What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
74 Comments
- mweflen, on 11/04/2007, -1/+53Oooh, "Extreme." Does it come with a free case of Mountain Dew and a Snowboard?
- toxicityj, on 11/04/2007, -2/+25its almost too extreme...I don't think I can handle it. Can you?
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -3/+20http://www.d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y.com/
- cardjoe, on 10/29/2007, -1/+17The best thing is that I can now actually understand a little of all this stuff...
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -2/+17Intel are paving the way to the robots' dominance over Earth
- shiftt, on 11/04/2007, -1/+16A year from this $1000+ processor will be worth $300.
Do like me and always buy the 2nd or 3rd best from the top - you'll always save money and still have top of the line hardware. - bigz, on 10/30/2007, -0/+13quad-core power consumption @ 45nm is roughly equal to dual-core power consumption @ 65nm - how is that 'worse' ?
- PixelD, on 10/29/2007, -1/+11heh it is a bit technical, lucky for me they let me jump to the HL/TF2 results. I don't need none of that jibba jabba.
- RonBurgundy76, on 10/30/2007, -2/+11I, for one, welcome our tiny new 45nm robot overlords.
- sishgupta, on 10/30/2007, -0/+9Digg has cut off the rest of my post. i had 3 more bullet points.
I ***** hate this commenting system because it DOES NOT WORK.
2. lower temperatures (10C lower)
3. SSE4
4. Huge OC potential due to lower power consumption and lower temps - HonoredMule, on 10/29/2007, -0/+81) People who have to pay for their air conditioning (see 2)
2) People who have to pay for their electricity.
3) People who have to listen to their computer's fans' incessant wheeze.
4) People who care about the environment.
5) People who need more reliable operation (stamina of battery backup, stability at lower temps).
6) People running many machines or running on old electrical wiring and circuit breakers. Also server farms, etc.
7) People who already have all the CPU power they need anyway.
8) People who like efficiency just for efficiency's sake.
9) People who aren't inherently lazy and wasteful.
0) Your mom. - terath, on 10/29/2007, -0/+7So that Intel will have a monopoly and there will be no competition, high prices, and no advances? Yeah, I hope for that too.
- Daiken, on 10/30/2007, -1/+8Yep, it's all Intel. It's not like there are other companies or researchers developing the future of multicore technology.
- BarryChuckle, on 10/30/2007, -4/+10Defiantly not worth the purchase right now, maybe when the price comes down or other internal components (i.e. Graphic Cards) can help it
Only major benefit Other then a slight boost in performance is the drop in power use. - inactive, on 10/30/2007, -1/+7Intel's "Extreme" line is never worth the purchase. You may as well buy the standard Q6600 and overclock it.
- HonoredMule, on 10/29/2007, -0/+6The best. Techno babble is where it's at. And I don't mean remixed chat recordings.
- sishgupta, on 10/30/2007, -0/+6The performance increase is minimal sure, but you summation is lacking.
The penryn offers:
1. Much less power consumption (about 40w less than its 65nm equivalent) - Blitzenn, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5Really? Amd has pushed Intel in some really good directions. Intel wouldn't even have a working instruction set if AMD hadn't agreed to license their's to intel (on two seperate occasions now). Intel refused to work with Microsoft on the latest operating system (Vista) and that isn't good for the consumer (instead they bitch at MS instead of Intel). I want them both around to keep each other honest. Without that check, Intel could have forced the market to the direction THEY wanted it to go, instead of letting the consumer base choose.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5Less power consumption means many things.
1) Need of PSU of lower wattage
2) Less electricity consumption, important for those living their PC on all day
3) Less heat which leads to a lot more quieter fans
4) A lot higher ovecrlocking capability for the enthusiasts, you can actually get more than 50% from the initial performance with cheap equipment, a $50 cooler would do (providing you have an adequate mobo (most of them are nowadays)) - rotten777, on 10/29/2007, -0/+5Same people that would buy the Ferrari on the front page of Digg.
- thumbup, on 10/29/2007, -1/+6lol Maddox.
- inactive, on 10/30/2007, -0/+4That's a little bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
- terath, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4Actually, IBM produced the first dual core chip in 2001. And there are far more players in the processor game making advances than intel. To credit one company with the entire body of work done by many companies and academics is just naive. I'll grant you that intel has been doing very well lately and has really helped push these changes to market.
- sv650touring, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3Are you trolling a troll, or feeding him?
- Rileyper, on 10/30/2007, -0/+3remember cyrix lol
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3That's great n' all, but when are they going to start using this technology to put smaller and faster chips in phones?
