Intel shows off first quad-core chip

Just when we were feeling a bit smug about our new dual-core lappies, along comes Intel to remind us that you're never on the cutting edge for long. Intel Chief Technology Officer Justin Rattner recently demoed the company's upcoming Clovertown quad-core processor, which will initially be seen in 2007 servers running two of the chips, for a total of eight cores under the hood. Rattner says the Clovertown architecture is scalable to 32 or more cores on a single chip, which should satiate our speed jones until quantum computers finally go mainstream. According to Rattner, chips with hundreds of cores are theoretically possible with this technology, which means we'll probably be able to do some pretty serious damage on timed games of Solitaire.

[dcstimm @ Feb 10th 2006 9:42PM]

well Hopefully with all this talk about dual cores and hyperthreading, apps will start to be multithreaded. I have been using Dual CPU machines for years, first one was a dual 700mhz pentium 3 machine, now I am dual xeon 2.4ghz cpus. But the biggest problem has always software designers developing for the SMP aware machines.

[villain_xx @ May 5th 2007 4:51AM]

quad Cores are more for Rendering monsters.. Waste of money if you're lookin for a gaming cpu. 99% of games at the moment (except Supreme commander) use single core. Look at ANY benchmark, the E6600 and E6700 will perform exactly the same, but the Quads are about 50% faster when it comes to 3d apps rendering scenes... Quads are for aimed for 3d peeps. So folks, do your home work before you jump on the next big thing! :o)

[Brandon @ Feb 10th 2006 9:43PM]

Because every one knows, the limiting factor in Solitaire is its insatiable hunger for cycles.

[chuuchdizzle @ Feb 10th 2006 9:44PM]

i've been waiting for this news since the whole "dual core" madness. i'll probably update my comp. when this is out for desktops.

[mynewsbot @ Feb 10th 2006 9:45PM]

Intel trying to get ahead of AMD .. it will be a interesting fight

[David Harris-Gershon @ Feb 10th 2006 10:16PM]

Quad-core = hard core speed.

[alewar @ Feb 10th 2006 10:17PM]

I wonder how long it will take Apple to put one of these babies in a Powermac. Since an iMac is dual core I figure the Powermac will be two dual cores or one Quad core.

What will be the name of this sucker Intel Core Quattro?

[Nexus @ Feb 10th 2006 10:22PM]

intel should just stop trying. Thier multi core design needs to be droped like a dead weight. They have nothing on amd when it comes to multi core. AMD invented the K8 with multi core in mind so intel willl never win no matter hpw many cores they use because they are running off a inferior design.

[elfprince13 @ Feb 10th 2006 10:32PM]

hahahaha.....and of course, they dont menton that this will be Intel's competition for the G5

[tmc @ Feb 10th 2006 10:33PM]

Amdahl's law, dude. 32 cores != 32x faster than 1 core.

[reckless @ Feb 10th 2006 10:33PM]

as a long-time mac user, i gotta admit that i was a little unsure at first about the transistion to intel. now, however, i see that it's a match made in heaven. why? because intel's "director of product branding" is obviously just a dude toking a spliff in the basement. "clovertown"? whatever, smokey mcpotpants.

[boss sauce @ Feb 10th 2006 10:50PM]

Evan:
"Just when we feeling a bit smug..."
?

Is there an editor on the staff? Want one?

[Fird @ Feb 10th 2006 11:18PM]

Indeed. More stuff for Intel's marketing department to promo their "quattro" and fool all the people out there that always want to be on the bleeding edge.

They really should redesign their dual-core before moving to the 32 cores approach.

[Eliot Phillips @ Feb 10th 2006 11:21PM]

Well with 4 cores and hyperthreading you could hit Folding@home's maximum of 8 threads on a single machine. I hope they demo this thing burning money.

[G-ZUS @ Feb 10th 2006 11:53PM]

Do they have 64-bit quad cores, yet? I want one in my next Apple computer!

http://musobs.blogspot.com/

[ky @ Feb 11th 2006 12:11AM]

I wonder what if Intel is trying to go head-head with Gillette. It seems that everytime Gillette puts on another blade Intel comes out with another core.

[Shawn @ Feb 11th 2006 12:13AM]

I think its cool and all... but I see no real consumer application here. Games? get real.... too many "hardcore gamers" rely on things that require so many workarounds for a bottleneck. Quadcore game system = the rest of the PC being one big complicated bottleneck.

You'll also have to figure a price for something like that and thenthe hardware equiv. of them to make it all be at balance.

