Intel today formally launched its first set of quad-core processors, which officials say should give the chipmaker a comfortable headstart on archrival AMD (AMD quad-core offerings will not be due until the release around mid-2007). A review of one of these quad-cores has also been published.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-06-14
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-11-12
Member since:2006-09-26
You obviously don't run Gentoo.. the more core's you can get during an emerge -uDN world the better. 
I believe the optimum number, for both shaver blades and processor cores, is 8; at which time, there will be world peace and the return of all forecasted religious icons to earth.
We are three-blades and four core from Utopia.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-13
Member since:2005-08-18
"like nobody needed more than 640KB of RAM... "
At the time this was true. The problem was not with the statement or it's validity but with the design that was chosen. Most people dont need quadcore today and won't for quite some time. The important thing is to not unnecessary limit future needs.
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
well yeah, for normal home users its pretty pointless. I mean, do you really need a BMW, lexus etc when a yugo will do?
ok, bad comparison. But for 'power users', the more the merrier. Even if you are just running 4 apps at once ,that means you can split those 4 apps onto the 4 cores.
It'll also get developers to start supporting multiple CPUs better/more. Hopefully.
Member since:2005-07-05
That is the best point I've seen made.
As a developer, I think the problem with most desktop application developers is that they don't understand multi-threading very well because most of them don't have the hardware to make it worth doing anyway. They use it in things like Java GUIs, but I don't think they really understand it.
I am sincerely hoping that an influx of multi-core systems will eventually bring developers to write better desktop application code because they will now have access to the kind of hardware that makes doing so quite meaningful.
Member since:2006-10-08
You've forgotten the ultimative main reason for multicore CPUs in PCs:
It's urgently needed for playing games! :-)
BTW: SGI and Sun had multicore and even multiprocessor systems years ago, I remember the 64x tezro rack... so Intel, where's your 128 core PC processor? :-) (The x86 architecture for children: Imagine a steam engine running at 500 mph where an airplane should be used.)
Member since:2005-07-29
Member since:
2006-02-15
I don't really understand the need for quad-core CPUs. A dual-core one is still pretty reasonable, but a quad-core one would pretty much benefit only servers or people who seriously lots of stuff simultaneously, like compressing mp3s, video, rendering images and watching movies all at the same time..On an average desktop even a dual-core one is doing hardly any good.