AMD, Intel Plotting Six-Core CPU Releases
Are you ready for more cores?
With both AMD and Intel already floating quad-core CPUs on the market, it's only natural for them to dial things up a bit bigger by adding 50 percent more cores.
According to a report from Digitimes, who sources its friends at Taiwanese motherboard companies, Intel will be rolling out its six-core desktop "Gulftown" processors at the end of March. The six-core Nehalem-based chip will supposedly be named the Core i7-980X and will be priced in the four-digit range.
In response, AMD will launch the six-core "Thuban" 45nm chips as Phenom II X6 1075T, 1055T and 1035T models sometime in May.
As always, take these reports with a grain of salt – but it's safe to say that we'll be seeing six-core CPUs sometime before the summer.
- Microsoft Posts Records on Over 60M Win 7 Sold
- The Winners of our SBM (Dec. 2009) Contest
- Friday Deals: LogicBuy Finale Special Edition
- Razer Announces Dual-sided Vespula Mousepad
- Caption Contest: What is Steve Jobs Thinking?
- VIDEO: Michael Dell Shows Off the Mini 5
- Alienware's M11x Gets $799 Price
- Asus Wants a Cool UI for its Eee Pad
- The iPad is the Gadget We Never Knew We Needed
- C&C 4 Tiberian Twilight Miltiplayer Beta Launched
- Leak: Fujitsu Internal Memo Over iPad Trademark
- Tom's Readers Get the Eyefinity Treatment
- Xbox 360 Gets 250 GB HDD Upgrade
- Chinese Tablet Maker May Sue Apple Over iPad
- Windows 7 RC Shutdown Starts Next Month
- Intel, Micron Introduce 25nm Flash Memory
- BitTorrent's Top 10 Movies Pirated Last Week
- Google Paying Up to $1337 for Chrome Bugs
battle of the e-peen. who's is bigger?......facepalm.
The questions should be, are software companies ready for dual-cores yet?
omni your right, software developers need to get their multicore sh*t together.
If they would just make a 120 core machine I can complete my George Foreman PC mod.... "It cooks your burgers AND yes it does play Crysis!"
omni your right, software developers need to get their multicore sh*t together.
Ever thought that maybe some people use multiple heavy apps at once using 2+ cores per app etc
This is going to be the same argument as when dual-cores came out, then quad-cores etc -its getting old people.
Theres nothing wrong with the extra power
Ever thought that maybe some people use multiple heavy apps at once using 2+ cores per app etcThis is going to be the same argument as when dual-cores came out, then quad-cores etc -its getting old people.Theres nothing wrong with the extra power
You're missing the point, I think. The argument actually is very much valid, and alive. Applications which are written well to take advantage of multiple cores run quite fast on a dual-core, and so on. But most apps are not written with this in mind, so you can throw them at 6 cores, or 8 cores but it won't utilize the power which it has at its disposal. That's the point. Yes, of course more cores are better, but are they better because you think they are, or because they really are. Hardware and software should compliment one another, it's not optimal when one hardware outruns software so far ahead that it's actually pointless to pay for the fast hardware.
apache i'm not saying more power isn't a good thing. just wish they could harness all that power. and you know most guys just wanna see who's benchmarks are higher, hell i'm one of those guys. i know the real professionals that rely on really good hardware to do "actual work" will use the hell out of them. me, i'm just a hater cause i know i'll never need or use that much power. no offence intended.
Q2 2010 BY 10th of May AMD Thurban X6 1075 2.8Ghz, 2.4HT, L2 2Mb, L3 6Mb, TDP 125 = Bios update for AMD2+, AMD3 motherboards,
Q1 2010 AMD Deneb X4 975 3.6Ghz, L2 2Mb, L3 6Mb TDP 125 - 140 = AMD does not want to compete itself e.g X4 965 140 TDP - X4 965 125 TDP. Originally X6 1075 was a 140 TDP part and now is 125 TDP. The 125 TDP parts have much grater exposure and market share than 140 TDP parts. Expect AMD CPU'S Phenom 2 X2, X3 and X4 to reach 4 Ghz by the end of 2010 - Q1 2011.
The X2 CPU's technically can already be produced at 4.0 Ghz TDP 140.
e.g X2 555 3.2 GHZ 80 TDP, 565 3.4 GHZ 95 TDP, 575 3.6 GHZ 110 TDP,
585 3.8 GHZ 125 TDP and 595 4.0 GHZ 140 TDP. The technical abilities of AMD Phenom 2 X3 and X4 allow it to be produced at 3.6Ghz 140 TDP.
AMD will hold the fort with Denebs X2, X3, X4 and X6 untill Q1 2011 Bulldozer and Bobcat AM3r2 = AM3+
AMD X2, X3 and X4 are the same Deneb core with disabled cores for X3 and X4 ;-D.
I bet AMD wins this round for a simple reason.
AMD 6-core for $300.
Intel 6-core for $1200.
Q2 2010 BY 10th of May AMD Thurban X6 1075 2.8Ghz, 2.4HT, L2 2Mb, L3 6Mb, TDP 125 = Bios update for AMD2+, AMD3 motherboards,Q1 2010 AMD Deneb X4 975 3.6Ghz, L2 2Mb, L3 6Mb TDP 125 - 140 = AMD does not want to compete itself e.g X4 965 140 TDP - X4 965 125 TDP. Originally X6 1075 was a 140 TDP part and now is 125 TDP. The 125 TDP parts have much grater exposure and market share than 140 TDP parts. Expect AMD CPU'S Phenom 2 X2, X3 and X4 to reach 4 Ghz by the end of 2010 - Q1 2011. The X2 CPU's technically can already be produced at 4.0 Ghz TDP 140.e.g X2 555 3.2 GHZ 80 TDP, 565 3.4 GHZ 95 TDP, 575 3.6 GHZ 110 TDP,585 3.8 GHZ 125 TDP and 595 4.0 GHZ 140 TDP. The technical architecture of AMD Phenom 2 X3 and X4 allow it to be produced at 3.6Ghz 140 TDP. AMD will hold the fort with Denebs X2, X3, X4 and X6 untill Q1 2011 Bulldozer and Bobcat AM3r2 = AM3+. AMD X2, X3 and X4 are the same Deneb core with disabled cores for X2 and X4 ;-D.