For servers running a LOT of ish... its great

[Shinto @ Nov 16th 2006 6:54PM]

3D artists likes me needs it.
and as far as I know many games , movies and films relies on these kinds of processor to keep your kids from rioting out of boredom

[Shazbot @ Feb 11th 2006 1:33AM]

Clovertown? God, that's awful. Clover's interesting, but Clovertown? Please, Intel, borrow Apple's advertising firm.

[John Molina @ Feb 11th 2006 2:05AM]

Apparently someone didn't get the memo about the new Intel logo.

[Ian @ Feb 11th 2006 3:38AM]

Will it come with a skillet or an Easy Bake Oven? Perhaps some sort of exotic cryogenic cooling solution? Becuase with just two cores Intel iron runs stupid-hot. AMD FOREVER!!!!!111!!!ONE!!!11

[Simon @ Feb 11th 2006 7:32AM]

#7, #16, we all respect your hyper-enthusiasm, but really, at least have a vague idea what you are slandering. Clovertown uses a completely new design, same as that Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest will use.

[ScottK @ Feb 11th 2006 7:42AM]

Sweet now firefox can render engadget blog entries faster

[Kendal @ Feb 11th 2006 8:19AM]

Haha, good work #17.

#7 is way off. For starters, the core duo is actually very good in design, so stop living in the K8 90s...

[sk @ Feb 11th 2006 8:45AM]

Intel has a major problem - the bus they use is outdated. Unless they updated that bus to accommodate for quad core there won't be much gain from the 4 cores. All 4 cores fighting for bandwidth and slowing down the system. AMD on the other hand is using Hyper-transport which is fare superior to intel's bus. A look at the Opteron offerings with 8 and 16 cores shows that AMD is still ahead of Intel in overall system design. AMD also announced a quad core CPU available at the end of 06.

[sk @ Feb 11th 2006 8:52AM]

#19 what a statement??? the core duo is a recycled Pentium III core. Intel has failed to come up with something new over the last few years.

[Anthony @ Feb 11th 2006 9:01AM]

Intel showcase it first, AMD will have it first in mainstream PC's let the war begin

[Scott Neary @ Feb 11th 2006 10:09AM]

I just want an instant on OS. Nobody should have to wait at this stage in the game, period.

[Shape @ Feb 11th 2006 11:15AM]

#21, the Core Duo is on par with an Athlon 64 X2 at the same clock speed, and it is a low power laptop part compared to AMD's desktop part. It also consumes a lot less power than an Athlon 64 X2. So, basically, you are saying that AMD is only matching the performance of a "recycled Pentium III core." Is that what you meant to say? ;-)

Merom is going to be clocked higher and have a wider execution pipe, as well. It should do very well.

Both chip makers are doing a very good job. They both have extremely fast processors out there.

[Chir @ Feb 11th 2006 11:18AM]

#7 and #21 have no idea what they are talking about. The design hierarchy of the multi-cores currently ranks thusly: Core Duo > Athlon 64 X2 > Pentium D. The Core Duo design for dual-cores is the ultimate goal of these processors: core-to-core communication without going through the FSB, as well as shared L2 cache. AMD is trailing behind Intel since they still use dual cores with independent L2 caches, one step short of the goal of multi-core processors.

[John @ Feb 11th 2006 11:32AM]

Some of you AMD fan boys kill me.. I keep hearing garbage like "Intel's dual core is a joke".. blah blah. Have you missed the Yonah? clock for clock keeps up with the X2 and its a mobile part. Intel's first dual core attempt was definitely a joke, but their new dual core parts are very good and I expect the quad core to be good too. Will it beat AMD for most processing power? Who knows... will it be competive? Most definitely.

[david @ Feb 11th 2006 1:04PM]

we now see the new powermac intel

[WillieK @ Feb 11th 2006 1:11PM]

This will be an interesting processor when it is actually in a machine. Intel is always working on something new. Yeah, I like the AMDs too, but the two are pretty much breakneck with each other so far as I have tested. Better power efficiency with the Intels.

The only funny thing is all the people who think mac is fast and never tried a pc. I have worked side-by-side on multiple hardware-equivalent macs and pcs. The mac has ALWAYS been embarrasingly sluggish, no exceptions. I'm probably going to get one of those macs with intel core soon for comparison sake too, I wonder what I will really find, side-by-side. All previous macs I have used were horribly resource-innefficient.

[Broklynite @ Feb 11th 2006 4:26PM]

Eh. To tell the truth, I've been playing with computers this long, and you know what? The speed hasn't changed. If anything, computers are slower. Now, this is because while the hardware is becoming more complex, so is the software. Fair enough. Nonetheless, aren't we at the point where computers should take less than a minute from power on to full-running? I mean, seriously, my Commodore took less time to load than some of these new computers. We keep looking at relative rates that this processes that faster than that one- but noone pays attention to the fact that it still takes too damn long.

