RSSIntel Announces Quad-Core Processor
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 26, 2006, 5:48 PM
At an early morning keynote address to open the semi-annual Intel Developers' Forum in San Francisco, CEO Paul Otellini confirmed what hardware industry resources had already known for weeks: A Core 2 Extreme quad-core processor is coming this November for the enthusiast segment of the PC market, with Core 2 Quad processors for the mainstream segment and Quad-Core Xeon server processors soon to follow in the first quarter of next year.
It will be Intel's best opportunity in years to effectively grind competitor AMD's nose into the silicon dirt, if you will, with regard to both price and performance. Last July's introduction of the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme desktop PC processors, based on Intel's Conroe architecture, saw a dramatic leap in both performance and power efficiency in a category that AMD had dominated for the past few years.
Suddenly, Intel's top-of-the-line models exhibited 33 percent better performance than their previous models, by independent analysis, and 27.5 percent better performance than AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon 64 FX-62.
But today, Otellini made an extremely bold claim, which, if disproven by hardware analysts, could put a damper on what would otherwise be considered solid performance gains. He claimed the new Core 2 Extreme quad-core, likely to be given the model number QX6700, will exhibit 70 percent better performance than the company's current X6800.
The likelihood of that delta actually being borne out is low. Overall performance is generally measured by enthusiasts -- the very segment to whom Intel intends to target its first quad-core -- as a mixture or average of rankings in several departments. On the other hand, one or two benchmarks might have to post stellar gains of this degree, if the company is to make its case that a quad-core processor is a better value than two dual-core processors.
"Two dual-core processors" describes the architecture AMD is planning to release in mid-November, perhaps in tandem with the QX6700 announcement. Ironically, AMD might have the tougher case to make; if doubling up two FX-62s, essentially, doesn't produce just about double the performance of a single FX-62, analysts are likely to blame some unseen design deficiency.
In any event, the question now after the close of Day 1 of IDF is, is Intel setting the bar too high?
Here's the situation: The first quad-core enthusiast processor probably should not sell for more than $2,000, given the fact that street prices for the current Core 2 Extreme X6800 have fallen below $1,000. Processor manufacturers tend to choose their "tray prices" (wholesale prices for sales of 1,000-unit lots) based on a general performance curve, whereby the higher a CPU ranks in terms of performance, the greater the value of each performance point versus others on the same curve.
Based on a mathematical model of the current state of Intel CPU prices, using data from reliable sources, we plugged in a hypothetical QX6700 with 70 percent greater performance then an X6800. Given Intel's current curve, the company could conceivably afford to charge the impossible sum of $8,222.51 per unit.
Of course, Intel won't; it would be hard enough for the company to explain why it should charge more than double the X6800's price, let alone more than eight times that much. But suppose Intel were to make as phenomenal a performance gain with its first quad-core as it accomplished last July with Core 2 Extreme - which was, by anyone's measure, a monumental feat.
Based on our model, Intel could produce a processor with about a 33.6 percent performance gain, with a price of three times that of the X6800, while staying on the price/performance curve the company has already exhibited.
By that measure, if the QX6700 shows a performance gain that's more within the line of rational expectations, and yet prices it at about double the X6800's current number -- perhaps a little more -- then reviewers could chock up the new model as another Intel victory.
Where are the applications to use this much horse power,
when big organisations will buy computers, they will not care about whether their employees are facing lags 'n hangs, they will care about whether :-
1). CPU can do the job.,
2). Whether the processor will save on electricity bills
3). and the price.
Over the years Intel have done a good job of literally killing their Celeron brand in this horsepower race and Sempron is thriving.
When it comes to individuals, i believe most ppl are clueless about such things it used to be easier for them to buy computer when it used to be about just Mhz and Ghz now there numbers number numbers .
I have seen people buying new computer just because Internet wasn't fast enough and there are still people on earth who can still buy computers with just 128mb ram.
What AMD needs to do is to publish big advertisements promoting Sempron.
tell em they will save on total cost of PC .
tell em they will save on electricity bills.
tell em Google will open fast enough.
prospective costumers are getting confused, they (Intel/AMD) should spend $$$$ on that issue first.
Score: 0
|Seriously, guys, dont be stupid. If you are that insecure about yourselves, go seek help, dont post rubbish on here. I feel ashamed to be reading this whole article to scroll to the bottom and realize that it looks like 10 year olds post on here.
Now, onto the article... I'll be first in line to pick up one of these quad cores. I was with the C2D and it rocks. I used AMD x2's since they came out. Since there was nothing exciting coming out of AMD, I decided to try Intel out. Did I ever make a good move. It moves quicker than a fat man at a buffet.
