Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Reviews

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the four-eyes dept.

197

An anonymous reader writes, "The first reviews of Intel's new quad-core Core 2 Extreme QX6700 have emerged this morning and opinion is mixed. TrustedReviews were blunt: 'There is nothing new on display here. Very few people will need quad cores...' while Tech Report think 'many owners of this beast may be stuck waiting for new applications to arrive that use it to its fullest ability.' The boys at bit-tech managed to overclock to 3.47GHz and found the first killer application: quad-core support in the Source Engine! Nice!"

cancel ×

197 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Key Words... (1)

certain death (947081) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687681)

Nothing New. I wish there would be some real inovation in CPUs so that we could take over the world from home, and not have to use the damn main frame at work!

Re:Key Words... (1)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689681)

I don't know about you, but I'm planning on building my new home with these new Intel Core 2x4's.

re: your sig - I wonder what happened to the people who tested Preparations A-G.

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687691)

FP !!

Re:FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687727)

Better luck next time, eh?

Re:FP (1)

Corwn of Amber (802933) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688831)

(Note to self : replying to an idiot FP guarantees the post will be read among the first...)

How's that "Nothing new"? Count the threads in your /usr/bin/top or taskmgr.exe, and if it says more than 4 then you have a use for quad-core.

It's because of idiots like that, always saying "but you dun'need that" that no-one bought SCSI and we've beeen (and still partly are) stuck with that crap IUDE interface, and that it's so f*ing expensive and hard to get a multi-CPU mobo, and so on forever.

Grrr.

Re:FP (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16689449)

"if it says more than 4 then you have a use for quad-core"

Odds are most of those threads are sleeping and a quad core will be no faster than .. well a zero core!

Re:FP (1)

dextromulous (627459) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689715)

C'mon, everything sleeps better with a quad core ;-). Seriously though, I want one... I just gave away my (really old) quad xeon, and I need something to heat my apartment in these cold Canadian winters.

Re:FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16689633)

Count the threads in your /usr/bin/top or taskmgr.exe, and if it says more than 4 then you have a use for quad-core.

Reeeeally ... I take it you never heard of sleeping processes then. Or you want to argue they sleep sooo much better on their own core.

Unless you have 2+ (or 3+ for quad-core) processes/threads active and contending for CPU time you can do quite well with single core.

Homework question: why is make recommended to be run with the option -j (# of CPUs + 1) ?

As to your remark SCSI ... if you have the pockets to put something marketed for high-end servers into your desktop, go right ahead. Others, more price-conscious, will get a generously filled external eSATA RAID enclosure with less money than you'd pay for a decently-sized SCSI RAID setup (I see the 74GB drives are coming down in price; now remember to buy a good controller as well). And for desktop-type usage patterns one simply cannot do without the enterprise-class features of SCSI ... yes ... one's pron collection deserves the best, right? Uh, wait ...

Note to self: replying to an idiotic early post that will go down in mod flames guarantees that your post (if visible) will be among the last in the list - so post AC and don't worry about it.

Not new? (1)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687729)

What sort of applications are they concerned about? Wouldn't any program with multiple threads, or even four separate applications, make full use of the four cores?

If they can point out what other consumer-level processors can do this, I'd be happy to pick some old hardware at reduced prices.

Re:Not new? (2, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687867)

What sort of applications are they concerned about?
I'm not sure. But if I get a richer, more responsive mine sweeper [metanoodle.com] then I'm all for it..

Re:Not new? (1)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687913)

Basically, yes. However, these chips seems to be marketed first to gamers (I don't understand why because they'd be 100x more useful in the enterprise market). Games are not the easiest things to thread. They don't exactly thread infinitely like a web server (ala 1 thread per connection). So basically the game companies just write for what's popular at the time. 2 threads seems to be the minimum right now. I think four cores is the maximum they'll be able to do without major revamps in graphics engines. The more threads, the more complicated. Look forward to buggier games and more race conditions than you could have imagined!

Like I said before, I think that marketing these chips to gamer types is just to create some buzz and their real use is in the scientific, supercomputing, and client/server software.

Re:Not new? (1)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687955)

Well, I'm going to switch from my old trusted AMD64 3200+ and get me one with 4 cores. Do I need it? Yes, i do. I run numerous testcases on Oracle RDBMS which has no problems utilizing all cores. And it it will reduce the time I spend on each testcase.

