Poll : Quad Core vs Hex-core ?? Choose

[AtenRa]

No. Try again.

Also a 6 core would be something like 3-3.1Ghz for 95W.

How many 6 cores? I want a number. Are they gonna sell 1 million?

All people buying a 2500/2600/2700/3570/3770 will not just buy a 6 core. Some might, but most wont since its slower and worse to OC.

The mask that produces the current quads sells in the 100million mark.

6 core SB-E is at 3.3GHz with 130W TDP at 32nm

6 core at 3.3GHz at 22nm could be close to 90W. That CPU will be faster than SB-E 6 core 3.3GHz and with lower power consumption.

 

[ShintaiDK]

6 core SB-E is at 3.3GHz with 130W TDP at 32nm

6 core at 3.3GHz at 22nm could be close to 90W. That CPU will be faster than SB-E 6 core 3.3GHz and with lower power consumption.

Take an Ivy with gated iGPU. Load it up and see the difference. And you know why your claim wont work. Not to mention the thermal density issue with 6 cores. Its not gonna be fun to OC your imaginary chip. The chip you use is basicly the best of the crop to compare with. Its not what every 32nm chip can deliver. Its a 1000$ chip.

Now tell me, how many 6 cores could Intel actually sell on LGA1155? Or is it just gonna be some headless endevour to lose money to please you? You wouldnt buy it anyway. You would still buy another FX CPU.

 

[Vesku]

There is also all the "-E" and server chipsets they wouldn't be selling to run that LGA1155. Also the hit to their GPU share statistics they would take.

Just don't see enthusiasts being able to convince them to do it, the closest they came was SB-E and there may not even be an IB-E.

 

[greenhawk]

Not only that but 3820 die size is ~300mm2.

a 6-core 160mm2 selling at high volume in desktop market... would make more money for Intel than those XEONs + the 3820. Not to mention they could introduce that CPU to the Server market as well

on the first, given most of the realestate is for the increased cache size, talking about smaller silicon does seem pointless. Even going to 22nm will not make it noticiably smaller if intel look to increase features again.

On the area of 6 core into the desktop market at desktop prices, it will probably give intel more money but at the cost to the server market as, i suspect, the workstation market will move from Xeons to desktop chips. Not in intel's interest.

Side note against intel releasing a 6 core desktop is people will have less reason to upgrade which will effect intel's long term profitability for the home consumer.

Introducing the 6 core s1155 into the server market would be a flop in several areas. They would run hot, effecting server room cooling/power (which is a area atom seems to be starting to excell at) and with only dual channel, the limited memory (bandwidth in some, number of sticks on the other hand) means they are not as effective in most tasks big business care about. Of course, the chip would have to be redesigned to allow multiple sockets to even have a chance of being accepted.

In the end, intel releases products aimed at what they think a given market needs/wants and design to suit. If you are not a average consumer that fits into one of their market segmentation system, then they generally do not care or want you as a customer. Just like very other business.

 

[Phynaz]

You still dont understand it, im not debating how Intel thinks and operates. Im talking from a technical and economical point that they could make that CPU and be very profitable for them.

You keep repeating this as if its true. Let me ask one question please. Do you have any evidence that Cpu core yields match gpu core yields?

 

[greenhawk]

You're literally vouching for Intel to produce a new mask and die layout for a single CPU. Do you know how crazy that sounds? Do you actually think that would pay itself off? How many do you plan on buying? thousands?

They only chance of a 6 core currently is for intel to take the silicon from a SB-E and implant it into a s1155 case and not connect two memory channels.

Then to meet the 95W limit they set for s1155, the cpu will be clocked down to 2.5Ghz with a small turbo (similar to locked Xeons, so no chance of a K version).

Then so not to effect proper SB-E chips sales, it will be priced at over $600, most lilky somewhere between $700 and $800 each.

Sure, might get better options if IB-E came along first, but even s2011 users are in the air about when that is ment to happen given some road maps show it being skipped.

