Intel CEO announces Core 2 Quad

[Techie22]

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/26/intel_core_2_quad_announcement/

what do you think?

 

[Techie22]

/bump

 

[npilier]

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.

 

[3lfk1ng]

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.

It is intriguing however to see that they have a

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.

 

[Techie22]

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

 

[npilier]

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.

 

[Doughbuy]

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.

 

[MatTheMurdera]

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.

 

[npilier]

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!

 

[npilier]

Yeah, thanks for the refresh on that point as I was already forgetting that fact. :!:

 

[benjamin]

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/26/intel_core_2_quad_announcement/

what do you think?

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.

 

[nobly]

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?

 

[Grimmy]

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)

 

[spud]

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".

 

[Mephistopheles]

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?

 

[spud]

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?

Word.
Most Likely!

 

[gr8mikey]

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?

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.

 

[IcY18]

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

 

[Talon]

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.

 

[aBg_rOnGak]

Yes sir, i second you sir!

Hope you won't get any flames sir! Good luck sir!

 

[turpit]

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?

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.

 

[npilier]

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!!!

 

[npilier]

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?

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 =)*.

 

[DaBigHurt]

"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 .....................

 

[MatTheMurdera]

You got an avatar!