Truely Quad Core Intel CPUs - Are They Available?
Tags:
-
CPUs
- Quad Core
-
Intel
- Product
Last response: in CPUs
Bulldog17
June 3, 2008 4:32:01 PM
If I recall correctly, the first generation of quad core CPUs from Intel were actually two dual core CPUs joined together. That was a while ago, and I'm afraid I haven't been keeping up with the latest developments. Are 'true' quad core CPUs now available from Intel? If so, how do I identify such a CPU (something in the name or model number?)
If not, will these CPUs be appearing in consumer PCs the near future?
Thanks for your help.
If not, will these CPUs be appearing in consumer PCs the near future?
Thanks for your help.
More about : truely quad core intel cpus
spuddyt
June 3, 2008 4:33:57 PM
uguv
June 3, 2008 4:39:50 PM
Related resources
- Which is the best among Intel Core2 Quad CPUs - Forum
- New low-end quad-core Q8xxx CPUs from Intel - Forum
- Intel Pentium 'Quad' Core CPUs? - Forum
- About core 2 duo quad cpus and gpus - Forum
- Future for quad core CPUs in PC Gaming - Forum
Yeah, "TRUE" Quads will be expensive because of higher probably of fabrication errors in which one or more cores are produced below specs.
Built into the price of all electronic compoents is the recovery costs of components that fail to meet specification and cannot be sold. Thus, the production cost for each viable component (the CPU in this case) is increased, which in turn increases the sale price.
Built into the price of all electronic compoents is the recovery costs of components that fail to meet specification and cannot be sold. Thus, the production cost for each viable component (the CPU in this case) is increased, which in turn increases the sale price.
nman729
June 3, 2008 5:01:57 PM
Bulldog17
June 3, 2008 5:13:55 PM
I'm not a regular here so I don't know anything about Nehalem or thunderman. I don't even know what a "double cheeseberger" means with respect to CPU design.
Nonetheless, I believe I have my answer: For the foreseeable future, whenever Intel calls one of its consumer CPUs "quad core" what they mean is two dual core CPUs joined together.
Thanks.
Nonetheless, I believe I have my answer: For the foreseeable future, whenever Intel calls one of its consumer CPUs "quad core" what they mean is two dual core CPUs joined together.
Thanks.
zenmaster
June 3, 2008 5:19:13 PM
3Ball
June 3, 2008 5:27:44 PM
Bulldog17 said:
Nonetheless, I believe I have my answer: For the foreseeable future, whenever Intel calls one of its consumer CPUs "quad core" what they mean is two dual core CPUs joined together.Actually no you dont have your answer. The foreseeable future is Nehlam and that is what one may call a true quad core. So, in effect you had the answer, but misinterpreted it. Alas, nehlam is native quad core (true). Just to clear things up. I would expect them to be reasonably priced in mid to late 2009, but could be wrong. Hope this helps!
Best,
3Ball
Gravemind123
June 3, 2008 5:52:51 PM
HyperBladeST
June 3, 2008 5:55:19 PM
aznguy0028
June 3, 2008 6:14:18 PM
spuddyt said:
they aren't, but Nehalem will introduce them(i thought this would be a thunderman post
)lol that was exactly what i was thinking! i was HOPING it'll be a thunderman post so he can make fun of the core2cheeseburgers but sadly i was disappointed... -sad- maybe thunderman is busy on his new Core2Qua....i mean, AMD 9850 B.E setup
lameness
June 3, 2008 6:22:47 PM
thunderman
June 3, 2008 6:23:58 PM
AMD are the only company currently offering a Native Quad Core, Intel use a Double cheeseburger method of sticking two Dual Cores Together. There is a big difference because not only does the Phenom have an Onboard Memory controller....The Cores are all on one die. What does this matter you may say? The Intel will not be able to use those Four cores to their full potential because of the Bandwidth Limitations. Multi-core software is not in abundance yet...The Phenom's design will shine when the Mult-tasking workload gets heavier. AMD have also pleased the overclockers by introducing the 9850 Black edition...there's just not any reason to buy Intel fake Quads. Intel themselves realize that their current Quads have limitations....why else would they be introducing Nehalem? Nehalem is too little to late though and lets not forget AMD will be moving onto the 45nm which will make the new Phenoms more energy efficient and Performance should increase dramatically.
