Intel demos quad-core CPU

Chipmaker demonstrates preproduction "Kentsfield" Core 2 Extreme systems at the Fall 2006 Intel Developer Forum in San Francisco.

See it »

It took more than 20 years for desktop processors to go from single-core to dual-core. Now, Intel is preparing to release its first desktop quad-core processor after introducing its first dual-core desktop CPU in April 2005. Intel executives this week announced that it will begin shipping the first quad-core Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processors this November. Intel did not announce pricing details, but new Extreme Edition processors have traditionally shipped at the $999 price point.

The Core 2 Extreme, codenamed "Kentsfield," will incorporate two dual-core chips on a single package for a total of four processing cores and 8MB of L2 cache memory. The Core 2 Extreme QX6700's 2.66GHz clock speed makes it slightly slower than the current Conroe-based 2.93GHz Core 2 Extreme Processor. That means that the faster dual-core processor will likely outperform its quad-core sibling in applications that haven't been optimized for multiple processor cores, but the quad-core should perform better in newer multithreaded applications designed for multicore processors.

Remedy Entertainment's upcoming action thriller game, Alan Wake, can take advantage of quad-core processors by devoting separate program threads such as physics, game action, environment, and sound processing to each core.

Comparison systems provided by Intel showed the Core 2 Extreme quad-core chip scoring 8910 compared to the dual-core Core 2 Extreme's 8286 in the popular 3D gaming benchmark 3DMark06. However, the default 3DMark06 test is primarily a video card benchmark, and the close scores better represent the performance of the systems' matching GeForce 7950 GX2 video cards. The quad-core processor had a much wider lead over the dual-core version in 3DMark's specialized CPU test, where the quad-core scored 3903 to the dual-core's 2497.

Rival processor manufacturer AMD is preparing to release its own "4x4" quad-core platform later this year, but AMD's hardware will use dual-socket motherboards and dual-core CPUs to get up to four cores. AMD will follow up with single-chip quad-core CPUs in 2007.

The quad-core Core 2 Extreme processor will be compatible with most existing 965 and 975 LGA775 motherboards but may require a BIOS update. The Core 2 Extreme QX6700 will be the only Intel quad-core CPU available this November. Mainstream Core 2 Quad processors are scheduled to arrive in the first quarter of 2007.

135 Comments

  • shizwill03

    Posted Oct 2, 2006 11:23 am PT

    Well I am not doing no extreme gaming or anything, so I won't consider buying it unless it was packaged with a PC I buy. I have not even got to test a Dual Core machine yet so I can only dream about the performance boost I will get.....

  • the_real_VIP

    Posted Oct 1, 2006 7:54 am PT

    Intel was only trying to get money from the consumers by NOT REALLY improving their chips. While AMD really did, Intel just realized their big mistake.

    If you look at from Pentium D to Core 2 Duo, there's a major gap compared to AMD's from Athlon XP to Athlon 64 to Athlon 64 X2. By looking closely, you can see the mistakes that Intel has fixed that AMD did compared to the Pentiums: raising the L2 cache and the Front Side Bus, making dual core available to the public and less restriction on overclocking.

    AMD had a really successful strategy: being able to break the CPU monopoly (which was a serious win/die situation) and improving their technology gradually and rapidly in favour of what consumers really want by not focusing on getting their money. For that, AMD got my respect.

  • LIMEBOB

    Posted Oct 1, 2006 3:04 am PT

    Such a big price for such a small difference in peformance.

  • _Sam_

    Posted Sep 30, 2006 8:18 pm PT

    too expensive for me

  • tequilasunriser

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 8:49 pm PT

    Thats exactly the point I was getting to Ninja, but most people wouldn't understand what you just said. They look at a processor and judge it based on it's clock speed when many more factors are involved. A processor will perform as well as the software intended for it to be.

