http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...126111118.html
I'm stunned... :shock:
Printable View
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/dis...126111118.html
I'm stunned... :shock:
You can bet that they will be pricey devils...
Wow.... Imagine running different DC projects at once. *drool* Those cpus will cost not only an arm and a leg, maybe both arms/legs.
I could be playing a game and crunching on 3 projects at once.
They'd better hurry up before we crawl the whole of the Web :)
I don't think they will be that expensive, certainly not after 6 months after release - the thing about CPUs is that they hit limit in terms of frequency so the only way to improve performance is to have more cores - its simpler to do as well. Given that manufacturing processes improve and that AMD manages to sell dual core x2 3800 at 90nm for cheap price (211 GBP here in the UK now), it follows that the price for quad cores should not be more than 100% higher.
Most likely dual cores will be relegated to current single cores cheap prices and quad cores will be charged premium similarly like dual cores now :)
I thought they already had quad-core servers etleast.
Isn't </u>this</u> one?
No that is a computer with two seperate dual-core cpus. The quad cores will have 4 cores (duh!) on one physical CPU.Quote:
Originally Posted by AMD-USR_JL
So that's a dual-dual machine... :lol:
Would be about the same performance as a quad though... :roll:
Say... isn't there a hard limit on the number of cpu's that Windows XP will support? Given that multiple cores are identified as multiple cpu's, I wonder if quad-cores will force us to go over to server OS'es... :?
Microsoft has got good stance on multi-cores - they consider them as one CPU for licensing purposes, not sure its implemented in XP, but it will certainly be in Vista :)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoGen
Yeah..... anything to try and force the people to move to the next O/SQuote:
Originally Posted by Majestic-12