Re:Not new? (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688007)

Have you seen Alan Wake [youtube.com] ? It's not too difficult to separate rendering, physics, and resource loading into different threads.

Re:Not new? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688507)

It is being marketed to the enterprise in the form of Clovertown and Tigerton chips. I think the consumer variant is inappropriate because it will only connect to consumer boards, losing out on the features that enterprise markets demand.

Re:Not new? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689669)

However, these chips seems to be marketed first to gamers [...] Games are not the easiest things to thread. They don't exactly thread infinitely like a web server [...] the game companies just write for what's popular at the time.

All true, but what about the kernal, and "helper" applications nevermind all the background processes. so two cores go to your game and two cores go to everything else. I just hope the platform supports dedicating x cores to an app.
-nB

Re:Not new? (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687933)

Yes. And most serious CPU-bound applications already support parallel processing. Anyone who has four processes active at the same time benefits too; this isn't exactly a rare situation for those in the market for high-end CPUs. Are we really going to whine because games, which generally depend more on the GPU, don't use multiple threads? Or do they also get upset whenever CPU usage drops below 100%? You're not always using your hardware to its "fullest ability".

Re:Not new? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688711)

I managed to use the equivalent of three cores for quite a bit this week. I was playing an HD stream, recording another and the system was encoding to iPod, while I was editing or encoding a video from the video editing software. I can use the fourth if I wanted to participate in those distributed computing initiatives. I'm not going to do that until I get a good number on what that's going to cost me to run my computer at full blast all the time.

Re:Not new? (1)

deevnil (966765) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689413)

In the winter it won't cost you a thing, you will run the heat less to compensate.

Or even (2, Funny)

DrYak (748999) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689009)

or even four separate applications, make full use of the four cores?


Or even Vista, and three weather-in-taskbar spywares/viruses/trojans/botnet client/spam senders threads running concurrently.

Heck, with what's common nowadays on Joe 6pack's computer, you may even need Niagra-grade ( 32x ) multithreading capability in the processor to be able run all the crap and still have some processing power left for the web browser (on which Joe is continuously trying to punch the monkey).

Re:Not new? (1)

CodeMasterPhilzar (978639) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689205)

I'm thinking an average breakdown something like this:

1 core for the OS
1 core for the spyware
1 core to play your music player
1 core for whatever application you're actually working with

Of course, some computer geek types (eg. /. types) might have a different breakdown:

1 core for the OS
0 cores for spyware, my {insert favorite distro} is invulnerable
1 core for Firefox/Thunderbird 'cause I gotta stay connected
1 core downloading the latest RPMs
1 core compiling some new toy... ;-)

Re:Not new? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16689395)

Or, if you run gentoo, you just use all four cores to compile the day's latest updates.

Disclaimer: I was once a proud gentoo user, but have since gone over to Ubuntu.

Re:Not new? (1)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689525)

1 core for the OS "because when no applications are running the OS still needs its own core"

1 core for your music player "because you need a dedicated core to handle all that DMA'd I/O"

1 core for Firefox/Thunderbird "because that core will be so busy while you are reading the text it just downloaded for you. And you need a separate core to monitor the network traffic that is mostly handled by your NIC hardware (see DMA above)"

1 core for compiling "because everyone knows that real man don't do make -j5"

Not too surprising (1)

insanechemist (323218) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687735)

Given articles like this [technologyreview.com] on the difficulty of using said multi cores it seems like we could use more tools to improve the utility of these chips. More multi-core functionality in Xcode [apple.com] and related tools would be pretty cool.

Re:Not too surprising (2, Informative)

ezavada (91752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687889)

More multi-core functionality in Xcode and related tools would be pretty cool.

What else would you like it to do? It already distributes compiles very effectively across all the processors & cores you have. OS X itself does a fine job distributing load where possible. Of course, if people write single threaded CPU intensive apps, there's not a lot the compiler or the OS can do about that.

Are you looking for some way to have the compiler extract parallelism from the code implicitly without the developer having to write multithreaded code? That would be nice I'll admit.

Re:Not too surprising (1)

cunina (986893) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688145)

You could always take a look at VSIPL++ [codesourcery.com] , which is probably the next best thing (and a lot of fun as well).

Re:Not too surprising (2, Informative)

Procyon101 (61366) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688851)

Languages like Erlang and Haskell extract parallelism from the code without the developer having to write multithreaded code.

