Today, Intel debuted their Quad Core Intel Core 2 processor. Our videoblog entry contains the headlines about todays release and we should all respect this as definitely one of the fastest, if not the fastest according to some industry reports.
Although some people may say they really “aren’t” quad-core with one chip, containing two chips with dual processors, but the performance gain won’t even be noticed unless you flex the processor muscle.
Even though we’ve had dual-core CPUs around for a couple of years now, support for threaded applications is only slowly emerging. Perhaps the most impressive gains have been in PC gaming. Due to the impact of next generation game consoles, which are all multicore systems, game developers are rapidly become savvy in the nuances of programming for multicore CPUs.
So, how can you maximize a new multi-core processor? Use applications that really need it – there are applications like Adobe Premiere, Adobe Photoshop and other specialized applications, like CAD, 3D Modeling and Animation and others – plus of course, games!
According to PC Magazine, Upcoming game titles that will support quad-core (or better) support will be Supreme Commander (Gas Powered Games / THQ), Epic’s Unreal Tournament 2007 (and all Unreal Engine 3 titles), Valve’s Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and Ubisoft’s just-released Splinter Cell: Double Agent.
Anyone using Windows will see a performance, so that’s the most of us – there are so many applications running simultaneously, the system will utilize processors that are inactive to handle a new application process. We all use so many applications at the same time, I’m sure it will shave a few seconds here and there..
At $999, it may not be something you run out and get today, but be ready for the prices to drop rapidly as all processors gain mainstream momentum.
Sources: Intel and PC Magazine
5 Comments in this post »
RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URL
oh PUH-LEASE! Intel has had a LOT of catching up to do since AMD brought out it’s dual-core processors a FEW YEARS back. I don’t think they’ve quite grasped the technology, nor the compatability, that AMD has. What I want to see is a side-by-side test of the hottest INTEL core 2 duo (nice way of saying 2 cache’s on a single core…not quite 2 cores) against a nicely loaded AMD FX-60 (true dual core, 64-bit). If the FX-60 doesn’t leave the INTEL in the dust, or overheated at the starting line, then I’ll vote REPUBLICAN on 7 November.
You must not have been paying attention to all the reviews. Intels Core 2 Duo smokes the AMD chip in every way.
Read this http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2802&p=1
if you don’t believe me…
Oh and please, don’t vote republican though.
Here is what I decide to go with AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 2.20GHz / 512KB Cache / 2000MHz FSB / Socket AM2 / 64-bit
(Windsor) / Processor with Fan. I am also going with Asus
Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe Wireless Edition NVIDIA Socket AM2 ATX Motherboard / Audio / PCI Express / SLI Ready / Gigabit LAN / Wirelss 802.11b/g / S/PDIF / USB 2.0 & Firewire / Serial ATA / RAID for the motherboard. I won’t be doing this until after the holidays.
Ok here is the difference. The Intel Quads are indeed faster then the AMD 64′s…… When you run software specifically designed to run on the intel processor. And of course on the flip side, the AMD 64′s are indeed faster then the Intel quad cores when you run software specifically designed for the 64 bit AMD processor.
Now it’s the software that makes the difference. If you got 32 bit software windows 3.0 through windows xp/server 2003 then they will run the same on both platforms. With the Intel processor having an unoticable increase in performance over the AMD for Video ripping.
However if you run VISTA RC1 or Windows xp 64 then AMD is hands down winner. Since Microsoft hasn’t released a 32 bit 4 core OS yet I doubt there is any contest between the two. AMD runs cooler overall then the P4 is cheaper and is as durable.
I’m an AMD guy myself I always have been since the AMD 386 dx 40 (Intel stopped at 33).
`Mitch
http://www.garageaction.com Blog anything you want (PG RATED)
http://www.tvbydemand.com Watch FREE TV on the Internet
Mitch,
Can you please give me an example of software specifically designed for either AMD or Intel???
Mitch said “However if you run VISTA RC1 or Windows xp 64 then AMD is hands down winner.”
I would just love to see some examples proving your point. Everything I have read states exactly the opposite. The Intel Core 2 Duo is the fastest processor. The Intel Core 2 Quad (Kentsfield) is in a league and price range of it’s own.
Anandtech says the following
“Intel’s Core 2 Extreme X6800 didn’t lose a single benchmark in our comparison; not a single one. In many cases, the $183 Core 2 Duo E6300 actually outperformed Intel’s previous champ: the Pentium Extreme Edition 965. In one day, Intel has made its entire Pentium D lineup of processors obsolete. Intel’s Core 2 processors offer the sort of next-generation micro-architecture performance leap that we honestly haven’t seen from Intel since the introduction of the P6.
Compared to AMD’s Athlon 64 X2 the situation gets a lot more competitive, but AMD still doesn’t stand a chance. The Core 2 Extreme X6800, Core 2 Duo E6700 and E6600 were pretty consistently in the top 3 or 4 spots in each benchmark, with the E6600 offering better performance than AMD’s FX-62 flagship in the vast majority of benchmarks. Another way of looking at it is that Intel’s Core 2 Duo E6600 is effectively a $316 FX-62, which doesn’t sound bad at all.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.