If you want a Quad then buy a Phenom....It's a fantastic CPU and has been applauded by the Tech community.
AMD4Life!!
If you want a Quad then buy a Phenom....It's a fantastic CPU and has been applauded by the Tech community.
AMD4Life!!
Bulldog17
June 3, 2008 6:33:28 PM
Nehalem...yes, now I remember.
From Tom's Hardware:
"Parallel Processing, Part 1: CPU Cores" [excerpted]
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING...
"The Core 2 Quad Q6700 is a 2.66 GHz quad core processor, using two Core 2 Duo dies inside...While there are many reasons to opt for a dual core processor, the quad cores do not yet always live up to their full potential. One reason is limited thread-optimizations of software, while others have to do with the architecture. Though AMD likes to criticize Intel’s approach of putting two dual core dies into a single processor as not "true" quad core, the concept works well for Intel on the business side of things, and it very well delivers four-core performance...On the performance side, though, there can be bottlenecks - the two dies communicate via the system interface, and it’s difficult to exercise control over all individual cores when multiple pieces of silicon are present...True quad core concepts put four cores and their cache memories onto a single die. The important thing is to have a shared, unified cache...Intel will follow the same path, but not before the introduction of its 2008 Nehalem architecture."
Enjoy your cheeseburgers.
From Tom's Hardware:
"Parallel Processing, Part 1: CPU Cores" [excerpted]
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/PARALLEL-PROCESSING...
"The Core 2 Quad Q6700 is a 2.66 GHz quad core processor, using two Core 2 Duo dies inside...While there are many reasons to opt for a dual core processor, the quad cores do not yet always live up to their full potential. One reason is limited thread-optimizations of software, while others have to do with the architecture. Though AMD likes to criticize Intel’s approach of putting two dual core dies into a single processor as not "true" quad core, the concept works well for Intel on the business side of things, and it very well delivers four-core performance...On the performance side, though, there can be bottlenecks - the two dies communicate via the system interface, and it’s difficult to exercise control over all individual cores when multiple pieces of silicon are present...True quad core concepts put four cores and their cache memories onto a single die. The important thing is to have a shared, unified cache...Intel will follow the same path, but not before the introduction of its 2008 Nehalem architecture."
Enjoy your cheeseburgers.
B-Unit
June 3, 2008 6:34:54 PM
jeremyrailton
June 3, 2008 7:03:40 PM
Bulldog17
June 3, 2008 7:43:36 PM
spongebob
June 3, 2008 7:45:05 PM
spongebob
June 3, 2008 7:59:05 PM
Bulldog17 said:
Thank you thunderman. I appreciate the information. Quad core, glued dual core,... no difference ATM. AMD's monolithic core, in spite of any theoretical advantages, has thusfar provided ZERO benefit to the end user. Don't let this this guide your decision making at this time.
thunderman said:
Multi-core software is not in abundance yet...The Phenom's design will shine when the Mult-tasking workload gets heavier.Bulldog17 said:
Now I know what a cheeseburger CPU is, lol.
d_kuhn
June 3, 2008 8:05:51 PM
The new Intel processors are a great design for PC's... the only weakness they have is that they don't scale... which makes sense since Intel has until recently been a single processor company (except for the Itanium which is a dog).
AMD has been thoroughly beaten down in the PC performance category since the Core Duo came out... BUT the Opteron is a ground up multiprocessor competent architecture. They scale a TON better than Intel (though Intel has shown improvements on that front)... in general because the architecture is better for multiprocessing than the Intel Core Duo architecture.
That means if you're building a 1024 processor supercomputer... you're probably going to go with AMD - because in that design space it IS the better processor.
What exactly does that mean for the '8 or fewer' processor masses like us? NOTHING... we're going to be buying Intel because in our design space they're a lot better than anything AMD has on the market.
AMD has been thoroughly beaten down in the PC performance category since the Core Duo came out... BUT the Opteron is a ground up multiprocessor competent architecture. They scale a TON better than Intel (though Intel has shown improvements on that front)... in general because the architecture is better for multiprocessing than the Intel Core Duo architecture.
That means if you're building a 1024 processor supercomputer... you're probably going to go with AMD - because in that design space it IS the better processor.
What exactly does that mean for the '8 or fewer' processor masses like us? NOTHING... we're going to be buying Intel because in our design space they're a lot better than anything AMD has on the market.