Re:Not too surprising (1)

jozeph78 (895503) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689723)

Languages like Erlang and Haskell extract parallelism from the code without the developer having to write multithreaded code.

Great! Those disposable prototypes will run faster than ever. It's just a shame that functional languages don't really have any function. Unless of course your intent is to make college students think, but don't we have perl for that?

We won't need it. (1)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687771)

But it's nice to have.

Re:We won't need it. (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688261)

One of the main reasons to like it is that the pressure at the top end of the market drives down costs for lesser but adequate parts.

If You build it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16688663)

The applications will come....

mod parent up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16688809)

lol

Mandatory 640 KB comment (1)

Oniros (53181) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687779)

Yeah, people don't need quad cores, nor do they need more than 640 KB of memory!

The applications will come soon enough for those.

Re:Mandatory 640 KB comment (3, Insightful)

porkThreeWays (895269) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688041)

Exactly. As computers get faster people will just move on to higher level languages that may not be as efficient. 5 years ago I don't think it was realistic to expect consumers to pay for a GUI based python program. Today, as long as there is an icon on their desktop, it's no problem. Faster hardware means the ability to use higher level languages and spend more time solving real world problems rather than specifics of the language.

Re:Mandatory 640 KB comment (1)

Andrzej Sawicki (921100) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688159)

The applications will come soon enough for those.
The soon enough part might not be correct. By the time you get multithreading support in more common apps, you might very well have CPUs with eight cores available, with quad-cores acting as the cheaper version. Buying the quad-core CPUs now only makes sense for specific apps that can already use the computing power, or to get bragging rights.

This is one reason Intel tries to market these processors to the gamers, i.e. the people who are not reasonable about the hardware they buy.

Re:Mandatory 640 KB comment (1)

businessnerd (1009815) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689685)

While the 640KB comment is certainly valid in this discussion, you have to consider that it is only valid if the way we use computers continues along the same path as it has in the past. By this I mean being focused on desktop power (Fat clients). As the communications infrastructure becomes faster and more reliable with things like fiber optics directly into your home, and companies like Google beginning to push the online services and application service provider models, a thin client is going to become more realistic for many. Now I am not saying that everyone will be switching (particulary the slashdot crowd), but for the average home user, they don't have the need for a fat client and a thin client would be much cheaper and easier to manage. A thin client needs very minimal processing power as well as minimal power in other respects and has no need for multi-core (or even the power current single cores offer). The power needs to be placed in the server side. As the client becomes thinner, the server will need to become faster to handle the amount of people accessing applications from them. The quad core processors will be excellent for these purposes. Even today though, people are always making the argument "Why do we need quad core on our desktops right now, applications aren't designed to use them." Unfortunately that argument is very short sighted because the real market for multi-core processors is in the server market. You need multi-core for running databases, applications servers, web servers, etc. especially as more emphasis is being placed on the server.

Waiting (1)

Mikya (901578) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687781)

'many owners of this beast may be stuck waiting for new applications to arrive that use it to its fullest ability.'

Am I the only one who sees nothing wrong with this? Of course there are few application that make full use of quad cores. Before now there weren't any widespread quad core systems so why would programmers design software around it?

If chip makers waited for programers to write software and the programers waited for the chip makers there would be no innovation. Somebody has to make first move.

Waiting-checkmate. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687809)

"If chip makers waited for programers to write software and the programers waited for the chip makers there would be no innovation. Somebody has to make first move."

Like open source?

Re:Waiting (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687895)

Parallelization only gives you so much. A process blocked on I/O is blocked, no matter how many threads you throw at it.

Re:Waiting (1)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688637)

A process blocked on I/O is blocked, no matter how many threads you throw at it.

Amateur. A Real Programmer makes his program wait faster.

Re:Waiting (1)

archen (447353) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688865)

Wasn't that the whole idea behind the pentium 4? =)

Re:Waiting (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689013)

A Real Programmer makes his program wait faster.

Indeed, and thus the busy-wait [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Waiting (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689185)

In which case, you didn't need to upgrade your processor in the first place.

Multitasking (1)

$pearhead (1021201) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687837)

many owners of this beast may be stuck waiting for new applications to arrive that use it to its fullest ability
Although alot of people probably run running multiple apps simultaneously, which also should increase the performance.