  • ninjajuggalo810

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 4:16 pm PT

    tequilla processors are calculators the only thing that can really be changed is how well intagers are calculated vs how well decimals are calculated not operating system vs games the cell last year supposedly had 6 3.6 cores while at release the 360 had 2 3.2 but none of this really matters a single can run faster than a quad depending on software the reason consoles are faster is they are mostly run in assembly show ewach process where to go were the computers run an operating system which finds the best way to complete a task thats its given becuase you cant have an operating system in assembly because every computer differs where all 360 are the same (hardware anyways)

  • LukeC1

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 3:22 pm PT

    Doesn't the 360 have 3 3.2 ghz cores?

  • tequilasunriser

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 10:00 am PT

    why are you guys compairing the Cell processor to a PC processor? You sound like a bunch of hill-billy noobs. Its like compairing apples to oranges, boats to trains, up to down. They are architecturally different in many ways. A PC processor is built to handle the extensive work load of an operating system such as windows while maintaining stability in a game, while the Cell is bult to handle more direct game functions but less on the OS side because at the most it will run a stripped down version of linux. If you want to continue to look like idiots talking at a wall by all means continue. It entertains me....

  • KandyKornMan

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 8:51 am PT

    this sounds very cool but im not interested in switching from amd to intel anytime soon.and im giving up the silly battle for who has the best gaming machine its a waste of money.its going to take a long time before games even catch up with all the technology being thrown at them.and why are you comparing the cell to quad core as there not made to do the same things.also how many games even support quadcore or even dualcore right now.this will be good for gaming when games can use it.they still are working on programs that are 64bit so pc tech is way ahead of the game.

  • rickykemp

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 7:24 am PT

    My pentium D is better than both the 360 or PS3 processor at literally everything, mainly because console processors are designed just to process and maintain the information related to the game software. my pc does everything from being a calculator and word processor to professional quality photo editing and music recording and mixing which would usually require thousands of pounds worth of equipment to do, and i've spent £600 on it. this processor is going to be amazing. The Kentsfield Extreme edition CPUs will be overclockable by both the FSB and Multiplier, meaning you pay $999 for it, but you can potentially get $2000 of performance out of it if you knwo what you are doing (and if you are buying an extreme edition, you probably will). people who put down the price of these processors in comparison to consoles have no proper experience of the world of computer custom building. so dome some research before you put something down.

  • ciryorel

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 7:24 am PT

    Hawt but can't afford it...

  • azizrulez

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 6:39 am PT

    i can bet this is gonna cost an arm and a leg

  • Sheiko

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 6:00 am PT

    Don't forget Intel prefers the route of Upgrade every quarter rather then AMD's upgrade annually unless new socket technology. Intel does currently make a solid performer for $300 which is fastest then AMD's top CPU which comes up to $900.

  • Autolycus

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 5:48 am PT

    first off, you cant compare these cores to PS3, XB360, etc. These are full processors(not on same die). The ones in the consoles are 7 bit systems designed to compute about half as much as a regular processor. With very large data, the 7-bit PPC processors inside of the systems have HORRIBLE results...

    second, intel is going to get themselves into the exact same position if they start launching technology @ 1000 bucks. Price always wins regardless of technology attached to it.

  • lildragn

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 5:13 am PT

    It's funny how peeps gripe and complain about spending $500-$600 on the PS3, but they have no problem plopping upwards to $2k on the newest and greatest gaming PC, and like 6mths later have to upgrade to a $200-$300 vid card to get the latest detail in the newest game. Really funny actually. Thank god I left that arena.

  • darkdaej

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 4:54 am PT

    ewjim

    "Intel did not announce pricing details, but new Extreme Edition processors have traditionally shipped at the $999 price point." - is this a joke??? Or this is "NORMAL"?! PS3 have 7 cores!!! And cost much-MUCH less!!! All who flaming about PS3 price - LOOK AT THIS ^ AND SHUT UP!!! "

    Hmm, this is because sony is selling at a loss, and plans to make its money on games an acessories. a game will cost them like pennies to mass-produce and will sell for 60$ or more. The PS3's hardware is worth much more than its actual price, just the blu-ray drive is worth 300$ to manufacture. As for PC's, well, you're not forced t buy a thousand-dollar cpu to play the most recent pc games. I play company of heroes on medium-high graphic settings and I have a Sempron 3200+(while it may be the best sempron on market, its still only got 256k of l2 cache) and a "dead card walking" Radeon X1600 Pro AGP. So there. My entire system is worth like...500$