Anyways, the whole quad core thing should be such a suprise to anyone. Getting a DUAL quad core would be pretty amazing. Hopefully there isnt an evil engineer at one of these companies that design a robot to take over the world :) It sucks that a piece of electronics can think quicker than you and I can, and it only knows what it is told.
Thats my $0.02... mmmkay?
Score: 0
|Ok - Imagine you're an Intel VP - your stock has tumbled and your main copetitor is making strides into your market share and its stock is out performing yours ...what do you do to correct the situation?
You come up with a product that trumps your competitors in every way.
"Suddenly, Intel's top-of-the-line models exhibited 33 percent better performance than their previous models, by independent analysis, and 27.5 percent better performance than AMD's top-of-the-line Athlon 64 FX-62."
Then you price it very competitively. Already Intel Core Duo Chips are better, but now they want to beat AMD again before AMD can respond to this product... by going Quad Core.
As for the 70% increase in performance.. I can believe they are going to get 66% of it. 33% for each new processing core running parallel.
And if Intel were really smart - they would take a huge price hit and screw the current pricing model of performance/price curve and really put the hurt on AMD.
Score: 0
|This is just shallow. We NEED competition. If it weren't for AMD, Intel wouldn't need to increase speed, lower price, etc. I own an AMD right now, but plan on this Quad when it comes out (I am a fickle consumer, just not a stupid one).
Score: 0
|...
"Its where the
roadmap is heading"
...
Well, lookie, it's PC_Fool posting under the nic
of "GalWay" again !
The warden must have reinstated your on-line
privileges.
Anyway, this is a "roadmap" that -by the time you
arrive- you won't even REMEMBER any Intel Quad
Core processor !
Get too many jumps ahead, and it's just a gimmick.
We'll have 128-bit computing by the time ~average~
desktop PC's are routinely using this !
...
The Computer Rodent
...
Score: 0
|I'm going with... not a gimmick.
The gimmick, is AMD's 4x4. Will not match the performance of this chip, and will cost more having to buy a new MB, 2 CPUs. This is just until they can get their quad-core out 6 months behind Intel.
Score: 0
|Tell me, this "being an ass" thing... does it come naturally to you, or do you have to actually put effort into it?
Score: 0
|Exactly, you spend a fortune on two high end dual core AMD chips plus a new "special" motherboard that will be obsolete in no time at all (think Socket 8). I don't think so, nice try AMD but no cigar.
Score: 0
|Even the way he formats his posts is annoying.
Score: 0
|Big, obnoxious egos need big, obnoxious posts so that everyone will be sure to see it.
Score: 0
|Your such a freaking idiot, do you have reading trouble?
"Core 2 Quad processors for the mainstream segment and Quad-Core Xeon server processors soon to follow in the first quarter of next year."
Its right in the first damn paragraph! How freakin hard is it to read?
Score: 0
|Oh look its the Pc Tw@t getting his facts incorrect again. Its long been known that eventually to get more performance you have to work in parallel. Its been going on for years, eventually desktops inherit the server R&D and its the way forward.
Increasing the bit rate was fundemental in addressing the increasing memory requirements which was the main performance gain for computing. Its not the be all and end all for computing power, for this its all about optimising code,fetching,executing and processing more instuctions per cycle and this is where parallel computing is the future roadmap. Intel did it before and they will continue to do so in the future. Amd was once dominant in the 486, after intel put the co-pro on chip and AMD did it better at faster speeds and cooler, and what did intel do .... Pentium ... 2 x 486's on the same chip with some on board memory to optimise it. WOW ... who would have thought of that ... 64 bit as well ... Whoooooo who would have thought of that.
Bloody smarta$$ troll
Score: 0
|I think you all need to just ****ing cool off. Both you need to put your egos away and stop trying to know everything or everything. Stop fighting over this crap. GET A LIFE!
Score: 0
|Big corporate customers might show some interest in this, but general (e.g. clueless) consumers won't even know what this means.
Score: 0
|Do you know how delayed the mainstream computer market is? Most people buy $300-$500 computers. They don't need to know what a quad-core is, because that won't enter that price range for at least another year and a half. Dual-cores have been available for over a year, and I still have to tell people to not settle for less than a dual-core, since they are getting "affordable" these days. Even if the dual-core is slower than the single-core, the lack of hangs and stalls is a great feeling.
Score: 0
|...
"It will be Intel's
best opportunity in
years to effectively
grind competitor
AMD's nose into
the silicon dirt"
...
No it won't. This is a gimmick processor with appeal
only to a tiny fringe segment of the desktop market.
99% of all users won't even know this irrelevant CPU
exists !
...
The Computer Rodent
...
Score: 0
|"No it won't. This is a gimmick processor with appeal only to a tiny fringe segment of the desktop market."
