Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 11th Feb 2009 09:51 UTC
Intel Intel demoed the world's first 32-nanometer processor today, showing it off in several test desktop and laptop configurations. There aren't any hard-set specifications or benchmarks just yet, but here's the scoop on the upcoming processors, according to Intel: The 45nm desktop and laptop processors (the Clarksfield and Lynnfield) with four cores will transitionally be replaced by dual core alternative 32nm processors (the Clarkdale and Arrandale) that also have an integrated graphics processor all with the same form factor as the 45nm chips. Two exciting side-notes: The first, Intel will be investing over $8 billion into the 32nm era (alright, so not immensely exciting, but definitely interesting, especially in this economy where money isn't shouldn't be thrown around without a mighty good cause). The second bit, according to one of Intel's charts, apparently there will be a 32nm high-end desktop processor (the Gulftown) that will have six cores. The good news? Parts of the platform will be going into production in 2009 for sure. The bad news? They said "parts." Be warned: that Core i7 you have your eye on will be a thing of the past come the newer and higher-end quad-core 32nm beauties.
Thread beginning with comment 348490
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by El_Exigente
by darknexus on Thu 12th Feb 2009 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by El_Exigente"
Member since:

The eternal connumdrum of the computer geek ;) . No matter what you by, when you buy it, it doesn't stay top of the line for long--a few months, at the very most.
Personally, I'm a bit more evaluating, I don't want the latest and greatest for its own sake on every machine. On, say, an audio editing or dvd encoding machine then yes, it is very good to have the latest, as those tasks can tax almost any single PC to its limit. Do I want a Core i7 for just a standard desktop though? Where it'll mostly be used for browsing, wordprocessing, and maybe playing a movies--your standard desktop, in other words? Well yes, I want it ;) , but it's hardly necessary by any stretch, especially if you don't insist on running a ridiculously huge os like Vista. Heck, even a dual core is fine for that resource hog of an os.
Seriously, if you get a Core I7 now, it may not be top of the line soon, but it'll still be a good number of years until you need to upgrade it. If you insist on waiting for the absolute latest technology, I'm afraid you'd never have a computer at all.
I can't help but wonder, exactly how much faster or more powerful do we really need to go as far as the CPU? For most tasks it's other devices in the computer that are the bottleneck, the hard disk being a big one, for example. No matter how fast your processor is, it's going to be limited by how fast you can get data in and out of it, and the same applies for any bit of hardware. Sata 3.0, for instance, isn't going to matter one bit if your hard disk can't keep up with the data transfer rate, it will max out at whatever the hd, or array of hds, can manage.

Reply Parent Score: 2