  • ewjim

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 3:32 am PT

    "Intel did not announce pricing details, but new Extreme Edition processors have traditionally shipped at the $999 price point." - is this a joke??? Or this is "NORMAL"?! PS3 have 7 cores!!! And cost much-MUCH less!!! All who flaming about PS3 price - LOOK AT THIS ^ AND SHUT UP!!!

  • anamnawshad

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 3:19 am PT

    I wonder what will be teh price tag

  • t3h_MarK

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 3:03 am PT

    if you want more benchies and result fro this CPU go to tomshardware.com he has an in-depth test with the processor that's been on the site for more than 2-3 weeks already. If you want any info on hardware go to tomshardware.com otherwise you're not seeing the whole picture

  • zenntench

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 1:14 am PT

    ahh man intel. has to stop making more faster processors by every day. . makes me mad. lol

  • Vellyvel

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 12:26 am PT

    Dust24311
    "Wrong, in november they will be debuting a 50 watt version (my single core 3000+ XP uses 75 watts), and the heat will not be immense... smaller 45nm process means less heat production. Same specs for the eight-core CPU roadmaps. Do some research noob." ---------- Thanks for the info, I heard on bloomberg that Intel was making about 3 plants run on 45nm process it could be more, don't remember the number. Intel has the money to do it, I'm thinking it's time to put some money on Intel.

  • GFofgaming

    Posted Sep 29, 2006 12:21 am PT

    I am becoming a new Vista equipmed PC next year with DX 10 card and this processor. MY budghet is around like 4000$, hope it lasts atleast 4 years.

  • jakeboudville

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 11:55 pm PT

    interesting..

  • tequilasunriser

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 9:48 pm PT

    666solidsnake, He'll say "CELL WAAAAAT???????!!!!!!!" because you are the fool asking him if you can put a console's CPU into a PC. I would look at you like you were a purple alien too if you asked me that.

  • AL13NK1LL3R

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:34 pm PT

    mmm. naaa i'll keep my dual core.. i'll just wait for next couple years then get it.. or get way cheaper....

  • ice_rocman

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:07 pm PT

    Whoa.... you guys need to see Alan Wake running on this thing. I was blown away. www.digitalbattle.com

  • 666SolidSnake

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 8:06 pm PT

    wow the intel quad core is better than the cell processor. and just for the record when u ask an engineer whats the best processor out their to buy and u ask him is the cell processor any good he will look at u and laugh he will say CELL WAAAAAT???????!!!!!!!

  • Kravyn81

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 7:45 pm PT

    KickinIt_ftw: "The point is, do you need more stuff? Nah, probably not. Is there a market for excess? Absolutely."

    The danger here is on many fronts. Not the least which the more and more people are just given all this overpowered tech on a whim the more and more they'll expect in the future. Bigger, better, faster, cheaper...instead of appreciating what we have when we have it we get greedy and keep wanting more. Why??

    There's a danger in overindulgence, and even worse, continuing to feed that indulgence.

  • JLCrogue

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 7:30 pm PT

    I hope AMD's quad-core processor pwns Intel's!

  • alberto2045

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 7:25 pm PT

    does anybody have an aspirin or Tylenol???????

  • Masefield

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 6:48 pm PT

    @ adolfogomez

    Thanks for the link. Good article.

  • Valen_Ca

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 6:30 pm PT

    ebonyflame , this is more of an end user chip, the Xeons are server chips and tend to get newer tech faster, also I was under the impression that the Xeons that they are using are just 2 standard Xeons and not the 4 cores on one chip thing.
    However I must say, I have heard bad things about the power consumption on these quad core chips, if they are true then I think that Intel would have definitely jumped the gun.

  • TintedChimes

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 5:33 pm PT

    YAY, more chips means I can actually afford last gen's chips.