Anyone who uses Mental Ray is smiling
god dam are some people stupid WHO USES ONE APPLICATION AT A TIME?
Why six cores? Doesn't it make more sense to double? 1 core...2 core...4 core...8 core...? so in a decade we'll all be running 256 core CPUs of which the cores composed of carbon nanotubes and single electron transistors running at a terahertz with a 8192 bit wide bus on a 32 socket double sided motherboard!
And I finally got 4 cores.........
Why six cores? Doesn't it make more sense to double? 1 core...2 core...4 core...8 core...? so in a decade we'll all be running 256 core CPUs of which the cores composed of carbon nanotubes and single electron transistors running at a terahertz with a 8192 bit wide bus on a 32 socket double sided motherboard!
I think my skull just cracked
if its that bad to use quad core or six core processors why dony you all stick to a Pentium 4 or Pentium D? im sure the performance will be sufficent, and the power consumption around the same mark too
apps doesnt necessarily mean they should be written for multicores just to harness the potential of dual cores, quads, and six's. i mean, dont you run antivirus, utorrent perhaps, or whatever processes that's in the background? doncha think it would be slow if you have a pentium 4 3GHz running all that vs a core2quad running a 2.93GHz? take your pick if you think that the 2nd core is useless.
I bet AMD wins this round for a simple reason.AMD 6-core for $300.Intel 6-core for $1200.
O RLY?
I have an AMD 790GX AM3 socket. I hope the "Thuban" has the same.
I'll just forget about Intel. They change sockets everytime they have new processor.
hopefully quad core price will drop a lot once the 6 core comes out~ hehe
@apache because the cores have gotten vastly more efficient/faster while using less power per core.
The 40 sempron sargas core will chew up and spit out any stock p4 or pd, with ACC it could be a dual Athlon II. For most of the general users a dual will do just fine for now, many power users who actually utilize the hardware through heavy multitasking, or running several multi-threaded apps will find the need for such chips. The fact that an AMD user could go from a single core to a six-core system with just a bios update and new chip, these things are gonna sell, all while driving down the prices of the already cheap chips.
I wonder if AMD will release x5's.
the 40 dollar sempron
Yes AMD will always produce variations of binned product e.g X4=X3 and X2
X6=X5 CPU's.
ATI 5870=5850 and 5830 etc
About time. 6-core server chips have been out at least 6 months now.
Why six cores? Doesn't it make more sense to double? 1 core...2 core...4 core...8 core...? so in a decade we'll all be running 256 core CPUs of which the cores composed of carbon nanotubes and single electron transistors running at a terahertz with a 8192 bit wide bus on a 32 socket double sided motherboard!
Yep, and my nose bleeds....
You're missing the point, I think. The argument actually is very much valid, and alive. Applications which are written well to take advantage of multiple cores run quite fast on a dual-core, and so on. But most apps are not written with this in mind, so you can throw them at 6 cores, or 8 cores but it won't utilize the power which it has at its disposal. That's the point. Yes, of course more cores are better, but are they better because you think they are, or because they really are. Hardware and software should compliment one another, it's not optimal when one hardware outruns software so far ahead that it's actually pointless to pay for the fast hardware.
Most apps can't be written in a multi threaded nature. Sure some things (ie UI,etc) can be handled by a different thread but today's CPUs/GPUs are fast enough it won't make a difference.
hopefully quad core price will drop a lot once the 6 core comes out~ hehe
Considering you can get a quad core AMD 620 for some $90 on newegg, I think your excuse is invalid (recent price drops due to i3 and i5 and AMD xx5 releases).
Can't say I need 6 cores at home but at work the extra 2 cores would be amazing when compiling with 2-3+ windows of Acrobat reader, and/or debuggers, programming environments, company required security and backup software...
You're missing the point, I think. The argument actually is very much valid, and alive. Applications which are written well to take advantage of multiple cores run quite fast on a dual-core, and so on. But most apps are not written with this in mind, so you can throw them at 6 cores, or 8 cores but it won't utilize the power which it has at its disposal. That's the point. Yes, of course more cores are better, but are they better because you think they are, or because they really are. Hardware and software should compliment one another, it's not optimal when one hardware outruns software so far ahead that it's actually pointless to pay for the fast hardware.
You are completely missing the point. More cores makes for better multi-tasking. You under estimate how difficult it is to efficiently utilize parallel processing, and the overhead that is involved. Some tasks simply can't be distributed across multiple cores. While it's nice for processor intensive programs to utilize all of your cores, most programs don't need to, and those extra cores allow you to run more programs at the same time without hindering each other's performance.
i so getting an amd sex core!
nice, but not something i care about. i want AMD to release a faster quad (32nm?), so i can get more gaming performance. 2 more cores? pointless for me.
anyone know if AMD have any new quads in the works? something to justify an upgrade from a 3.6Ghz PII?
I know I'm ready for six cores. I need some help with the programs that I run. I'm with falchard. We all know Intel's chips are going to be exorbitantly priced compared to AMD, so I'll stick with AMD.