Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Truely Quad Core Intel CPUs - Are They Available?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
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.
:sol: 
June 3, 2008 4:33:57 PM

they aren't, but Nehalem will introduce them
(i thought this would be a thunderman post :p )
June 3, 2008 4:39:50 PM

Yes, it sounds very thunderman-ish. Maybe he'll post here about double cheeseburgers.
Related resources
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 å Intel
June 3, 2008 4:59:03 PM

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.
June 3, 2008 5:01:57 PM

what does it matter, as long as it has 4 cores, then its the same. obviously the "true quads"(phenom) cant even come close to the double cheeseburger design of intel.
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. :hello: 
June 3, 2008 5:19:13 PM

What they Mean is a CPU with 4 Cores.
Hence the Term, "Quad-Core".

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
a c 107 à CPUs
a b å Intel
June 3, 2008 5:40:48 PM

I agree with nman. What difference does it make? Not saying it doesn't, necessarily, but does it? I can think of some things that might differ, but not matter, for all practical intents and purposes (e.g. heat, performance /watt, bandwidth constraints).
June 3, 2008 5:52:51 PM

It doesn't really make a difference, the current performance leading quad-cores are the two dual-cores put together, so just get one of them really.
June 3, 2008 5:55:19 PM

Thread like this always makes me lmao.

"True" Quad-core lol ... just like if one of the core wasn't truly there. Doesn't benchmarks show that he's very present and doing his job ?
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 :p )



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 :D 
June 3, 2008 6:22:47 PM

My car isnt a true 4X4 its really just two, two wheel drive axles put together in one car.......err... that makes it 4 wheel drive no?
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!!
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.
June 3, 2008 6:34:54 PM

uguv said:
Yes, it sounds very thunderman-ish. Maybe he'll post here about double cheeseburgers.


Ask and ye shall receive, lol.

June 3, 2008 7:03:40 PM

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 superior
June 3, 2008 7:43:36 PM

I feel like my participation in this thread is drawing to a close, so...

Thank you thunderman. I appreciate the information.

What I was looking for was information - didn't mean to start any 4-versus-2 core or AMD-versus-Intel arguments.

Now I know what a cheeseburger CPU is, lol.
June 3, 2008 7:45:05 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 superior
:lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
June 3, 2008 7:59:05 PM

Bulldog17 said:
Thank you thunderman. I appreciate the information.
You call that information? Seriously, no need to thank him.

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.
Understand that large software applications typically have a development life cycle of 1.5 to 2 years. It will be some time before Multi-core software becomes widely available, and by then both Intel and AMD's current offerings will be a distant memory.

Bulldog17 said:
Now I know what a cheeseburger CPU is, lol.
And maybe TC can chime in with some of his suggested AMD product names. ;) 
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.
June 3, 2008 8:13:50 PM

Bulldog17 said:
Now I know what a cheeseburger CPU is, lol.
Uh, it's a double cheeseburger. :lol:  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.
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 superior



The 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.
June 3, 2008 8:26:04 PM

You are welcome bulldog17...I'm always happy to help others with my experience and expertise
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?
June 3, 2008 8:59:37 PM

thunderman said:
You are welcome bulldog17...I'm always happy to help others with my experience and expertise
Now that's hilarious. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 
June 3, 2008 9:12:06 PM

DeafB4Dishonor said:
The 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.
:sarcastic:  Dude... he was being sarcastic!
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2008 9:13:35 PM

^+1 :lol:  :lol:  thunderman you DO work at AMD don't you! Mind sending us some ES for the next gen AMD CPUs?
June 3, 2008 10:15:42 PM

Shadow703793 said:
^+1 :lol:  :lol:  thunderman you DO work at AMD don't you! Mind sending us some ES for the next gen AMD CPUs?

Come on man, take a break, just for part time not full time ;) 
June 3, 2008 10:31:53 PM

I miss baron :(  thunderman isnt quite up to par in terms of fanboy-ism
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2008 11:30:41 PM

kad said:
Come on man, take a break, just for part time not full time ;) 

:na:  Part time while studying for AP? I don't think so! :lol:  Any ways, I do build PCs (mostly during summer) as a job so every thing's cool :D .
June 3, 2008 11:30:48 PM

The best way to describe the the Intel Quad Cores are not as Double CheeseBurgers but as "Oreo Double Stuffs" joined together.

Anyone who has stuck two doublestuffs together to make a Quad Stuff knows what I'm talking about.
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.
June 4, 2008 3:12:45 AM

i personally think baron is too serious about his replies. it seems angry and insulting almost

while thunderman is just hilarious, seeing him post on here has made my day :) 

+1
a c 448 à CPUs
a c 111 å Intel
June 4, 2008 6:00:33 AM

thunderman said:


If you want a Quad then buy a Phenom....It's a fantastic CPU and has been applauded by the Tech community.

AMD4Life!!


Yeah, if you want a "True Quad" then buy a Phenom.

But if you want performance, then buy an Intel Double Cheeseburger.




mmmmmm... Double Cheeseburger...
June 4, 2008 8:00:07 AM

Zorg said:
Now that's hilarious. :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :pt1cable:  :pt1cable: 



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..
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.
June 4, 2008 10:41:28 AM

jaguarskx said:
Yeah, if you want a "True Quad" then buy a Phenom.

But if you want performance, then buy an Intel Double Cheeseburger.




mmmmmm... Double Cheeseburger...



Could I have AMD lies with that
June 4, 2008 2:56:21 PM

So much in-fighting going on I'm beginning to wonder if I can rely on anything I've read here. :pt1cable: 
a c 123 à CPUs
June 4, 2008 3:03:32 PM

Zorg said:
Uh, it's a double cheeseburger. :lol:  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 expertise


Um...... 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???? :o 
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.
June 4, 2008 4:51:34 PM

Bulldog17 said:
So much in-fighting going on I'm beginning to wonder if I can rely on anything I've read here. :pt1cable: 
I wouldn't. Browse the HW sites, and seek out the benchmarks. The data won't lie.


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.
I think the fact that they had enough defects to justify the launch of a new product line not originally on the roadmap (IIRC) is why they catch so much flak.
June 5, 2008 7:18:13 PM

Bulldog17 said:
So much in-fighting going on I'm beginning to wonder if I can rely on anything I've read here. :pt1cable: 
spongebob said:
I wouldn't. Browse the HW sites, and seek out the benchmarks. The data won't lie.
+1
June 5, 2008 7:20:09 PM

Harry-Plopper said:
Any way people dont down bow down to Thundermans knowledge of technical information..

They duck..
I fall down laughing. :lol:  :lol:  :lol: 
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2008 8:01:05 PM

^+1 for me!
Illustration of ROFL:

June 5, 2008 9:27:15 PM

^+1 I should steal that.
June 6, 2008 4:25:20 AM

Thanks, I didn't see yours there but I did find this one. It works, although it is a little spastic.
!