05:55 AM

Yes sir, i second you sir!

Hope you won't get any flames sir! Good luck sir! :D 
September 27, 2006 3:26:34 AM

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I still think Otellini is right.

His comment is quite true. We do not care what is inside. As enthusiasts, we might even know what is in there, but care? No sir.

We care about what we can get from what is there.

After all, why the hell are we heartily recommending C2Ds if C2Ds still use an obsolete (or at least less-than-optimal) front side bus?

Nossir, we don't care and he's right. What I care about is performance in executing code. I don't care how, because it simply doesn't matter. If one CPU takes 5 minutes to do a given task and the other takes 4 minutes, I don't care why that is, though I might be able to explain it convincingly if asked.

As end users, we can only perceive perfomance and energy consumption, that's it. All other architectural concerns, like FSB/HT/and so on are merely things for us to quabble about in forums like this one. We don't actually "want" a CPU for a given internal architectural trait; we "want" it for an external, measurable advantage, either feature- or performance-wise.

Being 2 chips on a wafer is one such irrelevant trait, as long as it doesn't affect performance. As is HT vs FSB.

Will I get flamed by "the horde" for this? :oops: 


Yeah, but you have to remember, the native vs "glued" argument is the only one the horde has in respect to 4 core packaging right now, so they are going to cling to it like leeches to a water buffalo.

AMD hasnt really had anything of honest value to say lately. Mostly just hype with no concrete evidence to back it up.
September 27, 2006 4:00:56 AM

Quote:


Just real quick, do you think the FX-70 or FX-74 will be pitted against an X6800 or a QX6700? Which one do you think would win?


I really doubt that FX-70 or FX-74 will perform like C2Q, as there is no data so far to represent such solution, yet. But even though if AMD would come out with a 4x4 ES today, I still believe C2Q would perform better; I kinda repeated myself twice, hehe. I've been asleep for the past 4 hrs!!!
September 27, 2006 4:03:58 AM

Quote:
I'm sorry, but I still think Otellini is right.

His comment is quite true. We do not care what is inside. As enthusiasts, we might even know what is in there, but care? No sir.

We care about what we can get from what is there.

After all, why the hell are we heartily recommending C2Ds if C2Ds still use an obsolete (or at least less-than-optimal) front side bus?

Nossir, we don't care and he's right. What I care about is performance in executing code. I don't care how, because it simply doesn't matter. If one CPU takes 5 minutes to do a given task and the other takes 4 minutes, I don't care why that is, though I might be able to explain it convincingly if asked.

As end users, we can only perceive perfomance and energy consumption, that's it. All other architectural concerns, like FSB/HT/and so on are merely things for us to quabble about in forums like this one. We don't actually "want" a CPU for a given internal architectural trait; we "want" it for an external, measurable advantage, either feature- or performance-wise.

Being 2 chips on a wafer is one such irrelevant trait, as long as it doesn't affect performance. As is HT vs FSB.

Will I get flamed by "the horde" for this? :oops: 


lol...no you should not! Unless they really pick up on you *like some members that are already known for such behavior in the forums =)*.
September 27, 2006 4:14:28 AM

Quote:
"So what?," said Otellini, adding, "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor."


...As long as it performs. (Sounds much better.)

But then again if the public (consumer) doesnt care then why would they bother even having a QuadCore CPU, When most have no clue what a Core is, let alone a QuadCore CPU.

Well I actually dont care what's inside as long as it performs and doesnt require 200W or doesnt heat up like the sun. (or is that the same as caring? :? ).

But like mentioned before, its just not the majority of people that actually KNOW whats inside the CPU their buying. One thing is to know, another thing is to care I guess.

..............Nobody Cares, very few Know :cry:  .....................

:p  :p  :p  :p 
September 27, 2006 5:38:15 AM

Quote:
You got an avatar!


:)  :)  This appears to be biggern news than the 80 core teraflop announcement :) 

Yeah, wanted to convey some form of madness --- typed in Avatar on Google - Image search, and a few pages in saw the serius black animated GIF, grabbed it trimmed it up a bit and wowwwla, avatar.