Zorg
June 3, 2008 8:13:50 PM
DeafB4Dishonor
June 3, 2008 8:24:59 PM
jeremyrailton said:
amd has a vastly superior architecture for their quad cores. sure, they don't perform as well as intel, they overheat, and the black edition 'overclocker' can't overclock. but if you ignore that, they are vastly superiorThe phenom is in no way vastly superior to the Core processors, and I dont even like Intel. The true quad core concept is the more advanced technology, but it hasnt been executed well, and just fails.
thunderman
June 3, 2008 8:26:04 PM
spuddyt
June 3, 2008 8:29:36 PM
thunderman said:
AMD are the only company currently offering a Native Quad Core, Intel use a Double cheeseburger method of sticking two Dual Cores Together. There is a big difference because not only does the Phenom have an Onboard Memory controller....The Cores are all on one die. What does this matter you may say? The Intel will not be able to use those Four cores to their full potential because of the Bandwidth Limitations. Multi-core software is not in abundance yet...The Phenom's design will shine when the Mult-tasking workload gets heavier. AMD have also pleased the overclockers by introducing the 9850 Black edition...there's just not any reason to buy Intel fake Quads. Intel themselves realize that their current Quads have limitations....why else would they be introducing Nehalem? Nehalem is too little to late though and lets not forget AMD will be moving onto the 45nm which will make the new Phenoms more energy efficient and Performance should increase dramatically.If you want a Quad then buy a Phenom....It's a fantastic CPU and has been applauded by the Tech community.
AMD4Life!!
Hey thundie! how's the job at AMD coming along?
Zorg
June 3, 2008 8:59:37 PM
spongebob
June 3, 2008 9:12:06 PM
kad
June 3, 2008 10:15:42 PM
skittle
June 3, 2008 10:31:53 PM
zenmaster
June 3, 2008 11:30:48 PM
ovaltineplease
June 4, 2008 2:51:15 AM
When people refer to gaming there is often a fair bit of discussion in regard to the value of 4 cores.
This is what most of these suppositions about "superior performance" are about.
From what many people have seen, for a lot of games there is marginal differences at the moment from going to 4 cores from 2. In fact its more or less throwing your money out the window unless you do video encoding/virtual machines/workstation tasks.
There may be some differences on extremely high end PCs gaming on 30" display, but that is the exception and largely not the norm.
This is what most of these suppositions about "superior performance" are about.
From what many people have seen, for a lot of games there is marginal differences at the moment from going to 4 cores from 2. In fact its more or less throwing your money out the window unless you do video encoding/virtual machines/workstation tasks.
There may be some differences on extremely high end PCs gaming on 30" display, but that is the exception and largely not the norm.
aznguy0028
June 4, 2008 3:12:45 AM
Harry-Plopper
June 4, 2008 8:00:07 AM
gallag
June 4, 2008 10:29:38 AM
thunderman said:
AMD are the only company currently offering a Native Quad Core, Intel use a Double cheeseburger method of sticking two Dual Cores Together. There is a big difference because not only does the Phenom have an Onboard Memory controller....The Cores are all on one die. What does this matter you may say? The Intel will not be able to use those Four cores to their full potential because of the Bandwidth Limitations. Multi-core software is not in abundance yet...The Phenom's design will shine when the Mult-tasking workload gets heavier. AMD have also pleased the overclockers by introducing the 9850 Black edition...there's just not any reason to buy Intel fake Quads. Intel themselves realize that their current Quads have limitations....why else would they be introducing Nehalem? Nehalem is too little to late though and lets not forget AMD will be moving onto the 45nm which will make the new Phenoms more energy efficient and Performance should increase dramatically.If you want a Quad then buy a Phenom....It's a fantastic CPU and has been applauded by the Tech community.
AMD4Life!!
You sure seem to know your stuff, Could you please explane how AMD are going to achieve octocore (8-core) cpu's.
Harry-Plopper
June 4, 2008 10:41:28 AM
Bulldog17
June 4, 2008 2:56:21 PM
Zorg said:
Uh, it's a double cheeseburger.
My double cheeseburger Q6600 with the "free" OC to 3.0 does better than the Phenom and it is technically an old chip.I do hope AMD doesn't go belly up though.