Might end up being like the i7-8xx range? a hacked i7-9xx cpu?

 

[pelov]

Yep. And you're also missing out on the margins for the 2011 boards which are priced higher and consequently the server-based high end boards as well.

Dark silicon matters more and more particularly as we shrink down in node size. Just take a look at IB as an example. A far larger on-die GPU than SB yet it still has heat issues. Can you imagine what overclocking a 6-core 22nm tri-gate chip without an on-die GPU would be like? Whatever you saved in die space from leaving out the GPU you'd have to add as dark silicon (and add more) in order to achieve the same clock speeds. For a server CPU it's not that big of a deal because you can bin them more aggressively given the higher margins and lower clock speeds, but on the desktop? It would be a nightmare.

 

[greenhawk]

layout for the 6-core die from the beginning. They already producing this die for a smaller volume than the rest of the dies.

you mean the 3820? 99% sure it is just a cut down 8 core that did not pass spec, just like the 6 core.

If you think they created a mask just for the 3820, I seriously would think intel the dumbest company in a very long time.

 

[Edrick]

you mean the 3820? 99% sure it is just a cut down 8 core that did not pass spec, just like the 6 core.

If you think they created a mask just for the 3820, I seriously would think intel the dumbest company in a very long time.

The 3820 is its own die, shared with some Xeon CPUs. It is NOT a cut down 8 core die like the 3930K and 3960X are.

Good thing you didn't say 100% sure.

 

[Edrick]

Wow, this thread is still going. How many of these types of threads are going to be posted?

To summarize, the OP wants Intel to make a 6 core CPU (which they already do), but charge $200 for it and give up most of their profits as a company, just so people with less money to spend can have the best.

Maybe it is jealousy towards some of the people here who build expensive rigs, or perhaps it is just not understanding capitalism.

Intel has CPUs priced from $99 to $999 (even higher if you consider Xeon). They range from dual core to 6 core (even higher if you consider Xeon). At just about every price point in between, they have a CPU for you. And for under $200 they have unlocked quad cores which will run 99% of all desktop applications perfectly. (This was unthinkable just 4 years ago).

The OP mentions stagnation as well. I find this funny considering that it was only a few years ago that the first quads were coming out at $999. The CPU technology is growing much faster than it ever did in the 80's and 90's. The only problem Intel made recently is that Nehalem, and then SB were so much better than anything else on the market, people have become spoiled. Its been 1.5 years since SB came out and people are getting a little "bored", myself included. Haswell may be a game changer and it is not too far away. Then all this stagnation talk will be put to bed.

 

[Edrick]

As for the Memory controllers. When i said 99,999% o desktop users will be fine with a dual memory channel i meant that the majority of desktop applications will not benefit from a quad channel. This is already know from socket 1366 an the triple channel memory vs dual channel.

The majority will not benefit from 6 core/12 thread CPUs either. So you really argueing agaisnt your original point.

 

[SickBeast]

AtenRa your OP makes sense and I agree with your theory that we could have 6 cores if it weren't for the GPU. Intel did come out with the 2550k, though. If AMD could compete Intel would do this. They don't want to kill sales of their own uber-expensive hexacores.

 

[kernelc]

Back in the days when I play games / CPU-intensive stuff on my desktop, I would have chosen the "6-core / no-iGPU" processor.

However, as my today computer use is basically web / email / programming / networking, I vote for 4-core + iGPU processor.

Four cores are already too much powerful for me (my primary station is a dual core i5 laptop), while the iGPU can save some power and it is less prone to breaks.

Thanks.

 

[isawthedevil]

I choose YOU John

 

[2is]

This thread is well over a year old.

 

[ShadowVVL]

I guess I missed it

I voted 6core no igpu

 

[tweakboy]

6 core for DAW or Video Editing get a 6core.

Gamer and desktop stuff quad core will do just fine. gl