And Clovertown? Wasn't that the company that bought the Red Car in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

[EAI @ Feb 11th 2006 6:31PM]

I agree Williek, Where I work we have about 200 pcs and 8 macs, guess which gives us more grief. Yes Macs are where they are for a reason.

[Shawn @ Feb 11th 2006 10:50PM]

Well... thats not a MAC / PC problem thats someone being a victim of law of probability. 200 PCs VS 8 MAcs... I'm sure that your company only has 8 macs for a reason. Ive been a PC owner all my life... why? I like to be able to step outside of the over priced, form over function, proprietary box called Apple. If Appl eis so great, why is it Microsoft had to bail them out of being dissolved? (other than to save their own butss from being slapped with a monopoly suit otherwise).

For the guys who say "intel has failed to come up with something new in a while". Think for a min. How would that benefit them to go from a "new" 2.0 GHZ Chip to say a 3.4 Dual Core in a year? You lose a lot of money doing that. The same principle here applies, they dont release great advancements quickly for monetary reasons. DUH.

I think #17 (me) was saying that the intel chips in question here are great, for their proper applications, not for the kids running out and spending a billion dollars to build the firebreathing rigs that own a group of 12 year olds in CS. I was stating to think practically about it rahter than approach it from a pure speed POV. Thats all.

I don't like AMD becuase of the past, same reason I dont like ATI... I like stability and have had no problems with Intel Chipsets ever...of course I do a bit of reading on AMD and Intel before building a new system and compare data based on what I need. Something that some people in here should do at some point rather than just say things like "Sweet, I can go super fast now".

[Kendal @ Feb 12th 2006 12:03AM]

#31, 33, I disagree. Comparing a Mac to its PC 'equivalent' (even giving the PC more hardware for benefit), I see the Mac being much quicker in most tasks, i.e. general use, editing, etc.

And from the current reviews and benchmarks, the new Intel boxes are doing evern better- much better.

The 8 Macs to 200 Pcs. I wonder what specs, and OSX version. At my work, we have about 400 PCs, and about 3 Macs (lucky jerks), and I can tell you now that the Mac users in the offices are the envy of the others...I wonder why...

[Johnny C @ Feb 12th 2006 5:26AM]

Why are these multiple core systems even being produced on 32-bit systems? Would it not make more sense to transition everything to 64-bit and then build on that?

#25 Instant on already exists. And as far as I'm concerned it's from the only company even trying to keep PCs as good as Macs. http://www.go-l.com/

I love their philosophy, hardware, and overall, products design.

[Shape @ Feb 12th 2006 4:39PM]

JohnnyC, what is the benefit of 64-bit that you wish to take advantage of?

[oZostomia @ Feb 26th 2006 11:45AM]

Intel has always been very good in quality too and overclocking!

Even a P4 3.7ghz HT cant stop me at all!
I just want extreme power for music making, and ill wait for the quad core to come out...

Leap Ahead dudes and i hope you dont leap small... LEAP BIG!

[A. Nony, Mouse @ Mar 8th 2006 10:22AM]

In most applications, the slowdown is not rate of processing, but rather the transport of data between subsystems and the inefficiencies of human-operator and the inefficiencies of the software design. That said, there are certain applications in which faster or more processors will help. If you are doing massively parallel computations, multiple processors will help you. If you are switching frames in real time between high-speed data interfaces that are used to saturation, hen you will recognize gains in the ability to service inteupts in parallel. At either of those points, however, you are probably looking at a highly specialized application, which would benefit from an architecture that differs greatly from the Intel architecture (Intel/AMD/Cyrex/whoever) and a real-time or distributed operating environment and highly specialized codes that are designed to make the best use of the parallelizable aspects of whatever algorithm you are implementing or designing.

[jake @ Mar 28th 2006 4:31AM]

I have personally actualy found that Intel run alot better then AMDs, my P4 prescott HT 3.0ghz EM642 1gb ram and 6800GS 512 ram , destroys my frends AMD 4000+ 64 2gb ram and slied 6600GTs, at gaming and video rendering i beat him, he hasnt beat me yet :D. INTEL FOR LIFE!