Re:Multitasking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687925)

Your OS already runs multiple task simultaneously. If you run Linux, you are even more likely to be running many other server processes that handle web servers, samba shares, X11. There is little reason to believe that the average OS doesn't have a minimum of 4 processes. My Windows box has about 50 after it boots. Most of them sleep, not all of them.

Re:Multitasking (1)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688267)

How many of these processes are CPU bound at the same time, though?

Run "top" and see. Usually there's maybe one process that's somewhat CPU bound, and everything else is in waitstate for one thing or another.

As developers start writing CPU intensive code to be threaded and run on multiple processors, having many cores is going to become a wonderful thing. But at the moment, most systems have one, or maybe two CPU bound processes on average, and most cores will sit idle.

-Z

Re:Multitasking (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689141)

But at the moment, most systems have one, or maybe two CPU bound processes on average, and most cores will sit idle.

Waiting for the moment the user needs to kill the runaway process eating up another core's time?

It's Foolish to Say... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687859)

...that many people won't need quad-core machines. They will be entry-level within five years. With the advent of hypervisor based virtualization, computing is going to make a huge change for all OSes. We will no longer be running on bare metal at the OS level and we'l see performance that actually can exceed running on bare metal thanks to hypervisors on the x86 platform. If I had the cash, I'd be getting one of these or whatever AMD releases in response as I'd really like to turn my 16 boxes at home into one or two giant boxes that provide the services of 16 boxes in isolated virtual machines. And if you don't think most people don't have 16 boxes at home, think again...

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687923)

It's Foolish to Say...that many people won't need quad-core machines. They will be entry-level within five years

What you said just now is foolish. In five years it may as well be entry level, but it'll also be 5-6 times cheaper.

5-6 years is ages in computer technology. Maybe now 200GB disks are entry level, and I indeed have two 200GB disks here and 320GB external disk, but if I go back 15 years ago, I'd still buy myself a 20MB Seagate for my IBM PC and probably never find what to fill it up with.

Buying bleeding edge is not a rational choice, unless you need the technology now.

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688351)

Five years is a very short period of time for computer hardware when you're talking the Windows world. If you buy entry-level today, your system won't be viable in about a year and a half. And what I mean by that is that if you want to run the latest whiz-bang OS or Office suite from MS, all I can say is good luck trying. If you want a machine to last five years and you are a Windows user, you MUST pay the $2000+ pricetag for mid-level computing. If you buy an $800 box now with Windows XP and it runs OK, I can guarantee you that you'll be spending a lot more money trying to upgrade it to run Vista or whatever comes after vista than you would have had you just plunked down the extra $1200. My main point being that computers should NOT be that disposable. Buying a new machine every year or two is bad practice.

Since I run Linux, I like and actually get to keep my boxes that I spend $2000+ on for closer to a decade and can still run nearly all but the most graphic intensive current software. Just to give you an example, I have a PVR system based around a PIII that I got circa 2000. It's a VERY busy box and it runs like a top. The only sacrifice I had to make (this replaced a P4 that got killed by a power spike) when I downgraded to the PIII was losing realtime de-interlacing. Beyond that, this system plays DVDs, re-encodes video files, can be used for video editing, is an NFS file server, can stream video and even DVDs over the network, and all to a 1920x1080 LCD widescreen display. But the system wasn't a cheap $800 machine when I bought it. It cost me $1980 not including tax which pushed me just over $2000. And I expect this system to still be doing something useful in 2009...

But even if I ran Windows (which I used to), I know that this box could be made capable of running Windows Vista without a lot of expensive upgrading. I'd have to add some RAM to it (it has 512M) for it to run reasonably, and the HD space would need to be increased on the system drive to house the OS and all the apps I'd need to duplicate functionality of my current PVR. So it's still a viable box. However, had I opted to buiy one of the ubiquitous $400 machines in 2000, it would have been useless by 2001/2002. Where is the sense in buying a $400 machine every year and a half vs buying a $2000+ machine closer to every decade?

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688473)

Five years is a very short period of time for computer hardware when you're talking the Windows world. If you buy entry-level today, your system won't be viable in about a year and a half.

Not to argue semantics, but what you just described makes five years a long period for the Windows world. If it was short, you'd not need upgrade.

What becomes short is the life of your hardware, not the years themselves.

