Intel beat AMD to quad core showing

[[GSV]Trig]

If only they would do something like that, simple fact is there not "miles" off the pace with the old technology there using so if its cheaper to keep shrinking it and ramping it up it means there R&D money can be spent elsewhere, and IIRC there aiming at other bits and bobs and not concentrating on CPU's..
Nothing to say they wont turn round in a year or so and start from the ground up, maybe there doing it now hence the lack of new real features etc, no point spending shed loads on the old stuff so they take the cheap route, shrink it, ramp up the clock, add more cache, all pretty simple things, yet in the wings theres something new on the burner....

[hitman67]

Well It doesn't matter if they brought out a CPU with 8 Cores, I'm afraid I'd still go for an AMD Based System, Plus I bet the 4 Core Intel ain't a lot faster than an A64 x2 or an FX-60 Anyway.

[Michael H]

these will be woodcrest cores on a mcm so there won't be any hyperthreading here, but 4 physical cores on a single die is already more than enough considering the bus nottleneck. i wonder whether these will have a large shared l3 cache like the newer dual core netburst xeons do.

[TheAnimus]

multi proccessor compiliation is a very intresting feild, i remeber having a chat with my algorythms lecture about it.

It would be very possible to write a JIT interpreter that took advantage of multipul cores, the question is just how many can still actually speed things up.

its not to hard to make a n-dimensional polygon to represent which bits of code can be executed without relying on the result of others.

Programers don't need to write code thats multi core, for multi cores to be usefull...... in theory.

[sawyen]

As far as I know, the software I uses doesnt take advantage of more than 2 cpus..

I hyperthreaded my old dual 2.0Ghz prestonia, give 4 cores..... yet only 2 gets loaded all the time....

[dangel]

Yes but its Intel, they dont like being beaten by AMD and when they get beaten on one thing they'll usually use smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that there loosing...

Intel say socket 7 is dead and that slot chips are the future, AMD carry on using S7, yadda yadda yadda, few yars later Intel switch back to sockets....

I seem to remember Intel went Slot and then AMD followed (Slot A). Most irritating.
Slot processors sucked - stupid stupid idea. Kinda fun having a cpu that looked like an Atari 2600 game tho

[wizzard]

These won't be based on the Netburst (P4) architecture. They should run pretty fast, but it's impossible to say exactly how fast until we see the final performance numbers for Conroe and Woodcrest.

[Mattstarky]

I honestly thought that AMD would make it first. After all they were first with 64 Desktop Processors.

[father smurf]

Showing a demo is very different from showing final silicon.

The first intel duels where rushed out remember ...

[[GSV]Trig]

I honestly thought that AMD would make it first. After all they were first with 64 Desktop Processors.

Even Apple beat Intel didnt they?

[Nero.Jacinth]

I don't really care what happens, AMD is still better. Intel blows. That is just the way it is.

[Mike Fishcake]

I don't really care what happens, AMD is still better. Intel blows. That is just the way it is.

Pffft!!

So you don't care what happens. Even if Intel bring out a faster and better chip, AMD are still better?



Open your mind! It's not like Intel are Nestle and AMD are a fairtrade company

Yeah, I'd go for the current AMD tech over the current Intel tech, no question about that, but to make a statement like that when no one can predict where computer technology is going to be in a few years time is , well, just daft TBH, and smacks of fanboyism. :-D

I'm not loyal to any company. I couldn't care less who makes the CPU I use. I just want to go with whichever company gives me the best performance per pound. At the moment, it's AMD. For the immediate future, it will probably be AMD, but writing intel out of the equation forever because they "blow" is childish. You don't owe any manufacturer anything, they don't owe you anything. Get over it!

Hell, I'd go with VIA if they made a CPU that could tonk the Athlon64.... ;-)

[atrull]

same here - value for money - don't care about brands.

If one brand is a little more VFM, well, it'll get my loyalty that time. I think amd have done a cracking job of being competitive to intel, who have had it far too easy for far too long.

[hitman67]

Weren't Intel actually first with 64 bit with the Itanium, but due to it's lack of 32 bit support it sank like the titanic...

[[GSV]Trig]

Wasnt desktop tho was it?

[Swafe]

No Atari Jaguar beat them too it.


I think it was the first mainstream 64bit CPU