PC Tw@t talking rubbish again. When every major processor manufacturer is creating multiple core processors, creating faster execution, you decide to pop up and call it a gimmick ? YOu think you know better than Intel, AMD, IBM ?? You think the fastest computers in the world are all single core single chip ?
"99% of all users won't even know this irrelevant CPUexists !"
LOL your a total moron. YOu think 99% of car buyers know how the engine works when they buy a car?
Its where the roadmap is heading you fool !! Im amazed you can fit that big head of yours so far up your ar$e.
Score: 0
|It's not 4-core. It's 2x2 core (two 2-core crystals), like Pentium D was not 2-core, but 2x1 core.
Score: 0
|2x2=4 2x1=2
1 Chip with 4 cores on it is a quad core, whether it is made of 2x2 or 1x4.
I don't know why I even bothered responding to this comment.
Score: 0
|Any of you gamers remember back in the day a Sega 32X?? It was basically two 16bit chips working in parrallel, so they marketed is as being "32bit" gaming device. WRONG!! Just because it had two exact processors in it doesn't mean we get to magically add the two up and get a correct answer. It is exactly what it is...two or three or four exact processors simaltaneously working together in sync with each other.
Score: 0
|So are you agreeing with the post or disagreeing? It's not even the same thing. Four cores working in parallel, whether they be 2x2 or 4x1 is four cores working in parallel, aka quad core. Not saying it's 256-bit processing.
But that does remind me of when the laptop guy at Best Buy tried to convince me that a dual-core 32-bit processor can emulate a 64-bit processor. I just started asking him a bunch of questions that he couldn't answer, and then left. He said the Intel rep told him that about the Core Duo. I wonder how many people he told that line to. He should be fired.
Score: 0
|Architecture matters. You could make a 4-wheeled car, or bind toggether two bikes (2x2 wheels) and build something looking like a car around them. That's why new "quad core" isn't THAT fast. That's why Pentium D is slower than AMD dual-core CPUs.
Score: 0
|Isn't Core 2 Duo already 64-bit processor ? So how could intel rep tell him about this processor, maybe he is just talking some imagined theories ;)
Score: 0
|they doubled the cores in their processors and only got a 33% performance boost? in economics we call that ... diminishing returns. Doesn't seem worth it yet.
Score: 0
|Did you expect it to double? It doesn't work that way.
Score: 0
|There is a bunch of extra over-head in dependency checking. If 1 core changes a value from memory and puts it in the cache but doesn't write it back, but another core needs that value, it has to get it from the other's cache. Plus, they claim a 70% performance boost, not 33%.
Score: 0
|Yeah, doubling is the theoretical limit, and only achievable if the cores have completely independant tasks and never have to compete for system resources of any sort; but 34% is still pretty crappy.
Score: 0
|70%. Wow. This article seems to suggest that we should expect the QX6700 to cost almost twice the X6800. I would hope the release of the QX6700 would drive down the price of the X6800. How many enthusiasts are going to pay substantially more than $1000 per unit? That's too rich for me.
If they introduce it at around $1000 they will (at least temporarily) destroy AMD, whose 4x4 requires purchasing two CPUs.
It's been a while since the CPU wars were so exciting.
Score: 0
|"It's been a while since the CPU wars were so exciting."
Very true.
And Intel being the ones comeing from behind brings out the best in Intel. I have been a fan of AMD since the Athlon, with the AMD64 being the boost they needed catching Intel really on the hop. Intels dire P4 roadmap is back on track with the core duo, but they need to keep pace since AMD has gained a loyal gaming/overclocking crowd. But these people given the chance to jump to a better gaming/overclocking chip will seaze the chance should the AMD 4x4 chips do not made the grade but could still take the edge off intels swipe back.
Score: 0
|When we thought we couldn't go much higher with processors we decided to just start doubling the cores.
With Samsungs 32GB CF card, and all of the new up coming technologies, such as Magnetic RAM, and Intel's processor technology that works with light, I can't wait to see where things will end up in the next few years.
Score: 0
|According to a Japanese robotics expert on CNN's "future summit", within the next 20 years we will not be able to distinguish AI robots from human beings.
We're gonna turn Hollywood into real life. Now thats f*cking FRIGHTENING.
Score: 0
|Not if they make them all look (and work) like the GoDaddy chick! Imagine what that could do for all the lonely guys out there? :)
Score: 0
|If the server mobo can have dual Xeon, why they don't make ATX mobo that can have dual E6300, for example? That would be nice, we can have quad core the cheap way. Any thought?
Score: 0
|"Intels dire P4 roadmap is back on track with the core duo"
it's not a P4
Score: 0
|Yea, i made that sound different to how i intended.
The core duo is based on the P3, intel admitted the P4 with its HT was flawed and doesnt perform in real life as expected.
Score: 0
|