[raytibbitts @ May 10th 2006 11:08PM]

re: 35, 31 & 33
Macs and PC's. I have to use both at school and work... even when a pen and paper would be more reliable than either brand. That being said, obviously a computer is practically indispensable for an educated professional nowadays, and everyone should have one at home for both work and play.
Back to Mac vs PC...
I have used a LOT of different hardware, with just about every version of both Windows and Macintosh OS's. Each has it's own particular feel, but speed is speed, and reliability is reliability, and frustration is frustration, AND:
Macs feel faster to me, but when I actually time them, task by task, they don't win the speed per dollar test, sorry.
They absolutely win the reliability test. e.g. a 400MHz Mac desktop on Jaguar, with Classic simultaneously running 9 vs a 3GHz Pentium box with either XP or Windows 2000; I just can't get the same performance out of the PC as I do from the OLD Mac, (not to mention newer Macs with Tiger) No freezes, no matter what, no re-boots, and EASY multi-tasking, jumping from app to app, file to file. Macs just have PCs beat on reliability, hands down.
Which brings me to the frustration factor: Macs don't let me do everything I'd like at work, and this is a true frustration. However, it is easily outweighed by the general malaise type of constant frustration trying to run Windows on a PC causes at home, at play and everywhere they go today.
I am glad that Intel at least appears to be trying to compete with AMD, and I am looking forward to see third-party benchmark (real-life) test results on new upcoming Macs that are sure to showcase these chips. I would also like to hear more about Apple server hardware running AMD 64 chips.
I forgot to confess to not loving the one-button mouse, but two-finger track-pads are a good start, a precision wireless Mighty Mouse, with built-in Salling Clicker like capabilities would be a better start. I want a single input device that is ultra snappy, but yet ultra accurate, in lieu of both mouse and frontrow remote, I'll wait.
By the way, when I do buy my own hardware it will definitely be Mac, and portable. The guys I have talked to, who get paid to maintain the computers networked at school and at work all admit (but in whispers, as if they feel they are betraying a great secret, that Macs are so much easier to maintain, specifically because Apple is just one company, they're all the same, and the people who use them just use them, they don't get into them and mess them up, the way PC's user seem to do. Maybe they can't help it.

[dumbfounder @ May 16th 2006 9:24PM]

I'd sell my mom for a quad core anything. What? Nothing mom, go away. I'm doing important work here.

I can tell you what I'd use 64 bit for, gobs of memory. If it was up to me, there would be 128 DIMM slots on my motherboard and I'd be running 256gb of ram. Hard drives are for pussies!

[Solomon @ Jul 3rd 2006 12:28AM]

Intel has always been using names of cities within the continental United States to name their cores. Prescott, Smithfield, Cedar Mill, Northwood, Dothan, Yohan, Presler, Conroe Dempsey, Irwindale along with Clovertown and all the other Intel codenames are names of cities in various states. I personally like the naming sceme...

They perfer not to use famous cities, like San Diego (AMD likes to use the names of famous cities)

[Anthony Roy @ Jul 10th 2006 8:27AM]

Single, Dual core, Quad core , EIEIO core, I don't care anymore, I just want my operating system to work correctly

[Jean d'Arc @ Jul 10th 2006 9:25AM]

Chips with 100's of cores so the average office user can play solitaire faster! I laughed so hard I nearly fell off my chair!

[Jeff @ Sep 15th 2006 11:23PM]

This is great; quad core processors!!! Like cell division in an embryo, start out with 1, then 2, then 4, then 8 etc... which company is better; which processor is better? Doesn't matter, we are seeing a birth here... the birth of machines. I love the idea of being able to put a quad core processor in my T-800...really! Soon the processors will be more and more powerfull and capable of running applications in robotics we only fantisized in movies - hover cars that fly themselves (fly by wire)etc... the quad core procesors are the birth to more than just fast game playing. Will one companys processor be better than the other? Depends on what its used for... We are thinking too small if we are thinking this quad core/quatra(?) core is only applicable in PCs or Macs. I want my robot "Simon" and I am just glad to see this race between them, hopefully in my lifetime I will begin to see our AI, Robots and Hover cars, I don't care who gets there first - lets just get there and lets not kill our selves by doing it.

[MWell @ Sep 18th 2006 3:34PM]

indeed its about development where can we go, generations before us when development was about surrvival, they would luaghted at us rightly for "debating" about branding and image thats not where its at...that beeing said mac pro looks pretty sharp, the mac and pc thing apple hard ware rip apple os well worth it cant wait for leapord some one with make it possable to run on an intel pc youll c.


oh and dumb_f whill your mom be obsolite in 6 months P
ps my spelling otroushious im dislexik as heck

[Bob @ Sep 28th 2006 8:38PM]

You should see this demo of a quad-core game:

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/intel-quad-core-gaming-demo

!!!