Intel announces C2Q 6400

[1Tanker]

According to the guys at HKEPC(who always get the juicy info first), Intel has
announced the release of C2Q6400(2.13GHz/4MB L2/1066FSB). This baby should really put the pressure on AMD in the 4-core performance/$ wars...especially when overclocked.

http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/itnews.php?tid=714636&starttime=0&endtime=0

Unfortunately, release isn't scheduled til Q3 07. :x

 

[Arrowyx]

Wow, Intel is really trying to expand their product lines. A whole new refresh on the dual core C2D's, and now 2 lower end quad cores, looks like 2007 is going to be a very good year.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]

 

[1Tanker]

Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]

There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

 

[boduke]

Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]

There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

I can already do that on my C2D tho. I routinely rip DVD's while surfing and usually have World of Warcrat up in windowed mode on my second screen, alont with a couple chat windows. I rarely get any performance degradation while doing this, and usually at that point it's page swapping that bogs things down...

 

[1Tanker]

Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]

There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

I can already do that on my C2D tho. I routinely rip DVD's while surfing and usually have World of Warcrat up in windowed mode on my second screen, alont with a couple chat windows. I rarely get any performance degradation while doing this, and usually at that point it's page swapping that bogs things down...I know that...what i'm saying, is that there are a lot of people who's "ego's" make them think that they are heavy megataskers, and need as many cores as physics will allow. Don't forget also, that many people poo-pooed the need for dual-core as well. There will come a time, when 4 cores will be put to good use...probably be a few years though.

 

[boduke]

Since there are no mainstream applications yet that really take advantage of quad-core, I can understand Intel not making a mainstream quad-core until Q3 2007. [sarcasm]Only megataskers that need platformance can make use of quad core.[/sarcasm]

There are still going to be those people who feel they need it though, because they like having a few browsers open, while gaming, and maybe ripping a DVD.

I can already do that on my C2D tho. I routinely rip DVD's while surfing and usually have World of Warcrat up in windowed mode on my second screen, alont with a couple chat windows. I rarely get any performance degradation while doing this, and usually at that point it's page swapping that bogs things down...
I know that...what i'm saying, is that there are a lot of people who's "ego's" make them think that they are heavy megataskers, and need as many cores as physics will allow. Don't forget also, that many people poo-pooed the need for dual-core as well. There will come a time, when 4 cores will be put to good use...probably be a few years though.

Nah, s'all good man, I know you knew it I was just tossing out my $.02 and my experiences in. Quad core would be cool from a bragging rights standpoint right now but IMO that's about it. Unless your BaronMegatasker. As a note I'm also trying to escape the other threads where the conservationists seem to have taken over...shhh...don't talk to loudly about more cores here or this thread will be next....

 

[npilier]

[]...

Unfortunately, release isn't scheduled til Q3 07. :x

Good! By Q3 07 we will be worrying about the fuse processor or else.

 

[npilier]

...As a note I'm also trying to escape the other threads where the conservationists seem to have taken over...shhh...don't talk to loudly about more cores here or this thread will be next....

[MegaBorgs] "Resistance is futile...this thread will be assimilated..."

 

[heartview]

I'm imagining that the sidebar in Vista that allows all of those little "applets" running could make use of multiple cores pretty easily. Also, more cores will make the process of switching between applications that much faster, which will benefit everyone that runs more than one interactive application. The real key will to convince people to not starve their mult-core boxes. Very soon 2 GB of memory will be standard fair.

 

[1Tanker]

I'm imagining that the sidebar in Vista that allows all of those little "applets" running could make use of multiple cores pretty easily. Also, more cores will make the process of switching between applications that much faster, which will benefit everyone that runs more than one interactive application. The real key will to convince people to not starve their mult-core boxes. Very soon 2 GB of memory will be standard fair.

Yeah...come Jan.30th. VISTA.

