Intel introduces 80 floating-point cores in the next 5 years

Sargeras · Post by **Sargeras** » September 27, 2006, 12:32 pm

Cnet: http://news.com.com/Intel+pledges+80+co ... g=nefd.top

Arstechnica: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060926-7840.html

I get the feeling that Conroe's are gonna get a hell of a lot cheaper.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » September 27, 2006, 12:41 pm

I don't see how this would affect the price on the Conroe processor.

Sargeras · Post by **Sargeras** » September 27, 2006, 1:52 pm

Well if that doesn't, then this will: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15027568/

Quad-core processors being released in November.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 27, 2006, 2:37 pm

Sargeras wrote:Well if that doesn't, then this will: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15027568/

Quad-core processors being released in November.

Good stuff. So nice to see Intel competing again. CPU wars are back in full swing. AMD has a quad core scheduled for mid 2007. Will have to read up on how their offering will compare.

My "upgrade every two years" strategy may turn into 1.5 years although two years sounds about right for a reasonably priced quad core.

I hope people that have been waiting forever don't wait again. There's always something better on the way and if you've been waiting a few years, your computer is slow whether you think so or not. You've got to at least have a dual core by now. Don't ignore HD performance and GPU as the other major contributors to overall PC performance.

For the waiters, there will be DX10 capable graphics cards soon although I'm guessing they'll be expensive.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » September 27, 2006, 3:01 pm

Winnow wrote: You've got to at least have a dual core by now

Nobody on this board runs even half as many apps at the same time as you. My 4000+ is delicious.

I'm waiting for DDR3. HAHAHAHA

miir · Post by **miir** » September 27, 2006, 3:09 pm

Leonaerd wrote:
Winnow wrote: You've got to at least have a dual core by now
Nobody on this board runs even half as many apps at the same time as you. My 4000+ is delicious.

I'm waiting for DDR3. HAHAHAHA

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people here don't have dual core processors....

Personally, I have much better things to spend my moeny on than getting the latest and greatest CPU, video card or gadget. As long as I can play the games I play at decent framerates/performance I won't upgrade.

I could certainly afford to upgrade my system right now... but there's no point.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 27, 2006, 3:51 pm

Winnow wrote:I hope people that have been waiting forever don't wait again. There's always something better on the way and if you've been waiting a few years, your computer is slow whether you think so or not. You've got to at least have a dual core by now. Don't ignore HD performance and GPU as the other major contributors to overall PC performance.

What? My pre-WoW Beta PC is fine. When you say stuff like this you need to qualify exactly WHY things like "You've got to at least have a dual core by now." is a defendable statement because without context it looks like elitist insipid vomitus.

edit: befendible!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 27, 2006, 4:27 pm

Ban these PC slackers from the computer forum!

FYI, I don't upgrade to the "latest and greatest" when it comes to GPUs and PC...and even monitors. If you read my lengthy thread detailing my last major upgrade before it was lost, I spent time researching (which I enjoy) and went for the best bang for the buck, not the most expensice CPU, GPU, etc on the market. Since many don't like researching these things as much as me, I took the time to post my experiences and suggestions here.

There's plenty of things you can waste your money on without doing research. There's also times that people just don't have a clue (as I don't have a clue with cars) and it's helpful to get some advice.

My posts aren't directed at the Dell "back to college special" PC buying crowd out there that are happy with their PC that gets them from point A to B just like a moped as opposed to a car will also get a person from point A to B. Skip my posts on the computer forum. (and everywhere else for that matter)

Personally, I enjoy the debating on this board and am always happy to read someone elses opinions and recommendations.

a 3800+ X2 dual core is far from expensive these days. 150.00? something ridiculously low in price now and I think I saw that price as a motherboard/CPU combo deal. Non dual core PC owners can upgrade quite cheaply atm if it's been awhile since their last upgrade. Ask people who've upgraded to 24" monitors...did they HAVE to? nope, do they regret it or would they give it up for a smaller monitor? Doubt it. I'd gander it's the same with dual core peeps.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 27, 2006, 4:28 pm

heh dual core mandatory.

I have a 3700+ and a pair of 7600GT's in a SLI config, and 2GIG Ram. I cannot find anything that runs poorly.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » September 27, 2006, 4:32 pm

miir wrote:
Leonaerd wrote:
Winnow wrote: You've got to at least have a dual core by now
Nobody on this board runs even half as many apps at the same time as you. My 4000+ is delicious.

