Intel’s quad-core mobile processor...Soon!

This is nice and all... but i wonder why Intel hasnt added the 64bit instructions yet... AMD has included it iwth all it processors it has released thus far....

Another reason to wait.... sigh

At some point you have to draw the line. The technology will always get better, and we can always expect something more. Quad-core is getting towards absurdity in a laptop. It won't offer that much more. By the time Santa Rosa's out (IN A YEAR, mind you), there'll be something else to look forward to. I'm drawing the line at Merom.

Unless you're a graphics designer or Hard-hard-hardcore gamer (and both of these people probably want desktops anyway) you won't need this stuff. I have eyes bigger than my wallet, too. At some point, though, it's just paying for unneeded extras; the madness must stop.

If its based off the technology they listed in the article, it is 64 bit.

hmmm...I wonder about that...

Why would Intel release their first quad-core 64 bit proc to the mobile market?

Their first quad-core server processor is Clovertown and it's x86, and already being slammed.
Their first quad-core desktop processor is Kentsfield and it's x86.

Then again - who says Intels' actions have to make sense to me or that this technology rumour site has all the facts.



troymc

Please stop IT companies!!! Let me be happy with my hardware more than 3 months!!!

Intel would be better served by releasing development tools that make it easier for programmers to take advantage of two cores. Either that or run some huge initiative to teach the programmers how to use what's currently available.

Sun Microsystems has a 8-core CPU with each core processing four threads simultaneously. 64 bits, too. Wholly not x86 compatible, though. Too bad. It would be interesting to see what 32 threads would be like. Software developers who play with that kind of hardware know how to write software that spins off dozens of threads to take advantage of the hardware. Sun makes compilers and other development tools to make it easier to write multi-threaded code.

x86 software developers are notoriously single-thread-minded. People who use HP, Sun, IBM, SGI, etc. multi-processor boxes are used to adding CPUs and actually seeing their application speed up because the apps are written with large multi-threading in mind. They get a bit peeved when they're stuck with an x86 application that's been source-ported to one of the bigger architectures and it only runs single-threaded, leaving most of the compute power in a big box sitting idle. With Intel banging the "more GHz, more GHz" drum for all these years, it's no wonder that x86 programmers seldom consider the possibility of more than one CPU/core/thread in their software.

I think that Intel will find themselves with cores sitting idle and customers getting steamed until x86 programmers catch up.

There is no point in 64bit if you are not into videoediting or running big , several gigabytes sized database (or otherwise working with gigabytes sized files). 4GB RAM is addressed by 32bit CPU and 4GB laptops still very expensive. Untill 6/8GB RAM laptops arrived there is no point in switching to 64bit.

That's what I thought when I bought my 9860 more than a year ago, and then again it was upgraded to the 9880. But now it won't hardly play Obivion.... <sigh>

Looking at the game titles that will be released this year I hpoing for a laptop with 65 nm multi cores (for less heat and power), and couple of G80 GPUs (80nm) as a minimum. Oh yeah, and a couple of laptop raptor drives.

1) The article mentioned in the first post mentions the processors being released Q2 2007, thats still quiet a ways away.

2) Leave the 64 bit arguements elsewhere, they've been killed to death and then revived and then killed again. End result is that it may not be essential now, but it'll be useful eventually. But as mentioned, yeah it would be 64bit.

3) A core on 65nm will produce less heat than the same core on 65nm, but that doesnt mean a 90nm core will necessarily be hotter than another 65nm core, it depends on the core.

4) X86 isn't going anywhere, so considering a quad core proc a disappointment because its X86 is a mistake. What would you prefer, Itanium? Thats a joke.

They're not.


(http://www.overclockers.com/articles1308/)
The red = quad core, desktop and server red is earlier than mobile red.

5) Buy when you're ready. Bomb Buster's story about his 9860 is unfortunate but it won't always be that way. If you get something with a 7600/x1600 (or better) you'll be able to play stuff for at least 1-2 at least minimum settings. But, if you get screwed, nothing you can do about it. This is why people still use desktops.

ZGold550 -

ummm....while I agree with the general gist of your post, you do realize that that is an April fools article you linked to?

or do you have some reason to believe those graphics are real?

I do like the new AMD technology mentioned though:

troymc

dderrrr right, didn't notice. The graph looked accurate (and it proved my point), didnt think to check the date :-).

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/04/14/intel_quad_core/

Proves the point better, and isn't an april fools joke :-)