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688691)

Well I always wind up getting into semantic arguments with people. ;P Being 36, five years goes by very quickly for me, so I think that I would prefer to use the same machine for longer and still be able to use current software on it. I remember back in my late teens and 20s when I had my Atari ST, it lasted from 1985 to 1994 and I rarely had to upgrade software and there were no hardware upgrades required. Just optional upgrades. When I moved to Windows, it seemed that you always had to be on the lastest version of something which pushed OS and hardware upgrades. I hated it. The big difference though is that when I was in my teens and 20s even the four years of college looming ahead seemed like a lifetime. Now, if I think about the past four years, it feels like the blink of an eye. With that shift in the perception of the passage of time, I still want a machine to last more than five years.

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689247)

You should be more upset with the pace of hardware changes. It's not simply that software requires more as time goes on, but that fact that the rate of change in hardware is increasing as well. Welcome to Moore's law.

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688657)

It really depends on what you want out of the computer. I've got a dual 500MHz Xeon /w 1GB RAM in my care that's still doing fine. I have no idea what it would have costed when it was new, but $4000 might be a low-ball estimate. It's eight years old now and even now has no reliability issues or system crashes. It's a little sluggish but still quite useful.

If you don't need the latest wizz-bang software, then any computer made now should easily serve five years. Not everybody gives a damn about Vista, they'll get it when they replace the computer. It's not that hard to come across people still using Windows 98 because it still works fine for them. When the computer dies, they will get a new one. I just upgraded my Grandparents to Windows 2000 because their Windows 98 computer died.

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689161)

I don't think you are very good at math. Nearly every bit of tech in you computer is doubled or price halved every 1-2 years, RAM being the possible exception. A computer you buy this year for $2k will only cost $1k next year or the year after, and in 2-4 years will only be $500. About 4-8 years you'll be buying it at walmart for ~$250, maybe less. All depending upon what advancements come out, competition, markets and such. So if you really do pay $2k and only upgrade your computer once a decade, you would pay much less money for two $500 computers or a few $250 ones.

Seriously, look through your old catalogs and do the math. You will see I am right. Of course, if you are trying to save yourself time configuring and installing crap, then just copy your hard drive. Linux will certainly let you do that, though if it is a MS OS, then well, you usually have to reinstall at least once a year (unless you do nothing with your computer) and upgrades become mandatory, because eventually the new proprietary OS won't support your old hardware with its old proprietary drivers.

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

Bob54321 (911744) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687963)

And if you don't think most people don't have 16 boxes at home, think again...

Now I am really jealous - all I have is a single shitty laptop! I suppose my power bill will be much smaller though...

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687993)

MOST people? No I won't think again...I will categorically state that MOST people don't have 16 computers in their homes.

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688417)

Picking a fight eh??? Do you have a gaming system? More than one? Then total those up and add them to the tally. Do you have an outboard digital sampler or synthesizer with MIDI capabilities? Total those units up and add them to the tally. What about digital cameras? Add those up too. They can all run Linux, so in my mind they're all "boxes". (When is anyone on Slashdot going to learn that to reply to eno2001 is to deal with a highly unstable mind?) ;P

Re:It's Foolish to Say... (1)

Lord_Frederick (642312) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688241)

Yeah, I'm pretty confident that MOST people don't have 16 boxes at home.

So? (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687863)

So there are few applications that make use of four cores? Who cares? Everything uses at least one, and now I can use four of them at once - no more letting a background video transcode cause the one playing to stutter to a halt, for instance.

Don't these people have multiple things to do?

Very Few Need Multicore? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687871)

It's a no-brainer for any server. That's a pretty big market!

Re:Very Few Need Multicore? (2, Informative)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687975)

It's a no-brainer for any server. That's a pretty big market!

Servers are not desktops. Buying the fastest machine doesn't get you the fastest experience.

Google grew up buy chaining thousands of cheapo second hand caseless PC-s in a cluster. If they decided to spend their money on bleeding edge technology they'd probably have 3x faster servers, but twice less total computing power.

Especially since a huge bottleneck in servers are RAM and HDD IO (considering we don't put bandwidth in the equation which curiously is the first bottleneck a common server hits).

I need multi-core. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689473)

I'll probably pick it up for my next batch of servers and home machines both. I just recently upgraded to Core 2 Duo CPUs and I can see and feel a major difference. Maybe for the kids who use one app at a time and mostly stick to Windows it doesn't matter. I run dozens of apps at a time under both Windows and Linux and I do some heavy server work in Linux that can use every bit of power it can get. I love these new CPUs. I no longer have to shell out major bucks for a mobo that can handle four CPUs - now I can just throw in a quad core processor and get similar results.