  • Seymour47

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 5:04 pm PT

    Why would I ever need this? I mean come on. My 486 DX is still adequate for everything, right? Right?

  • ZuljinRaynor

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:54 pm PT

    AMD is doing it the right way, from the ground up. Intel is just shoving them together. 'Ere ya go style.

  • rokkuman09

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:45 pm PT

    That's beastly

  • wedgewu

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:43 pm PT

    ebonyflame - the Mac Pro is two sockets and two cores in each socket. The point here is that it's four cores in one CPU, not four cores in one system.

    For the Mac Pro you are essentially paying for two CPUs. There is now a solution where you can have 1 cpu instead. This means that a two socket system like the Mac Pro could potentially be upgraded to 8 cores.

  • ebonyflame

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:38 pm PT

    Intel demos quad-core CPU, I find that quote to be extremely misleading as Intel already has a quad-core system on the market. I guess nobody really pays attention to the home computing news as the quad core, Mac Pro, has been on the market for a couple of months now. Not to mention its powered by Intels most powerful home processors in the Xeon processors. I guess this news was not as important as a regular quad core Intel system because the Mac is not considered a gaming platform.

  • themyth01

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:35 pm PT

    adrianchan56
    "Average people have no use with a quad-core... Web-browsing, chatting, word processing, video, and music.

    Waste. " Speak for yourself, I can't seem to get a system that's fast enough for all the stuff I do.

  • djsaskdja

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:25 pm PT

    Hopefully this isn't a sign to all game developers to start upping their minimum requirments. My computer can run pretty much all games on low settings but with all this new stuff coming out I may have to upgrade soon which sucks cause I'm broke.

  • adrianchan56

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:23 pm PT

    Average people have no use with a quad-core... Web-browsing, chatting, word processing, video, and music.

    Waste.

  • 666SolidSnake

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:23 pm PT

    actually mr saturn noob. the intel quads has more floating points in GIGA flops as we know it and Intel quad cores have more cache than the cell do some research saturn ur a noob

  • Mr_Saturn26

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:17 pm PT

    Not bad, but i think cell would beat it

  • themyth01

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:16 pm PT

    Aren't the quad-four 64-bit processors, it'd be really stupid of Intel if they weren't, Vista will be 64-bit.

  • Stinger78

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:09 pm PT

    I am still not sure whether getting a dual-core opteron back in May was truly worth it, compared to a faster single-core.

    What kind of program will come out any time soon that maxes out a dual-core, and still has enough need to even come close to maxing out 2 more cores?

    I say wait and see, before any kind of jump into a quad-core cpu.

  • Rufrgt2001

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:03 pm PT

    what are you talking about quad core 32 bit processor, well anyway, this is hella awesome news, i think im gettin a new computer in 07

  • KickinIt_ftw

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:02 pm PT

    People keep saying overkill... like it's a bad thing. Let's look at some other examples:

    cars - Do I need a 1000 hp skyline? Nope. Would I like it? Yep.
    girls - Do I need 4 Jessica Alba's? Probably not. Would I like it? = Very yes.
    money - Do I need a billion dollars? ...Actually yes, so that's a bad example...

    The point is, do you need more stuff? Nah, probably not. Is there a market for excess? Absolutely.

  • MacRuckus

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 4:00 pm PT

    quad-core 32-bit cpus are about the same as 64-bit dual-core cpus, intel needs to really step up because all of its processors are laughable now save for the xeon and extremes

  • Kravyn81

    Posted Sep 28, 2006 3:59 pm PT

    Einhanderkiller: "We've always needed more power. Do you know how long it took to render Cars (that Pixar movie)?

    Well, I'll tell you:
    It took 252 years in computing time. 17 hours per frame."

    Thanks, but I'm sure your average PC gamer isn't trying to make a Pixar movie in his basement. For major studios it's a given. But since this was posted at a game site I would presume they're talking about GAMING applications for gamers. Why the need for this overkill in power? ESPECIALLY (like the article states) not every application will utilize it?

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!