Intel reveals quad-core laptop chip in the pipeline for 2008
By Conrad Quilty-Harper 
posted Jun 3rd 2007 1:43PM
posted Jun 3rd 2007 1:43PM
Confirming something that we had already seen hints of, Intel has announced that it is looking forward to quad core laptops hitting the scene throughout 2008. Mooly Eden, GM of Intel's mobile platform group, said that we won't see these quad cores in business class laptops for a while, even being honest enough to admit that there aren't enough multi-threaded applications out there to justify it. In practically the same breath, PC World mentions that the chip will target high-level gaming laptops, which is cool because gamers will no doubt lap the new chips up: even if gaming is for the moment a very much single-threaded activity. Architecturally the new chip will have to differ from Intel's current offerings such as Santa Rosa, so you can probably expect to pay quite a premium until they hit the mainstream. (Not that you didn't know that already.)[Image credit]
P.S. Bonus points for most imaginative insult in response to the fatal mistake of using Apple's Intel logos to illustrate this post.
El Jobso will not be pleased that you used his logos, but he will be pleased to put them into his laptop.
i am sure these won't be seen in macbooks anytime soon.
you wouldn't want these in a macbook; it would probably melt...
Oh, and there is no lack of multi-threaded applications; you'd need these for the full capabilities of Vista anyways...
Watch this go into the iphone; they're both pricy, novelty items, and of course ,unjustifiable by any means except for "i want that ..."
I've always wanted to have two or three expensive cores sitting idle for 99% of the time. Finally! I think I'm just gonna mail my atm card and pin to Intel and get it over with.
Dustin; If your cores are sitting idle 99% of the time you probably want to look at finding a better OS or some better applications. My two cores are almost always taxed by the same amount as each other, as the work is properly shared between them. That's whether I'm idling about or pushing things hard. I rarely, if ever, see an imbalance between them.
Well, at the very least you could install a distributed computing program like Folding@Home... that is why I welcome all the computing power I can get ;)
Funds> AMD does not and cannot compete with Intel in the laptop market. Their chips are far to big and hot. Intel simply has no competition in the laptop market.
It'll be entertaining to see how AMD retaliates to this. Maybe they'll make a 5 core machine...But what i really want isn't more cores. I want one processor that is better. By 2015 we'll see machines with 8-15 cores at this rate.
I think we're seeing cores being introduced in powers of two- there will not be a 5 core system, it'll jump from 4 to 8. Assuming Moore's law holds and core design remains at a similiar complexity (same number of transistors per core), we'll have 8 core lappy's by 2010, and 32+ core laptops around 2015. Again, just projections, maybe we'll abandon the "more core" strategy, hit some limitation in silicon and have to look elsewhere, or perhaps the coming robot overlords will enslave humanity.
Ryhan @ Jun 3rd 2007 3:27PM
you wouldn't want these in a macbook; it would probably melt...
hahahahahah!!!!
Why all the negativity? More computing power is a bad thing? Intel should be reducing cores? I say bring on the power.
There are really no uses for 4, 5, 6... cores... more computing power IS NOT A BAD THING, but unlike you, some of us most consider cost. The majority of the time, the single core in my laptop does quite fine... however, the few times that i venture into multitasking i use a dual core on my desktop
And reduce your battery capacity?
I have 2 older notebooks sitting in my closet somewhere. I paid 3 grand for one, about 9 years ago. Mind you - thats when 3 grand actually meant something. At about the same time, a friend of mine paid 10 grand for the top of the line IBM thinkpad.
Today my $900 notebook roasts it. The real costs is not the chip-set - it's the screen and other components. One of my tasks is SQL server development, I like all the power I can get.
I've never met one person that said - "my computer is too fast, I wish I bought a cheaper one".
No uses for many cores? This is like the guy who said (some time ago) there was no conceivable use for more than 256Kb of memory in a PC.
Build the cores - the uses will come!
Doubling cores every two years:
4 = 2008
8 = 2010
16 = 2012
32 = 2014
64 = 2016
128 = 2018
256 = 2020
512 = 2022
1024 = 2024
Killer! Only 16 years before the first kilocore chips!
Yup. That's about where we'll be if Moore's law holds.
A German gaming magazine interviewed Tim Sweeney of Epic (insert gripe about Joystiq not linking it here), who said that they have now coded enough threading into Unreal Engine 3 that there will actually be sizable benefits to having a dual-core processor (and incremental benefits to having a quad-core processor) for Unreal Tournament 3. He even went so far as to say that the inevitably octo-core processors will probably become useful sometime within the life of Unreal Engine 3.
Here's the full translated interview. It also goes into the idea of what kind of PC UT3 will need:
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/?article_id=602522
never thought of it that way... that is so awesome!! O_O
kilocore... *eek!*
Engadget, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are sitting at a table finishing up at snack time. Engadget finishes its shiny red Washington Apple and...
Engadget: "Apple core..."
Bill Gates: Baltimore
Engadget: Who's your friend?
Microsoft: Apple
[Engadget throws apple core into Jobs' face]
Engadget: Not no more!
Have to agree... the heat from a quad-core isn't something for laptops in their present layout. My fiancee already fries her pretty knees with a MacBook 2.0Ghz Core2Duo. A quad-core would turn her into beef jerky.
However, I could turn off my oil furnace and heat the house with electric.
The fundamental reason for going multicore for laptops is NOT speed - though that can be a fortunate byproduct - but reduced power consumption for a given performance. And this of course gives you longer battery life and reduced heat production.
Another thought. Four core, or eight core, or 256 core chips are not inherently any more expensive to manufacture than single core chips of the same performance. They're all just chunks of silk-screened silicon, after all. The only real reason 4 cores are dearer to buy is that they're newer, and more efficient. Their development costs haven't been amortised yet. Make no mistake, in a couple of years, four cores will be as cheap as chips!
Intel already has an 80 Core Chip.
if this involves apple and intel..shouldnt there be 8 cores???
Quad core for gamers, huh? Brilliant. Gotta love the Intel marketing machine. When will they start hawking P4s as space heaters for coffins? I don't want my corpse to get cold.
COR! Moore Core!! = poor (me)
fourcore yor,
Core's a bore,
why so sore...
we've core galore,
keeping us spending is their law,
that's for sure!