WOOT!!! Preach on.... 3GHz stable and rockin the socks.
thunderman said:
You are welcome bulldog17...I'm always happy to help others with my experience and expertiseUm...... No comment...
Harry-Plopper said:
Mmmm so lets see how many AMD Phenoms have been sold ( the ones that work that is )Anyway what is the actual point of a tri-core..
It seems to be another lost leader
Any way people dont down bow down to Thundermans knowledge of technical information..
They duck..
There is a Tri core????
B-Unit
June 4, 2008 4:07:10 PM
Yes, the Phenom 8xxx series is tri-core. I dont understand why everyone loves to bash on this, its a common sense approach. If your making native quad-core processors, and you have a bad core, what would you rather do?
A) Throw the whole thing away and eat the loss on manufacturing costs, or...
B) Disable the bad core and sell it as a tri-core, recouping at least some of the cost.
This is the same way we've been getting Celeron and Sempron chips for years, except with them it was bad cache memory. But now all of a sudden people wanna bash the idea.
A) Throw the whole thing away and eat the loss on manufacturing costs, or...
B) Disable the bad core and sell it as a tri-core, recouping at least some of the cost.
This is the same way we've been getting Celeron and Sempron chips for years, except with them it was bad cache memory. But now all of a sudden people wanna bash the idea.
spongebob
June 4, 2008 4:51:34 PM
spongebob
June 4, 2008 4:55:26 PM
B-Unit said:
Yes, the Phenom 8xxx series is tri-core. I dont understand why everyone loves to bash on this, its a common sense approach. If your making native quad-core processors, and you have a bad core, what would you rather do?A) Throw the whole thing away and eat the loss on manufacturing costs, or...
B) Disable the bad core and sell it as a tri-core, recouping at least some of the cost.
This is the same way we've been getting Celeron and Sempron chips for years, except with them it was bad cache memory. But now all of a sudden people wanna bash the idea.
Zorg
June 5, 2008 7:18:13 PM
Zorg
June 5, 2008 7:20:09 PM
Zorg
June 5, 2008 9:27:15 PM
^ Here's the website:
http://www.mobilitysite.com/boards/misc.php?do=showsmil...
Just copy and paste the direct image link.
In FireFox:
Right click on image, then "Copy Image Location"
One of the many useful things in FireFox
.
http://www.mobilitysite.com/boards/misc.php?do=showsmil...
Just copy and paste the direct image link.
In FireFox:
Right click on image, then "Copy Image Location"
One of the many useful things in FireFox
.
Zorg
June 6, 2008 4:25:20 AM
Harry-Plopper
June 7, 2008 10:13:25 PM
Zorg said:
Thanks, I didn't see yours there but I did find this one. http://i27.tinypic.com/2njdb4i.gif It works, although it is a little spastic.Its not known as Thunderman is it...
- 1 / 2
- 2
- Newest
Related resources
- SolvedHow many physical chips are inside dual core and quad core cpus? Forum
- SolvedNeed help with my first PC build (duo 12-core cpus, quad titan gpus) Forum
- SolvedCOOLER MASTER GeminII S524 good enough for Quad & Six-Core CPUs and G.Skill Ripjaw X Compatible? Forum
- SolvedLooking for cheap PC parts to support some amd cpus Dual and quad core. Forum
- SolvedIntel Core i5 4460 Quad Core OR AMD FX-8350 8 core? Forum
- SolvedIs Intel gonna make cheaper quad core cpu's? Forum
- SolvedCan A Intel Core 2 Quad reduce the bottle neck? Forum
- Solved2.5 quad core AMD vs 1.7 dual core Intel, does the Intel really honestly win? Forum
- Solvedgraphic card and ram for Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E7500 @ 2.93GHz (2 CPUs), ~2.9GHz Forum
- SolvedWhat Better a Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 or a Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 Forum
- Solvedolder intel quad vs new intel dual core Forum
- SolvedIntel Core 2 Quad Q6600: Overclock or upgrade? Forum
- SolvedIntel core 2 quad q6600 or Intel Pentium G3258 Forum
- SolvedHow much longer until the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9650 will be "obslete"? Forum
- SolvedDo I have a dual-core CPU or a quad-core CPU? (Intel i3 4130) Forum
- More resources
!
Dude... he was being sarcastic!
thunderman isnt quite up to par in terms of fanboy-ism
Part time while studying for AP? I don't think so!

It works, although it is a little spastic.