I'm waiting for DDR3. HAHAHAHA

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people here don't have dual core processors....

Personally, I have much better things to spend my moeny on than getting the latest and greatest CPU, video card or gadget. As long as I can play the games I play at decent framerates/performance I won't upgrade.

I could certainly afford to upgrade my system right now... but there's no point.

Agreed. I think the fact that they are coming out with the quad cores at this point is silly. I run a fair amount of things on my non dual core PC and its not instantaneous, but its beyond good enough for anything I have done.

I got bored with WOW and since, I have just been playing games on my 360 and using the PC for downloading music/movies, etc.

I would like to have a newer PC, but it's not necessary and there are many other things that I would actually spend that money on first.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 27, 2006, 4:34 pm

Kylere wrote:heh dual core mandatory.

I have a 3700+ and a pair of 7600GT's in a SLI config, and 2GIG Ram. I cannot find anything that runs poorly.

You're probably not decompressing rars, downloading at high speed, and burning DVDs in the background either.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » September 27, 2006, 4:54 pm

Winnow wrote:a 3800+ X2 dual core is far from expensive these days. 150.00? something ridiculously low in price now and I think I saw that price as a motherboard/CPU combo deal. Non dual core PC owners can upgrade quite cheaply atm if it's been awhile since their last upgrade. Ask people who've upgraded to 24" monitors...did they HAVE to? nope, do they regret it or would they give it up for a smaller monitor? Doubt it. I'd gander it's the same with dual core peeps.

But those of us that play a game while -~||not||~- running 20 other programs have little use for a dual core processor's advantages. Understanding the capability and actually purchasing the processor do not go hand in hand.

Winnow wrote:You're probably not decompressing rars, downloading at high speed, and burning DVDs in the background either.

I can't speak for everyone here, but that's exactly my point... you're running more apps than the average bear and actually find use for the cores. An X2 3800+ isn't going to run one huge app (Limewire? or Oblivion? or Company of Heroes?) any faster than my 4000+. So why spend $150?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 27, 2006, 5:14 pm

Leonaerd wrote: I can't speak for everyone here, but that's exactly my point... you're running more apps than the average bear and actually find use for the cores. An X2 3800+ isn't going to run one huge app (Limewire? or Oblivion? or Company of Heroes?) any faster than my 4000+. So why spend $150?

You're right that you can do a single thing just as fast but I find myself doing more than one thing on my PC quite often. I personally don't feel like waiting around or experiencing performance loss from multitasking. It doesn't seem that out of the ordinary to perhaps be downloading something or burning something while playing a game or watching a movie that takes CPU horsepower due to the new processor intensive codecs.

If you go back to my original post here, I said "people that haven't upgraded in a few years", I didn't say dual core was "mandatory". To be more clear, I should have said, if/when upgrading, it should be a dual core these days as it's not going to cost you much more, if anything more, to go dual core over single processor unless you're buying the K-Mart of processors available on the market at the time.

As for your comment about Company of Heroes not being helped by dual core:

1.5.8 Will Company of Heroes support dual core systems?

Yes, thanks to Relic’s experience with The Outfit for the Xbox 360, Company of Heroes will be able utilize high end hardware such as 64-bit and dual core processors.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 27, 2006, 5:46 pm

LOL Winnow I like you but you are a moron if you think I am not.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 27, 2006, 5:54 pm

Winnow wrote:To be more clear, I should have said, if/when upgrading, it should be a dual core these days as it's not going to cost you much more, if anything more, to go dual core over single processor unless you're buying the K-Mart of processors available on the market at the time.

See? Was that so hard? Context!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » September 27, 2006, 6:34 pm

Their quad-core is simply two dual cores stuck together. And that's hardly news. Again, I don't see any of that affecting the price of Conroe in the near (8+ months) future. They wouldn't have introduced something in August that they were going to make 'a hell of a lot cheaper' anytime soon.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 27, 2006, 11:59 pm

Kylere wrote:LOL Winnow I like you but you are a moron if you think I am not.

Not what? A moron? Familiar with punctuation? What are you going for here?

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » September 28, 2006, 9:46 am

Okay so I slacked on typing that post, but if you read his that was directed to me, it makes sense.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » September 28, 2006, 2:19 pm

No, I'm pretty sure you clearly stated that Winnow's a moron if he thinks you aren't one, too.