This is more exciting: Intel's Quad-Core CPU (codenamed Kentsfield) Arrives...and Delivers

  • Thread starter Thread starter xfile
  • Start date Start date
X

xfile

Now we're talking about new technologies and this is more exciting,

Intel's Quad-Core CPU (codenamed Kentsfield) Arrives...and Delivers

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2049687,00.asp

Hope Vista can take full advantages of it, and don't tell anyone about this
undocumented secret - the new CPU has no transfer limitation and no calling
home feature :)

I'd love to put this with Vista (when all conditions met)!

For those who are planning for the next year's new toy, check out for
yourself.
 
Hi
The Quad is actually 2 duos - Not as revolutionary as the Core 2 launch.
They will carry forward their advantage though, unless AMD pulls something
out of nowhere with the 4x4, which I do not prognosticate will happen.
 
Well, it's good enough :)

(1) Putting two dies together with a total of 286mm without worrying about
overheating - that's new material and manufacturing technique (as can be
found from Intel's site and the article - I believe so),

(2) This part is more important - Core 2 transformed processing units from
more sequential-based to almost parallel-based processing and that is
difficult enough but putting two Core 2 together - that means there are 4
processing units are running in parallel at the same time, and the
mathematical algorithms for doing that - is beyond my poor imagination.

Then if you put two Quad-core CPUs (allowed by a single copy of Windows)
into one system, you have 8 parallel processing units are running at the
same time - and you got yourself almost a "supercomputer"!

That's why I knew one license transfer isn't right (only a common sense,
actually) because new hardware are coming out everyday, and there will be
more to come along with newer applications and games. :)

This should be the way for the industry making more money and consumers are
willingly and happily paying for it, instead of focusing on nonsense legal
clauses.
 
xfile said:
Well, it's good enough :)

(1) Putting two dies together with a total of 286mm without worrying about
overheating - that's new material and manufacturing technique (as can be
found from Intel's site and the article - I believe so),
Click to expand...

It draws 130 Watts, as opposed to the E6700's 65 though. Some people
will have to beef up their power supplies to handle it. One good thing is
that a system that can handle the E6700 should be able to take the
quad-core with only a BIOS change. The architecture is an interim design.
It's actually more like two dual-core processors that happen to share a chip
rather than a true quad-core design. Intel will be following this chip with
one that increases performance on the same order of magnitude as the
increase from the D to the Core 2 Duo.

Tom Lake
 
Intel Inside said:
PowerUser,
is there a disadvantage to "actually 2 duos"?.
Click to expand...

The inter-processor communication isn't as tight
as it would be (and will be) if the four cores
were designed as such rather than as two
duos. This leads to inefficiency in processing.
The quad core will still be faster for some tasks
then the Core 2 Duo but not as fast as it could
be (and will be with a future release).

Tom Lake
 
Based on my very limited and rough knowledge,

Shorter distance it is, faster speed, lower voltage consumption, and lower
heat. Plus using few material used for manufacturing additional CPUs.
Finally, you have the constraints from Redmond on socket number and overall
price limitation from the market.

Concept wise, it is easy to understand, but take awful lots of works and
talents to achieve it.
 
Hi,

True and I have no doubt it's an interim design and that company has many
secret weapons (which constantly surprises me throughout these years) and
it's just when will it release.

And I do know that they are linked two dies, but that does not affect the
parallel processing algorithms to be used and to determine when to
synchronize the results, although at this time, could be loosely implemented
than tightly integrated.
 
And one may ask, how does one know it has secret weapons?

This kind of design doesn't take 2-3 years to complete, it takes 5-10 years
to complete if lucky, and just to think about it, it take 5 years for
Redmond trying to implement a system file based on theories developed in 70s
and have been done before but eventually dropped, you'd know the kind of R&D
needed.

This company won't release its secret weapons, among other conditions, until
competition is very close to it. If you care, look for its patterns. But
absolutely nothing wrong for this strategy - based on personal thoughts.
 
Don't worry, price always come down unlike license fee :)

In 2-3 years, it might be the mainstream and it's also about time for a new
generation of games and applications, and you might be tired of playing with
the new OS, and move on to other items :)
 
Back
Top