Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

4np

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 23, 2005
972
2
The Netherlands
Intel's roadmap adds more quad-core and value dual-core in the pipeline

It’s been a while since Intel last made notable updates to its desktop processor roadmap. Last month DailyTech revealed Intel is expected to launch a variety of new Core 2 Duo and Pentium E 2100 processors including refreshed Conroe based products next year. Intel’s latest desktop roadmap reveals more new processors and removes some previously reported models.

Intel is expected to release its first mainstream quad-core Core 2 Quad Q6600 early next year. The processor is still on track for a Q1’2007 launch with an $851 per-unit in 1,000 unit quantities price tag. While this may seem a bit steep, Intel is expected to cut the price of the Core 2 Quad 6600 down to $530 per-unit in 1,000 unit quantities when Q2’2007 rolls around.

The Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 won’t be the only one in the Core 2 Quad family though. Somewhere between Q2’2007 to Q3’2007 Intel will add one more member to its Core 2 Quad family. This will arrive as the Core 2 Quad Q6400. The Core 2 Quad Q6400 will be clocked at 2.13 GHz and operate on a 1066 MHz front-side bus. It will have an 8MB L2 cache with support for Intel VT, Enhanced Intel Speedstep, Intel EM64T and NX bit technologies.

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=5414
 
wow... 2.13*4*2 (in the Mac Pro) = ~17GHz (theoretical speed, not practical)

looks like we will be putting quad core chips in all the Macs by the end of next year, if the chips are cool enough to allow it :D
 
Is there any need for quad core chips at this time? I mean besides bragging rights? I mean I'm not gonna back myself into a corner and say "no one will ever need that much power", but it just seems like it's quite a leap ahead of most people's needs at this time.
 
Is there any need for quad core chips at this time? I mean besides bragging rights? I mean I'm not gonna back myself into a corner and say "no one will ever need that much power", but it just seems like it's quite a leap ahead of most people's needs at this time.
I think there is. Most Mac users (and Mac users forced to use Windows machines) multitask quite a bit. Even if the applications in question aren't multithreaded, and thus able to take advantage of multiple cores, the operating system will intelligently allocate each application to a different core, making all the applications more responsive. Even if you only have 3 applications running, the 4th core can be used for operating system stuff.

Have you ever run Mac OS X on a multi-core (and/or multi-processor) computer? Mac OS X benefits enormously from having multiple execution units available to it.
 
Is there any need for quad core chips at this time? I mean besides bragging rights? I mean I'm not gonna back myself into a corner and say "no one will ever need that much power", but it just seems like it's quite a leap ahead of most people's needs at this time.

Nah, people need more than that. Current pros doing video work esp. encoding and rendering need every last MHz and would snap up quad-core chips in an 8-core configuration Mac Pro in an instant.

There are a lot of people out there right now who would welcome the advances quad-core processors will bring. They're probably drooling over 8 core processors and 80 core processors and 1000 core processors.

Anything to speed up their workflow and the pros would be all over it. Imagine it, for a multi-processor aware application, going from 4 cores to 8 in a Mac Pro could lead to processing times roughly halving - what professional video/graphics/photography person wouldn't jump all over that?
 
Have you ever run Mac OS X on a multi-core (and/or multi-processor) computer? Mac OS X benefits enormously from having multiple execution units available to it.

yeah I'm on a dual g5 at work and I've got a 2.33ghz MacBook Pro at home. So I'm not arguing about the merits of multiple core/processors. I can just see post showing up on MR in a year "do I need an octo mac or will a quad core do? oh yeah I plan on using the mac for checking my e-mail and maybe using iLife occasionally"

Although as others have pointed out video professionals can never seem to get enough computing power. So I suppose there is a market for it, my tiny little graphic designer brain just can't wrap itself around the idea of 8 cores :p
 
For the first time in a long time, I'm not watching processor updates. Because I don't do anything extremely processor demanding, the C2D machine I have right now will last me a good, long time. For that matter, my dp G5 also slices stuff up like a hot knife through butta. Think I'm good for awhile. :D
 
Is there any need for quad core chips at this time? I mean besides bragging rights? I mean I'm not gonna back myself into a corner and say "no one will ever need that much power", but it just seems like it's quite a leap ahead of most people's needs at this time.

We're going to need these for when they release iTunes 8, if the bloating of iTunes 7 is any indication. :D
 
We're going to need these for when they release iTunes 8, if the bloating of iTunes 7 is any indication. :D

Speed is the path to the dark side. Speed leads to bloating. Bloating leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering... speed matters not, judge me by my speed, do you?

ehhh... just babble, but you get the gist. the more speed we get the more stuff they cram into programs. then it's like we are back to fcp on a g2 thinking that it's awesome!, and nothing can top it. fear iTunes 8 i do. 7 has ventured in to the darkside. but ig you could run fcp yes the original, natively on a nice brand me pro model, you would have, perhaps a shuttle launch type of heat to melt just a stick of butter? then we would say wow. thats fast.

we are just sheep. they put it out and we drool.
 
Those are all Conroe and Kentsfield. Currently, there is no place for them in the Mac lineup. Of course, those will always be welcome in my computer, which they will be needed to run Vista. :)
 
If you ever have to wait for your computer to finish something, then yes, we need that much power :D Ideally, you would be the one holding back your computer, not the other way around.

I feel that in many ways, we already are. It takes me more time to make a decision and then UNDO or tweak it a few times than it does for my computer to process it, although I don't do video work.

We're going to need these for when they release iTunes 8, if the bloating of iTunes 7 is any indication. :D

What are you talking aboot? Regular iTunes updates that are 30-40 MB each is perfectly acceptable. :rolleyes:

I think iPhoto has required me to download around 500 MB of updates since I first got it a few years ago.
 
What are you talking aboot? Regular iTunes updates that are 30-40 MB each is perfectly acceptable. :rolleyes:

I think iPhoto has required me to download around 500 MB of updates since I first got it a few years ago.

I was talking about the program itself, not the downloads. My dual G5 sometimes feels inadequate for iTunes, and all I want to do is play some mp3s. Every update seems to bolt more stuff on, cause iTunes to launch slower, and require more resources to run.
 
L7400 (1.5GHz dual core, low voltage, 4MB of cache) is a core 2 duo that Apple could make use of. That's due in January. Ultra portable anyone?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.