Sadly, I'd probably still buy a SMP mobo that could handle four of these processors because I could use the processing power. It'd better come with support for a lot of RAM though. :)

AMDs Response (4, Funny)

fr175 (999487) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687879)

Sure, we could go to four cores next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, three worked out pretty well, and four is the next number after three. So let's play it safe. Let's make a larger cache and call it the AMD 64 X2Super. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why! You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-core game. Are they the best a man can get? Fuck, no. AMD is the best a man can get. What part of this don't you understand? If two cores is good, and cores blades is better, obviously five cores would make us the best fucking processor that ever existed. Comprende? We didn't claw our way to the top of the processor game by clinging to the two-core industry standard. We got here by taking chances. Well, five cores is the biggest chance of all.

Re:AMDs Response (3, Funny)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688251)

New in stores: The AMD Fusion. Five cores give you the best performance possible and when you flip the die there's a single core for precision calculations. Best used with AMD Series Cooling Gel.

Re:AMDs Response (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688337)

Ahem [theonion.com]

Re:AMDs Response (1)

admdrew (782761) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688409)

Yes, we know.

It's amusing to note that this article correctly (intentionally or not) predicted Gillette's actual 5 blade razor over a year in advance.

Re:AMDs Response (1)

MyNameIsEarl (917015) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688849)

That's not really much of a prediction. In fact I predict that Shick is going to unveil a 6, yes SIX!, blade razor with 2, count em TWO!, precision blades on the back for even closer sideburn touchups.

Re:AMDs Response (1)

admdrew (782761) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689143)

I will be sure to link to you when it really happens ;)

Re:AMDs Response (1)

MyNameIsEarl (917015) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689699)

1.Make obvious prediction.
2.Wait for company to make product.
3.File suit.
4.Profit!

Re:AMDs Response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16688423)

If you're going to reuse a joke from somebody else, the least you can do is cite them as the source of the joke.

Just so everyone knows, fr175 stole that joke idea from The Onion's 'Fuck Everything, We're Doing Five Blades' [theonion.com] story. Personally, I find The Onion's version far funnier, and I find fr175 to be nothing but a fraudulent, unoriginal comedian.

Re:AMDs Response (1)

tom17 (659054) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689421)

*whoosh*

We do need quad cores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16687899)

Very few people will need quad cores

Please. Anyone working on a large C++ project might spend hours waiting for a compile after changing a header file. Compilation of multiple files can easily be done in parallel, cutting the time down by a factor of four.

Not to mention that commonplace multicore processors (especially like 8 cores and more, which can very rarely be saturated by single-thread application) will shift a lot of compiler-writing effort into autoparallelization, which will make the many cores useful, for at least some applications. Not to mention scientific application (big matrices, anyone?) and games (have UI, AI, rigid-body physics, and elastic deformation physics all on different cores).

Give us the 80 cores you promised. We'll figure out what to do with them.

Re:We do need quad cores (2, Insightful)

joekampf (715059) | more than 7 years ago | (#16687959)

Lets also not forget about those of us that do any kind of multi-tier development. I run the following while doing my development: 1) Eclipse 2) WebLogic 3) Apache 4) MQ 5) Outlook 6) Trillian 7) Music Match 8) FireFox I would love to run more. Like Oracle. I can't however because my 3 GHz machine just can't handle the load. Joe

Compilation is IO-bound. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16688707)

Compilation is rarely a CPU-bound task. Relatively little processing is done when compiling a C++ program, for instance. Most of the time is spent accessing memory, in order to build and manipulate the AST and other data structures. It's these near-constant memory accesses that congest the bus, and vastly reduce system performance.

You don't really need multiple processors or cores to enhance compilation speeds. What you need to do is vastly increase the system's bus speed and bandwidth. In effect you're looking back to a situation more akin to IBM's mainframes, where the IO throughput is phenomenal, even if the processing capabilities aren't great. The vastly increased IO capabilities will allow IO-intensive tasks to complete much quicker.

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16689515)

I do work on a 8 CPU Sun server at my place of employment. I can assure you there is a HUGE difference between make -j8 and make.

