Core 2 Quads are Coming!

It's just a matter of waiting to see who will make the best cpu.
Too early to decide, I think I will stick with AMD since you can get a pair of X2's for the same price as a single quad core. Might as well wait a few more months for a 8 core cpu.

They are allready out:
http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=20958&vpn=BX80562QX6700&manufacture=Intel
Or
http://www.thermaltake.com/product/Chassis/fulltower/kandalf_Extreme_Edition/va9004bws.asp
That would be crazy 2x 4xcores in one system who will you choose?

Ive seen benchmarks for gaming and Quad core has proven useless - 90% of the games on the market don't even support or take advantage of 2 cores and here comes a quad core processor? FLOP!

I'm with Astyanax. Intel should have waited to release their quad core chips, and why are they trying to gain more market share after AMD's dual core chips? I thought Intel had more anyway and the Core 2 Duo's were better as well.

Very true, AMD2 did not sell very well at all.

hooray for the abandoned formats

*hug my socket 754 Athlon 64*

The benchmarks for Intel Quad utterly destroy AMD.

This release is a good thing. AMD's is a cop out.

Yes, because we all love spending large amounts of money for something that is not widely supported. Good luck getting ANY sort of performance increase wile gaming, and since it does not I for one will not even look at purchasing one. Maybe in 2 years when half the games finally utilize it.

My guess is that it will take a while for the full support to show up for the multi-core processors (perhaps similar to 64 bit support lag we saw during the first two years of their existence).

I know the Adobe's new CS3 suite is taking advantage of the dual core processors where it is efficient to do so.

The quad core would appear (at least in the immediate future) to be applicable for servers and those companies who write their own code.

I did read an interview with one of the Intel developers that indicated that it is unlikely they will double again to eight cores on a die. I believe they are going to look at the manufacturing method employed by AMD, producing a multi-core processor on a single wafer. This apparently is more efficient from a production standpoint, as well as being more energy efficient in some way. The reluctance in going that way immediately is apparently due to heat dissipation issues.

We can still thank AMD for keeping the prices down and the development rolling. According to some experts - AMD's existence has prevented us from currently being stuck running Pentium III's.

I for one would like to see the industry flatten out a bit where Vista would be the last major OS provided by Microsoft and just receive service packs and allow the hardware to become more advanced without the big price hikes.

Perhaps just a dream, but worth the thought - IMO.

I think when hypertransport 3 arrives with L3 shared memory Intel will be sorry they only have a performance lead due to their larger manufacturing ability so that they can be talking about moving 45nm when AMD have yet to make 65nm.
Why is AMD a cop out ? a smaller company started by ex-Intel employees that designed a better chip and proved a worthy David to Goliath for the past 3 years, oh what you mean Pentium D was a cop out ? they have a great future in storage heaters with the rest of the netburst failures.

There are more things to do with computers than gaming. I for one have been waiting not so patiently for these quad-cores. I'm at my 18-month new computer cycle, and have been holding off until these come out.

Very few programs at all utilize the full potential of quad cores, let alone dual cores.

If you want to backup your DVD collection, it makes a bid difference.

There are more then a couple of games that have updates for use of dualcore's though. I noticed quite a speed difference switching to XP x64 too.

Quadcore's can wait for now