You shoulda trimmed one up of you wifes ultra sounds for an avatar.
You could have used the signature:

"It works"
September 27, 2006 7:20:51 AM

Well thought! It is very entertainment
September 27, 2006 4:03:14 PM

Quote:
I think Intel CEO is retarded...but that's my personal opinion =). About the news, I think C2Q will be a great platform --momentarily 'til AMD's A64KRBK FX-70 or FX-74 appears. Just to think about 70% gains over a X6800 is more than enough reasons to wait until its release and get one.


the FX-70s, whcih are still 90nm, will provide barely any performance gain over the current line of FX-60 processors, only until AMD makes the move to 65nm will we see AMD bring a processor worthy to challenge the C2D. the FX-70 line is for AMDs 4x4 setup

Just real quick, do you think the the K8 65 nm processors will out perform a C2D?

Whats this asking of whether these procs will be better jack? You certainly know about these future procs and how they might perform :lol: 

So to answer your question, well this is a loaded one if you really look at it, or the answer is loaded...

First of with so many problems being said of AMDs transition to 65nm i think that they won't perform as desired, but will raise performance to about Core 2 Duo levels, but if AMD is as good as they have been then they will win a few benchmarks

Secondly, i really think that AMD might gain the out right crown when they come out with there supposed K8L, in truth i'm more confused than a caveman looking at a computer right now when it comes to what the heck AMD plan's on releasing on the next few years...With amds roadmap seemingly changing everyday i'm not quite sure if they plan on making cpus are graphics cards 8O

thirdly i think AMD could very well release some very good products, the only thing lacking to me is what there roadmap looks like, as i previously mentioned i'm just confused about whats going on, it seems as though codenamed cpus are not going to be maded anymore and other ones are changing what they signify,

and with the way intel's aggresive roadmap is setup i think they will be in the driver's seat more often than not

and lastly amds 4x4 vs intels kentsfield imho is boring to say the least, the whole 2 procs on one mobo, silly amd its all about cores now! and since intel can put more cores on one cpu, well they win for now, whether there glued together or not, i can't wait to see both AMD and Intel's native quad cores and how the perform in reference to the kentsfield and to vs each other, that will be interesting

but i guess the best thing to do is just wait and not speculate :roll:
September 28, 2006 6:48:01 PM

Quote:
Otellini briefly responded to concerns that Intel's first quad-core packages are simply "glued-together" dual-core processors while AMD is working on a native, single-die quad-core chip. "So what?," said Otellini . "The public doesn't care what's inside a processor." he said.


Quote:
LOL, Otellini you moron, us gamers actually do care.


I want to know more about that

Does it really matter if Quad Core is a) a "glued-together" dual-core processors or b)a native, single-die quad-core chip

I really am interested to know about this, so I will know if to grab the first 'generation' of Intel's Quad Core "glued together" dual core processes, or wait for the 2nd generation for the native Quad Core. What is the difference, is one worse than the other, and in what way?

Wait, will intel be releasing a native, single die quad core chip in the future, right? and if so, when exactly?
September 28, 2006 7:16:35 PM

Dear Jack:

Brevity is the soul of wit.
-William Shakespeare

/end
September 28, 2006 9:22:18 PM

Quote:
Dear Jack:

Brevity is the soul of wit.
-William Shakespeare

/end


Data, as much of it as possible, is the sword which slays the dragon of BS
-unknown-
September 30, 2006 2:19:01 AM

Quote:
(...) CPU to be good it must have an IMC -- forget that fact that every real world test shows C2D Xtr 20-40% better than the best AMD CPU with the IMC.

Jack


Actually, Intel's CTO Pat Gelsinger, made a brief & somewhat laconic reference to Xilinx & Altera cooperation on Intel's next FSB, using FPGAs (although the hardware prototype presentation seemed more like a [huge] Ethernet module...):

http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm

(Digital Enterprise - Pat P. Gelsinger, slide 54).

In any way, I fail to grasp the role FPGAs could have on the FSB, being relatively low frequency controllers & not cheap at all...


Cheers!
!