<%BANNER[top_768x90]%>
<%BANNER[banner_468x60_h]%>
<%BANNER[news_300]%>

News

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_1]%>

Even though both Advanced Micro Devices and Intel Corp. have been denying possibility of the so-called “core wars” akin to “MHz wars” years ago, it seems that both companies will be involved in such wars, as customers these days show the demand towards more processing engines pretty clearly.

A recent poll at X-bit labs showed that about 59% of respondents would choose a quad-core processor, whereas only 41% would prefer a high-speed dual-core central processing unit. The results show that after two years of the “multi-core era” end-users start to gain confidence that performance increases along with the number of cores. The popularity of multi-core processors will allow both AMD and Intel to sell more of their innovative quad-core chips.

But rather rapid acceptance of quad-core processors by computer users may not only force chipmakers to produce more products that are more expensive to produce, but may also eventually lead to a “core war”, when the two leading producers of central processing units (CPUs) concentrate on increasing the amount of cores on their chips at any cost.

Both AMD and Intel are interested in popularizing their latest processors and preparing the market for future chips. But at some point both makers of CPUs may find themselves in positions when they cannot increase the amount of processing engines, like they faced the limit of clock-speeds for then existing process technologies.

X-bit labs polled over 3.5 thousand of its readers in August, 2007.

<%BANNER[banner_468x60_f]%>

Related news

Discussion

<%BANNER[fp_160x600_r_2]%>
Comments currently: 10
Discussion started: 09/12/07 04:47:11 PM
Latest comment: 09/14/07 12:21:27 PM
Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-6]

1. 
I guess the year in the last sentence should be 2007, instead of 2006...
[Posted by: sepik | Date: 09/12/07 04:47:11 PM]

2. 
Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, core wars started the day the Pentium 805 was released.

Quad core cpu's are becoming mainstream with $266 Q6600. The Q6600 sold out everywhere when the price dropped down to $266.

Intel's road map shows an 8 core cpu being released next year.

Software developers have been designing software optimized for multi-core cpu's since 2005.
[Posted by: EndPCNoise | Date: 09/12/07 05:16:41 PM]

3. 
That xbit lab poll reflects, for the most part, probably the advanced PC users, if not the "PC enthusiast" segment. It's expected that majority of the readers here have knowledge about current PC hardwares more than the "average Joe" (which happens to be the great majority). We might want to keep this in mind first.

Let's not put too much hype on quad-cores. The fact is, it's purely an "overkill" for PC desktop home use. While certain tasking needs and apps might benefit from quad-cores, it is quite obvious that a lot of apps aren't optimized for a multi-core setup just yet. The software industry is "sluggish" in developing more "multi-threaded" and/or 64-bit apps to fully take advantage of today's processor offerings from both Intel or AMD.

Let's keep things into perspective...we need more multi-threaded apps/games FIRST to fully realize and harness the true potential and power of today's multi-core and/or 64-bit PC systems. Then maybe, when we see more of these apps, we can say: "it's really time for these quad-cores".

[Posted by: BeowulfX | Date: 09/13/07 05:58:11 AM]

4. 
I'd bet the vast majority of such users would also swear 64-bit computing is a necessity as well...
[Posted by: boner | Date: 09/13/07 06:46:28 AM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)

5. 
And what about those who would prefer ultra fast single core CPU ? As BeowulfX pointet there aren't many desktop applications that would benefit from multicore chips now.
[Posted by: nobody | Date: 09/13/07 10:43:03 AM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)

6. 
To me, all this poll says is that the people who know about X-bit labs do a lot of multitasking and believe they have more of a use for more cores.

Intel and AMD aren't going to get into a core war -- only concentrating on increasing the core count and not on anything else. They are both going to increase theier core count, increase clock speed, decrease TDP (at least per core TDP), increase IPC, and add other features like GPUs. All of these enhancements will be much more realistic in scale than just increasing the core count.

Just because consumers prefer more cores than a slight increase in clock speed DOES NOT mean that Intel and AMD will get into a core war. It won't happen. The Gigahertz war messed stuff up for several years and made Intel's CPUs terrible performers. In the future I think Intel and AMD's processors will be pretty close in performance (once AMD gets Phenom out finally).
[Posted by: imperator3733 | Date: 09/13/07 10:59:35 AM]
+ expand thread (1 answer)

[1-6]

You must log in to add comments.
Unfortunately, the old registrations do not work anymore. Please register again. We apologize for the inconvenience.

Forgot password? Registration

remember me



Latest News

Friday, September 5, 2008

3:26 pm | Samsung Looks Forward Acquiring SanDisk. Samsung Wants to Take Over Supplier of Flash-Based Products

2:43 pm | Dell Intends to Sell Off PC Manufacturing Factories. Dell Plans to Cut Costs by Selling Off Its Factories

Thursday, September 4, 2008

4:15 pm | Intel Delays Introduction of Chips with Integrated Graphics Core – Slides . Intel’s Auburndale, Havendale Microprocessors May Launch Only in 2010

2:22 pm | Boutique Gaming PC Manufacturers Express Worries over Power Consumption. Makers of High-End Gaming Systems Concerned about High Power Consumption

2:19 pm | IBM’s Storage Specialists Set Speed Record for Solid-State Drives. IBM Outlines Strategy Around the Business Value in Solid State Technologies

7:21 am | Samsung: Blu-Ray Has Five Years Left. Samsung Predicts Short Lifespan for Blu-Ray