When will the Intel "real" quad-core processor come out?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by phuile, Jan 23, 2007.

  1. phuile

    phuile Guest

    This topic was discussed in another thread but I'd really like to know
    the timeframe as I've started a new thread just on this point:

    I've read threads here about both AMD and Intel bringing out new "real"
    quad-core processors for 4+ socket servers in a few months. I am
    looking at a machine with 2 real quad Xeon processor. Does anyone know
    approx. how long am I looking at - am I looking at March? June? Fall?
    December? of 2007?

    Apart from this forum, where can I find more information on this
    timeframe issue? As it affects whether I can afford to wait.

    Thanks for any reply.
     
    phuile, Jan 23, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. If that is what you want, and you want to put it into some kind of
    'production' - I'd make sure I could wait!

    Again, and again, it turns out to pay off. It may be that Intel plans to use
    the same support logic and BIOS/driver(?) for both designs, and if that pays
    off, they could be releasing sooner. AMD says 'six months', and I am sure
    they plan to beat Intel to that date, or they wouldn't be waiting at all.
    There's no way I can make a guess - check out Tom's Hardware and AnandTech,
    they are known to have channels of information to early guessing, and one of
    those is the source where I heard the first rumours about any of this.

    When I finally got my dual-core, I had waited more than one year from the
    'first' reports - that was because I did NOT want to accept less than
    DDR2/800 memory, or higher Latency than 3.5. In the end I had to settle for
    CL 4.0 and I do NOT regret it. CL 5.0 I could've had a few months before, I
    would not have been pleased, not completely. 'Now' (then) was the time for
    me to do it!

    If you really are pressed on the subject I would suggest buying anything at
    the first possible chance, collect your experiences from that and swap it
    when you know what you really want. This will give you lots of premature
    head-aches and wisdom to have the best buy you can get at the earliest time
    possible. You can't make this decision at this early stage, not enough is
    known.


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. On the other hand, waiting means not having all that period. And the instant
    you actually place the order, it's outdated. Honestly, I'd make a decision
    now on what will work. The biggest limitation at this point is the amount of
    actual RAM that can be easily handled by a dual socket machine. While it is
    technically possible to have them handle more than 16 GB, the costs are
    horrendous when you get into the higher densities. Adding extra cores won't
    change that.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 23, 2007
    #3
  4. Well now! Either I misread you, Charlie. Or you surprise me, or I expressed
    myself hazily.

    It's true - if you wait, you don't have the wonders of the new stuff that
    you pine for. On the other hand, if you jump the first generation of most
    anything, you save yourself a lot of aches in various body parts. It almost
    sounds as though you recommend jumping head first out into the unknown. I
    mentioned the option as point two. Point one was intended to support the
    more cautious approach of hanging on untill better information would be
    available.

    Point three, then, was ment to put forward the thought of buying very early,
    knowing that you wouldn't be keeping it and using the experience to make an
    intelligent choice and buy the best possible equipment at the earliest
    possible time - i.e. at a time when the test machine would still be having
    some market value due to the gleam of novelty.

    All these options are valid ones, I believe. It all depends on your pressing
    needs, and your financial situation. Personally, I would not recommend
    'point two' of my scenarios. Not if you have serioous work scheduled for
    that machine.


    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 23, 2007
    #4
  5. If you have serious work for that machine today, would you suggest going
    with a dual core even though you had a quad core budget and need? I
    wouldn't, IF my workload could take advantage of the additional cores. And
    if I had the need now. Yes, later it might get better. When and if that
    happens, then worry about it. But I wouldn't hold off if my need were now.
    And I would only choose dual core if that were required by budget or
    workload. (well, ok, in my personal case, that would definitely mean dual
    core, since budget is an issue.)

    --
    Charlie.
    http://msmvps.com/xperts64


     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 23, 2007
    #5
  6. phuile

    phuile Guest

    Thanks, Tony and Charlie ... all very useful information for me. If I
    am looking at 6 months or more, I will have to get a machine now as the
    machine I have right now is getting inadequate for my work. Budget is
    an issue, but I think a machine with 2 quad core (the current Intel
    Xeon) and 4GB of ram is possible. Getting a machine now, then getting
    another later is not quite as possible unless I won some lottery!

    By the way, I am looking at a 64bit machine with Vista, or XP pro first
    then Vista. I read something from another forum about people having
    trouble with a 4GB ram configuration with dual core and the 64bit XP
    Pro. Is that a problem? It relates to something about the machine
    hanging during re-boot. Someone suggested reducing the memory to 2GB
    (!) I just want to know if there is anything valid in this.

    Thanks again.
     
    phuile, Jan 24, 2007
    #6
  7. No reason to think this should be a problem. I'm running 6 GB on my XP x64
    machine right now. If there is a problem, it's something that a BIOS update
    should fix.

    But I'd strongly urge you to do some performance monitoring of your
    application to ensure that you'll actually benefit more from quad core than
    from RAM. To make effective use of 2x4 cores requires tasks that are
    discreet enough to be separated out and work independently, or an
    application that can multi-thread sufficiently to take advantage of the
    cores. And given that there is an overhead to the management of the
    processes on a multi-processor machine, the actual gain might be minimal or
    even negative. OTOH, if you are even a little I/O or memory starved, then
    adding RAM will be much more beneficial. But spending some time with perfmon
    before you spend you money will be time well spent.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 24, 2007
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.