Hell, I have a dual core system at home and its the same way.

CPU power does make a big difference when compiling stuff, there is a lot of processing going on. You are turning high-level code into optimized low-level machine code, after all.

Name... (2, Funny)

Danathar (267989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688015)

It may be fast, but "Quad Core core 2" is just plain goofy! What's next "Quad Cores core 2 duo quad dually quadra core"

That's why Apple went Intel -- Apple Cores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16688575)

Intel had the sheer gall to trademark "Core", so IBM simply lost the marketting advantage despite having a long history of multi-core CPUs.

Apple were left with no real choice at all if they wanted their Apples to have official Cores, officially.

Processor Affinity (1)

Bright Apollo (988736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688033)

For those of you new to the dual-CPU game, there's a little trick I use to keep things moving on my systems. I set processor affinity for my virus scanner/ firewall to one CPU (core) and now it cannot saturate my system when doing a scan (imagecfg.exe from MS Admin Tools sets this permanently).

With four cores, you can set one core for virus scanning, one for firewall. Note this doesn't exclude the use of those cores with other apps, merely limits the set-affinity apps to however many cores you decide.

Four cores, eight cores, doesn't matter because the game is the same: wait a year and get in cheaper. As for virtualization being the future, well maybe, but not the near future. Licensing restrictions will keep it hampered for another few years.

-BA

Re:Processor Affinity (1)

skywhale (664067) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688503)

Virtualised quite nicely now, thankyouverymuch.

top - 14:56:40 up 12 days, 3:25, 7 users, load average: 0.24, 0.29, 0.35
Tasks: 146 total, 1 running, 145 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.7% us, 5.2% sy, 0.0% ni, 93.2% id, 1.0% wa, 0.0% hi, 0.0% si
Mem: 2057784k total, 1805644k used, 252140k free, 101788k buffers
Swap: 2104496k total, 56k used, 2104440k free, 1320412k cached

    PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
  4667 root 5 -10 369m 275m 263m S 4 13.7 891:00.39 vmware-vmx
29145 root 5 -10 265m 170m 156m S 2 8.5 4:12.39 vmware-vmx
  4402 root 5 -10 205m 104m 97m S 2 5.2 384:31.13 vmware-vmx
  4492 root 5 -10 120m 46m 40m S 1 2.3 95:34.45 vmware-vmx
  4417 root 0 -20 0 0 0 S 1 0.0 109:15.35 vmware-rtc
  4308 root 5 -10 199m 121m 112m S 0 6.0 86:10.40 vmware-vmx

Notebooks? (1)

tomk (20364) | more than 7 years ago | (#16688105)

How long until Intel releases a quad-core notebook CPU? And does anyone know what the codename is for that?

I want one of these but I need the portability of a notebook.

Re:Notebooks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688163)

power consumption needs to drop first, possibly waiting for 45nm too. 2007 most likely

Re:Notebooks? (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689561)

Either with Penryn in late 2007, which is a 45 nm Core 2 chip, or they'll wait until the Nehalem micro-arcitechure in 2008.

frmist psot (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688141)

diseases. The = 36400 FreeBSD new faces and many the resources that alike to reap ink splashes across windows, SUN Or prima donnas, and to this. For hobbyist dilettante the project as a to you by Penisbird

Re:frmist psot (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688435)

Dude, when you spam, you're supposed to remember to include the link to your product.

Kids these days.

More Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 Coverage At HH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16688179)

HotHardware [hothardware.com] also shows big gains for the the new quad-core and its power consumption and thermals are in check as well!

Not really needed yet (2, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688343)

I had a chance to play with one of these bad boys at my last job as a QA engineer. With the tools I had available (games and basic Windows tools), I was not able to get the processor above 40% utilization. Any slow down was due to HDD access rather than the processor. So while I was able to play Ghost Recon at full res and run a virus scan while I ripped an audio CD, the only drop in game play came when the game had to access the HDD. There was no real performance boost over the Core2 Duo. So what we need is a much faster way access files to see any real performance gains. I'm holding out for affordable solid state HDD's.

Re:Not really needed yet (1)

joshetc (955226) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688635)

RAID + WD Raptors helps with disk access.. maybe you should try some of those. Eventually we'll have 10+GB of ram too so I don't see hard drive access being as important soon either.