- HonoredMule, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3Multi-core is going to reach vastly diminishing returns even before 16 core for anything but hardcore processing farms and multi-request servers (like webservers, databases, etc). Even those will suffer diminishing return because of intra-core communication overhead or sharing of system resources like the memory bus(es).
- Azuroth, on 10/29/2007, -2/+5No you won't, you'll have 2nd or 3rd of the line hardware.
- Stevethegreat, on 10/29/2007, -1/+4Double post, bury.
....I hate the comment system - noseeme, on 10/30/2007, -1/+4Wow, this article was really good. Very in-depth and well written.
- Rileyper, on 10/29/2007, -0/+3too bad it doesn't come with stability
- mclewell, on 10/29/2007, -3/+5I did not see AMD develop a 45nm transistor or even the 32nm for that matter, Daiken. At this point I feel its save to say that Intel is credited with mulitcore and transistor technology.
- sv650touring, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2c'mon now... to quote some other comment I read here, your troll-fu is weak.
- theblacknight, on 10/30/2007, -0/+2Intel has always been the first to market with smaller processes for a while now, but it doesn't make them innovative.
- ubergeek09, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2That is incredible.. I REALLY want one of these haha, but I'll wait till they are cheaper...
- Topher06, on 10/29/2007, -0/+2Gaming doesn't take advantage of multiple cores as much as you think. Consider that when a PC developer makes a game they have to make it run on single core systems. Therefore they cannot heavily optimize the game across multiple cores. All they can do is to make it multi-threaded and this means that the game is at the mercy of how well the OS spreads multiple threads across multiple cores. Also until very recently games were not heavily multi-threaded because of the exponentical difficulty in trying to develop game logic using asynchronous threading. Check out Tom's hardware CPU charts comaring the Core 2 Duo E6600 and the Core 2 Quad Q6600. Both are clocked the same speed and for most games they are pretty comparable in performance, with the duo core even topping the quad core in some cases, except for a game like Unreal Tournament which was designed with multi-threading in mind. Granted, as more games are made to be multi-threaded, more cores will offer better performance, but gaming isn't the driving force behind multi-core processing. I agree though that spending $1000 on a CPU is a little much, for gaming or not.
- sfrederiksen, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Another step in the right direction for Intel. Originally an Intel fan, I had moved onto AMD's line after the NetBurst debacle..now, after residing on Intel's Core architecture for a year and a half now, it's safe to say I am once again a huge Intel supporter. Actually, I'm more of a supporter of competition...if AMD trumps Intel again, I'll be an AMD fan again, and so forth =)
- Vaeduus, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I consumes less power almost by definition. They're using the High-K gates now, which really minimize power leakage. @Tomshardware I believe they got 3.8ghz using the same core voltage as the QX6850. Look at some benchmarks before you decide to pull ***** out of your ass.
- Rileyper, on 10/30/2007, -1/+2AMD is the most unstable CPU i have ever used for computers.
- djbon2112, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I've got mine at 3.8 on water, amazing temps. Got it for $266 CAD right after the price drops. Extreme processors aren't worth the cost if you've got any DECENTLY overclockable motherboard.
- yoxxy, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I have had an ES of one of these for a month or so. Should be able to hit a 4 ghz overclock on the retail cpu.
Overall I am throughly impressed, but can understand why others would wait for the Q9450 and Q9550.
Compilers will soon get the boost for SSE4 and then you will have a killer cpu. - chad78, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1omg, that's a real website! And it has over 60000 diggs!
- Daiken, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2For gaming, there is a good improvement, but not enough to make me want to upgrade. Still, who likes to blow $1000 on a CPU?
- rune420, on 10/29/2007, -2/+3Transistors are pretty simple actually; it probably wouldn't hurt your brain to try and understand a little about how processors actually work.
- Makyla, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1woohooo! go Intel! these are made in America - Oregon & Arizona.
- mclewell, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1I wonder when AMD will get on board with the 45nm or even the 32nm chips?
- theblacknight, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1RTFA, they have a graph on the power consumption page.
- falkonv7l, on 10/29/2007, -1/+2Intel has opened the flood gates for multiple cores, you should see what they have in store for us in the future. Try 8, or 16 cores they even said they theoretically they can have as many as they want.
- falkonv7l, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Yea thats true, when I was working at Intel they made it sound like they were the only ones developing this tech. (nothing wrong with a little corporate brainwashing right?)
na na na na, na na na na, Intel...Intel....Intel - falkonv7l, on 10/29/2007, -0/+1Yea, I have the Core 2 duo 6700 and that works great much cheaper than an "Extreme" CPU, use the extra money to balance out your processing power with adequate graphics card(s)
-
Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is