http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/ Engadget Comments for http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 9:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/May 5th 2007 4:51AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 9:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 9:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 9:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 10:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
What will be the name of this sucker Intel Core Quattro?]]>Feb 10th 2006 10:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 10:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 10:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 10:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 10:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/"Just when we feeling a bit smug..."
?

Is there an editor on the staff? Want one?]]>Feb 10th 2006 10:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
They really should redesign their dual-core before moving to the 32 cores approach.]]>Feb 10th 2006 11:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 10th 2006 11:21PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
http://musobs.blogspot.com/]]>Feb 10th 2006 11:53PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 12:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
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]]>Feb 11th 2006 12:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/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]]>Nov 16th 2006 6:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 1:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 2:05AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 3:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 7:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 7:42AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
#7 is way off. For starters, the core duo is actually very good in design, so stop living in the K8 90s...]]>Feb 11th 2006 8:19AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 8:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 8:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 9:01AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 10:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
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.]]>Feb 11th 2006 11:15AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/ 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.]]>Feb 11th 2006 11:18AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 11:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 1:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
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.]]>Feb 11th 2006 1:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
And Clovertown? Wasn't that the company that bought the Red Car in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?]]>Feb 11th 2006 4:26PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 11th 2006 6:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
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".]]>Feb 11th 2006 10:50PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
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...]]>Feb 12th 2006 12:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
#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.

]]>Feb 12th 2006 5:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Feb 12th 2006 4:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
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!
]]>Feb 26th 2006 11:45AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Mar 8th 2006 10:22AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Mar 28th 2006 4:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/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.
]]>May 10th 2006 11:08PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
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!]]>May 16th 2006 9:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
They perfer not to use famous cities, like San Diego (AMD likes to use the names of famous cities)]]>Jul 3rd 2006 12:28AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Jul 10th 2006 8:27AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Jul 10th 2006 9:25AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/Sep 15th 2006 11:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/

oh and dumb_f whill your mom be obsolite in 6 months P
ps my spelling otroushious im dislexik as heck]]>Sep 18th 2006 3:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/10/intel-shows-off-first-quad-core-chip/
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/intel-quad-core-gaming-demo

!!!]]>Sep 28th 2006 8:38PM