Multi-core processors

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2007-07-17 12:41am

When sites list the various Intel Core 2/quad core chips and list their clockspeeds, does that number mean the total CPU speed or the speed of each core?

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2007-07-17 01:20am

Each core.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2007-07-17 02:40am

Shinova wrote:When sites list the various Intel Core 2/quad core chips and list their clockspeeds,

Here's the new lineup:

Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 3.00GHz 1333 4MBx2 Now $999
Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6800 2.93GHz 1066 4MBx2 Now $999
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz 1066 4MBx2 Now $530
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.40GHz 1066 4MBx2 Now $266
Intel Core 2 Duo E6850 3.00GHz 1333 4MB Now $266
Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz 1333 4MB Now $183
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz 1333 4MB Now $163
Intel Core 2 Duo E6540 2.33GHz 1333 4MB Now $163
Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 2.40GHz 800 2MB Q4 $133
Intel Core 2 Duo E4500 2.20GHz 800 2MB Q3 $133
Intel Core 2 Duo E4400 2.00GHz 800 2MB Now $113
Intel Pentium E2180 2.00GHz 800 1MB Q4 $84
Intel Pentium E2160 1.80GHz 800 1MB Now $84
Intel Pentium E2140 1.60GHz 800 1MB Now $74

does that number mean the total CPU speed or the speed of each core?

There's no difference between the two. The total speed of the CPU is the listen clickspeed which is uniform across each core.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2007-07-17 10:54am

Does it boggle anyone else that you can buy Intel's top-clocked dual-core processor for a mere $266?

Count Dooku · Post by **Count Dooku** » 2007-07-17 12:22pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Does it boggle anyone else that you can buy Intel's top-clocked dual-core processor for a mere $266?

It makes me wonder what they're putting out next year...

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-07-17 12:24pm

Uraniun235 wrote:Does it boggle anyone else that you can buy Intel's top-clocked dual-core processor for a mere $266?

That's not the point. THe point is, the cheapest Quad Core is of that price now!

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-07-17 12:38pm

Count Dooku wrote:
Uraniun235 wrote:Does it boggle anyone else that you can buy Intel's top-clocked dual-core processor for a mere $266?
It makes me wonder what they're putting out next year...

Something really really really cool.
Short term however, they're bringing Peryn out in lock-step to AMDs release of Phenom, and then they have Nehalem.
Nehalem is probably going to be the biggest shift in Intels cores in quite a few years.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-07-17 02:18pm

AMD cries uncle.

The brewing price war between Intel and AMD will continue at least until the end of the summer, when Intel will respond to AMD's most recent round of price cuts with even deeper cuts to the bottom end than previously expected. But Intel may not have to keep cutting prices into the fall, because it looks like AMD has had enough for now.

Taiwanese motherboard makers are telling DigiTimes that Intel's July 22 price cuts are still on track and that the company will keep the pressure on AMD by not ceding even the very lowest end of the market. Intel's bottom-end, Conroe-based Pentium E2140 (1.6GHz) will drop to $64 instead of facing cancellation as had previously been planned. In August, the Pentium E2180 (2GHz) will debut in the previous processor's place at the $74 mark.

Intel's deeper cuts at the bottom end are a response to last week's Athlon 64 x2 price drops, and they may well mark the end (for now) of the summer price war, if AMD's statements to CRN are to be believed. In an interview, an AMD spokesperson insisted that no new price cuts are planned in the near future. "We haven't announced our next price move yet, so take that at face value—another one is not imminent," the company told CRN.

I, for one, believe AMD when it says that no new price cuts are imminent. The price war with Intel has been brutal to AMD's bottom line, and it has depressed Intel's earnings a bit, as well. Neither company wants to keep cutting prices, but AMD is the least able to do so. Intel can bite the bullet and cut more if they have to, but AMD is unlikely to stomach seeing its margins shrink any further.

As for Intel's newfound aggression in the budget space, this is an example of kicking the other guy while he's down. With its 65nm process at a mature (and high-yield) stage and its 45nm process slated to come online very soon, Intel has the fab capacity to supply the low-end segment right now. So they're going to use that strength to keep whacking a battered AMD by undercutting them in every corner of the market. It's ugly, but that's business.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-07-17 02:32pm

Do these chips require DDR3 explicitly or work on the older motherboards?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-07-17 02:33pm

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Do these chips require DDR3 explicitly or work on the older motherboards?

All the new chips currently work on the old 975x and 965 chipsets.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-07-17 02:35pm

Ace Pace wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Do these chips require DDR3 explicitly or work on the older motherboards?
All the new chips currently work on the old 975x and 965 chipsets.

Cool. I'm sold!

EDIT: I noticed most of the current mobos only have 1066MHz FSB. Are there bio refreshes or?

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2007-07-17 02:39pm

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
Ace Pace wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:Do these chips require DDR3 explicitly or work on the older motherboards?
All the new chips currently work on the old 975x and 965 chipsets.
Cool. I'm sold!

Obviously, double check when you buy.
My recall:
Many of the motherboards do not offer out of the box support for the new processors(due to their wanting 1333FSB) but offer BIOS flashs. Motherboards which do not offer new BIOSes, are NOT compatible.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-07-17 02:43pm

Ace Pace wrote:Obviously, double check when you buy.
My recall:
Many of the motherboards do not offer out of the box support for the new processors(due to their wanting 1333FSB) but offer BIOS flashs. Motherboards which do not offer new BIOSes, are NOT compatible.

Alright. I'll keep a look out. Just did a cursory search just to see what's available and yeah, the current mobos only support up to 1066.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2007-07-17 02:54pm

So could this mean that we won't be seeing these kinds of prices on processors in future generations (unless AMD can get back on track)?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2007-07-17 03:05pm

Ace Pace wrote:
Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
Ace Pace wrote: All the new chips currently work on the old 975x and 965 chipsets.
Cool. I'm sold!
Obviously, double check when you buy.
My recall:
Many of the motherboards do not offer out of the box support for the new processors(due to their wanting 1333FSB) but offer BIOS flashs. Motherboards which do not offer new BIOSes, are NOT compatible.

Unless, of course, they support overclocking to the appropriate speed (333MHz actual FSB), in which case you can manually set the clock speed as appropriate.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-07-17 03:09pm

I just went through Newegg.com. Some of hte newer P35 motherboards support 1333 FSB and at the same time allow for DDR2 memory. I guess I'll go with those.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2007-07-17 05:40pm

AFAIK, you should still be able to use the CPUs but at rather reduced performance (20% less) until you flash the BIOS.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Multi-core processors

Multi-core processors

Re: Multi-core processors