 

[npilier]

I doubt that any *S*ignificant performance can be achieve under vi$ta or any other OS system, by mainly depending on cpu capacity. The reason for that is that any memory-dependent system, like vista is, really depends precisely on that...how much prime-memory you have...However, for CAD and CGI a 4p system + plenty of memory... the performance can be seen immediately...And you're definitely right, 2 gigs of ram will sooner than later not be enough...

 

[npilier]

I'm imagining that the sidebar in Vista that allows all of those little "applets" running could make use of multiple cores pretty easily. Also, more cores will make the process of switching between applications that much faster, which will benefit everyone that runs more than one interactive application. The real key will to convince people to not starve their mult-core boxes. Very soon 2 GB of memory will be standard fair.

Yeah...come Jan.30th. VISTA.

Although this might be somewhat off topic, but you don't need to wait until vista to realize that 2 gigs is nowadays the standard...no offense intended, but where you've been hiding? I have 1 gig running on my P4 system and I feel like I can do faster calculations by hand than by utilizing my PC trying to open up calc on windows...

Edit: I meant 2 gigs...

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

I dispense a lot of computer advice and make a lot of purchasing decisions. For XP I use the standard of 1 gig. With the additional requirements of Vista I would recommend 2 gigs.

However, getting back on topic: Even Vista won't challenge a quad-core system greatly. The biggest vista challenge will be handled by a graphics card. However, I am looking forward to seeing OS and software that will seem even more responsive with multiple cores.

Currently with my dual-core opteron I notice the system being a little pepier, but rarely do I find myself utilizing both the cores. The only time that has happened thus far is doing some heavy duty napstering (downloading and transfering to an MP3 player) while playing an online game (CounterStrike: Source, Battlefield 2).

 

[dean7]

But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS???

</sarcasm>

 

[turpit]

Sweet Mother of Murgatriod!

The sarcasm and underlying insinuations dripping from this thread (short as it is) are so thick I feel like I need a shower to cleanse myself.


Well Done!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[FatFunkey]

blah ill just get a damn C2 E6600 and then upgrade to Quad Core if its worth it...so far its not due to the fact nothing is optimized foor even dual core and the benchmarks of Quad Core are not showing me its worth the money

 

[MadHacker]

Well with a Quad Core I can Idle that much faster

 

[dean7]

Yeah, and what happens if you have 2 monitors and you want to encode a DVD while playing Oblivion and simultaneously idling in IRC? What then? Haha.

 

[69camaroSS]

But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS???

</sarcasm>

There is a performance gain to be had. QX6700 at 2.66Ghz can keep up with a X6800 (2.93Ghz) clocked at a higher clock speed in most applications, and can beat it in others.

Multicore is just an extension of dual processor motherboards. They've been around for a long time giving substantial benefits to users.

If you are video editing, these things kick butt! (from what I've read)

Truthfully, I think AMD is just trying to save face and look like they weren't caught with their pants down.

 

[1Tanker]

But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS???

</sarcasm>

So...because AMD says it...makes it so?

 

[1Tanker]

Truthfully, I think AMD is just trying to save face and look like they weren't caught with their pants down.

BINGO!!

 

[dean7]

But according to AMD the multi-core CPUs are just a "trend" like the Gigahertz wars! So who cares about this BS???

</sarcasm>

So...because AMD says it...makes it so?
Bingo!!!! Who cares if it's right at the time when they are getting their butts handed to them on the Multi-Core front? That's just a coincidence!

BTW, you KNOW I'm being sarcastic, right?

Truthfully, I think AMD is just trying to save face and look like they weren't caught with their pants down.

My thoughts exactly... hence my post.

 

[tool_462]

It probably is just a trend. TV was said to be a trend that will never surpass radio in revenue and will die soon enough because the "average consumer doesn't have time to sit and watch TV, they can carry their radio with them."

You may still argue it is just a trend But I for one, will follow that trend as far as it goes. As much as I hate being "trendy" ...

 

[dean7]

Hah. So, wait, you mean PCs are just a trend as well? Holy crap... AMD sure is a forward-thinking company!!!