[Barnz]

Will be getting this for my main machine next upgrade

[[RTS]BN+VS*]

I'm probably going to get the dual-die once it's out.

[krismania]

why not just wait for quantum computers? there was a thread about that before too

[r1zla]

Besides the server side aspects of this I think its not really practical. For example everyones excuse will be that its targetted at an "enthusiast market." What applications and games need 6 cores (or even use 4 cores properly) to run? In all honesty I agree with Martyr, CPU manufacturers should be pouring funds and man power into developing new CPU architectures. Not insisting on developing CPU's that are impractical and far too expensive to appeal to users.

On the other hand, a six core CPU should future proof your machine for a while And the only real way forward is to develop things that seem impractical in the moment. Take for example Windows, people complained that Windows XP used too much RAM when it first came out. But 512mb became standard. Then came Vista. Vista ate far too much RAM, but now 2GB's is the standard. Its crap in the moment but later on everyone benefits. These CPU's will push the market forward... Hopefully.

This post has been edited by r1zla: 08 April 2010 - 06:42 AM

[krismania]

not realy practical? dont worry, people will find a creative way to waste the new CPU power

[oasisjoel]

I wonder what can AMD say about this one..

SixOfEleven, on 21 March 2010 - 03:49 PM, said:

Intel's six-core processor made its debut at the GDC in San Francisco on Wednesday. This new six-core processor offers a lot, not only to gamers. Here's a brief overview of the processor for Intel's website.

Quote

The Intel® Xeon® processor 7400 series is best-in-class for demanding enterprise workloads, with almost 50 percent better performance‡ in some cases and up to 10 percent reduction in platform power compared to previous generation expandable servers.◊

Designed and optimized for IT, these 6-core processors provide industry-leading multi-core processing and greater computing performance without increasing footprint and powerΔ demands. In addition, these processors are designed with Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT), enabling an ecosystem of software-based virtualization from industry leading software providers.

Check out Intel for more information.

Sure have come a long way from the 8 and 16 bit processors I used when I started out.

[Reprobus]

I will upgrade to Dual x (2) Six-Cores, at a good speed with lots of ram that should hold me over for quite a few years.

[-shadow-]

SixOfEleven, on 21 March 2010 - 11:49 AM, said:

Intel's six-core processor made its debut at the GDC in San Francisco on Wednesday. This new six-core processor offers a lot, not only to gamers. Here's a brief overview of the processor for Intel's website.

Quote

The Intel® Xeon® processor 7400 series is best-in-class for demanding enterprise workloads, with almost 50 percent better performance‡ in some cases and up to 10 percent reduction in platform power compared to previous generation expandable servers.◊

Designed and optimized for IT, these 6-core processors provide industry-leading multi-core processing and greater computing performance without increasing footprint and powerΔ demands. In addition, these processors are designed with Intel® Virtualization Technology (Intel® VT), enabling an ecosystem of software-based virtualization from industry leading software providers.

Check out Intel for more information.

Sure have come a long way from the 8 and 16 bit processors I used when I started out.

Intel shows off 80-core processor

[g-weebens]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARC_T3
http://en.wikipedia....i/UltraSPARC_T2
http://en.wikipedia....i/UltraSPARC_T1
The UltraSPARC and SPARC64 processors are much more efficient than the i386/amd64 processors.
There is also the PowerPC/POWER architecture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POWER7

[nooblet]

-shadow-, on 24 November 2010 - 06:28 PM, said:

Intel shows off 80-core processor

Meet the 1,000-core processor...

[calvinthedestroyer]

nooblet, on 30 December 2010 - 06:10 AM, said:

-shadow-, on 24 November 2010 - 06:28 PM, said:

Intel shows off 80-core processor

Meet the 1,000-core processor...

Sounds like 1000 8088's

[g-weebens]

The SPARC V9 and POWER(PC) load-store mechanisms seem to be much more stable and cost effective than the complex pipelining and bottlenecking of the i386/amd64 design.
1) Smaller multi-cores are practical for wireless, sound, graphics, and other embedded applications.
2.) It's cost effective to produce such units.
3.) How many of you here have worked with multiple architectures and systems?
And, no, this does not mean with multiple versions of the same architecture. The CPU flags are a different story. If you've done such, you would know what performance was.

[aaron1178]

I have to agree with Martyr2 on this one. Even though i know nothing about processors but i know i have a Intel Pentium duel-core, is this good? Even though, i will have to get this in my next upgrade i also need to get more RAM

Thanks,

[RQ-ErickPowers]

I just helped someone put together a Intel Core i7-980 Gulftown 3.33GHz LGA 1366 130W Six-Core
rig with 12GB of ram it has 12 threads... yes 12. it was a very nice build and with the SSD installed the longest part of his load time is bios and the stupid windows 7 animation. I have done 2 of the i7-2600k's and seen them as an overpowered toy even got one overclocked to 4.2ghz with a v8 Coolmaster and some arctic silver.

Intel is doing some work while AMD... well its AMD ... they cant do much with all the cash the poor kids that love them send their way.

[Qburt]

/sigh
AMD is where its at guys.. More overclocking power.. Intel doesnt do well with overclocking, and they are way more spendy