Re:Not really needed yet (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688919)

First, a quad core probably wasn't intended for gamers. Think servers and people needing to do tasks which scale well to multiprocessors (such as raytracing). I'm sure many universities will order these.

Second, single user programs don't scale well to multiple processors because most of them are programmed by stupid programmers trained by MS. They don't understand even the basics of running in a multitasked environment, so how could they possibly write a program which would use more than one core?

Seriously, try to do more than one thing with any given program written for WinXP. Not only does the UI usually make it difficult, but some of them even have major bugs or race or lock problems when trying to use them. Hell, try to use two separate instances of Mozilla--you have to make another profile!!! WTF??? Too many sucky programmers writing user level apps, even in major open source projects.

Re:Not really needed yet (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689531)

Quad core may not be intended for games, but once they figure out that the engine can now be written in managed code and still perform as well as C code because of the extra cores that can be utilized... I predict that games will soon move to higher level languages (for better or worse).

Single user programs scale just fine, provided they are written by decent programmers (ie, non-MS programmers - MS can't even write an OS that properly scales across CPUs...) Check Adobe out, or any professional engineering software.

With Mozilla, you have a different issue. You can run 2 instances (separate processes) of Mozilla with 1 profile, but to run 2 separate versions of Mozilla, you'll need 2 different profiles. (You can copy the profile from one directory to another, though, so you'd be running off of a clone) This makes sense, as the profile is where application specific information is stored regarding the user, and using 2 different versions could cause corruption.

where is the video editing guy? (1)

MagicMerlin (576324) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688477)

every time a new processor comes out, there is a debate over the usefullness. The the video editing guy comes out and puts the debate to rest. :-)

I Want Four (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688493)

Why?

I work for a company that runs their application in a clustered windows shop. The cluster is active passive for highest availability. Microsoft and "high availability" is the greatest contradiction. Ever.

Every once in a while, we max the two dual-cores out on the server. So a quad core should help us avoid those maxed-out periods.

I don't know anything about windows cluster, is there a way to add more servers as processing power in this environment?

cores (2)

Sicnarf (529730) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688509)

the article was overall an interesting read. it points out the importance that new multicore-CPUs will bring to application developers, and their threading implications.
made me get interested in threading issues with cores, and how they have chosen a Hybrid Threading direction.
also, notice the focus on improved AI and realism this brings to games. i see here a shift from gpu based rendering, to more cpu based rendering with improved AI and particle systems (see the rain video in the article).

More Benchmarks (1)

theonecp (1021699) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688537)

The folks at Boot Daily have also posted benchmarks [bootdaily.com] from the upcoming RTS game, Supreme Commander which is multi-threaded and also have the new Source Engine benchmarks as well. It looks to me as if this chip will be quite popular among the enthusiast market.

Need help with marketing speak (1)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688587)

This is a little off topic, but Intel has got be confused here. What is the difference other than the buzzwords:

    - Intel(r) Core(r) 2 Duo(r) E6300 Processor
    - Intel(r) Viiv(TM) Technology(TM) Core(r) 2 Duo(r) E6300 Processor

I only NEED vi and a serial terminal (1)

Danathar (267989) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688933)

I only NEED vi and serial terminal, that does not mean I WANT to run that.....

yes..I NEED quad cores :)

I need Quads to become common... (2, Insightful)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 6 years ago | (#16688963)

Because once they are, the duals I want will become the cheap alternative.

History repeats itself. (1)

edunbar93 (141167) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689491)

'There is nothing new on display here. Very few people will need quad cores...'

Uh, hello? You must be a n00b tech journalist. They said the same thing about the 486 DX 66. And remember Bill Gates' quote from back in 1980? What was it again...?

Multi-core at the low end. (3, Interesting)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#16689549)

I wish they'd work on low-end 4- or more core processors.

For general computing, I'd rather have a quad-core 500 MHz processor than a single-core 2 GHz one. It'd run cooler and be more responsive, even though the peak performance would be lower.

Ideally I'd like a computer with a display engine running an OpenGL-based remote display server, and one or more compute engines... and maybe even a separate processor for the file system with its own battery-backed RAM. Not just a RAID controller, a NAS box inside the computer.

Company of Heroes supports quad core (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#16689651)

Relic's new RTS Company of Heroes supports quad core too. Has anybody found game benchmarks with CoH or any other games that are designed to take advantage of 2+ cores? The little Half Life link provide was impressive.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?