Q4 now for build?

[Lyeth]

Well according to this article at Tom's, Intel plans to have its quad core out in Q4. http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/07/19/intel_to_launch_quad_core_in_q4_2006/

With the wait for DX10 cards, Vanguard, and now quad cores...is Q4 "THE" time to build? :rolleyes:

[Fozzik]

Welcome to the boards! :D

There's always something new coming. It's the nature of the industry. Late this year would be a good time to build...but most years around the holidays are good. Not only because many new products arrive, but also because prices tend to go down (at least in some cases where there is heavy competition).

I don't think the first Intel quad-cores will be worth it. Most applications and games aren't even threaded enough to take advantage of dual-core yet...so the performance increase in single applications will likely be small. The first ones from Intel aren't going to be true quad-core, either...they will be two dual-core chips together on the same package. The more elegant and "real" quad-core designs will come later in 2007, and by then there will hopefully be more reasons to look at them from an application performance standpoint.

I can't say the same about DirectX 10 GPUs...they should be very nice and I can't wait to see them. They should offer a great jump in performance for current apps, even if DirectX 10 (windows Vista) ends up taking forever to arrive.

If your intention is a machine to play Vanguard, the longer you wait (the closer we get to release) the better you'll do. Prices always go down, hardware always gets faster... but eventually you just have to pick the time and the components that are right for you and pull out that wallet. There is never going to be a "perfect" time for everyone to buy.

[Giftmacher]

Quick Q Fozz, I thought the Kentsfield chips will be the true Quad core CPUs? If not them then what is actually going to be true Quad core? Just checking because I´m hanging on for quad core chips as my upgrade mark :D

Gift.

[Fozzik]

I'm not completely, totally up on my Intel roadmaps...I'm not sure what the codename is for the first "true" quad-core. Keep in mind that Core 2 Duo is really their first real dual-core, and it is releasing quite a long while after they debuted the Pentium D (which is not true dual-core).

Maybe rabb1t or somebody else will know the codenames, otherwise I'll go find a roadmap and get back to you. ;)

Just as a point of comparison, AMD has announced some changes to their own roadmap to compete with what Intel is doing...the K8L (true quad-core and updated design) is now expected from AMD around the middle of 2007. I really wouldn't expect true quad-core from Intel any sooner than that...most likely second half 2007 would be my guess.

[Giftmacher]

Hmfp, maybe I'll just go dual core anyway. I'll still hang on till Kentsfield hits, but mostly to take advantage of the price drops. I might hang on for the K8L but how well my PC copes with Vanguard will most likely determine how patient I am.

And damn... I was quite looking forward to grabbing quad core *grumble*

Gift.

[rabb1t]

Here is my thing with quad core - no game company is going to favor one side or the other by releasing optimization for quad core. Consider dual core, we are only just now on the verge of seeing dual core optimization appear and it is what like over a year since the dual cores were introduced? Developers have long since known about dual core, as well as multi-core, but they also aren't going to focus on something that most peeps don't have.

Sure, multi-threading coding is just around the corner, and peeps are starting to play with it with the PS3 chip, however, I'm betting, like we saw with gaming and dual core, that it will probably be quite some time after both sides have quad core that multi-threading (things beyond 2 threads) will actually appear in games.

So me, I'm planning on waiting for the price to cool off on quad core before getting one, or hearing word that they are actually a big improvement. I'm betting early adopters may want to consider it around mid-08, but that likely late-08 would be a wiser choice in terms of price and multi-threading actually showing up.

While dual core like doubles the cost, quad core quadruples it, or doubles the double. Think about that for a minute. If the low-end dual cores are priced at let's average them out to $175, that means that the low-end quad core is going to be roughly double that at $350. Now, let's shave off a hair because it isn't really double the cost, say 20% less, you are looking at probably a minimum of $280 for the entry-level quad core.

Got kinda rambly there I guess :p ... anyways... quad core is not going to be cheap, and much like dual core was early on, I'm predicting we won't see an improvement in games for a while as games very likely won't have multi-threaded coding in place at launch.

If, however, you are doing media or heavy rendering things (3d Studio Max, etc.) you may want to consider 8 gig of ram and a quad core CPU. But I don’t think gamers will want to go 4 gig and quad core much before late 2008. I'm betting the gaming sweet spot will remain at 2 gig and dual core up until that point if not until late 2009.

[Lyeth]

Thanks for the info. I have been reading this board for months, and I think I am getting a feel for what I want to build. I think I will take Fozz's advice and wait till closer to VG's release...unless I get into beta, then that all goes out the window!

[Giftmacher]

Yes broadly I agree Rabbit, and to be honest I'm mostly interested in quad core because I:

a, don't intend to upgrade CPU for a long time, and I'm gambling that multithreading as it arrives will give my system a second lease of life (enough to eek out a few more months). (Plus I don't anticipate anything I play becoming CPU bound for while yet.)

and

b, I'm liable to use multithread-able apps like BLAST as part of my work. That really should cut down on processing time when I need to work from home.

[EDIT oh and c, because it's quad core and it excites the inner geek ;)]

But you know, I can rough it with dual core if quad isn't properly implemented or evilly expensive. :p

Gift.

[tolliner]

Here is my thing with quad core - no game company is going to favor one side or the other by releasing optimization for quad core. Consider dual core, we are only just now on the verge of seeing dual core optimization appear and it is what like over a year since the dual cores were introduced?

A little clarification: If a game or program is made with dual-core in mind, then it is also quad/octa/etc-core optimized.

On the programming side, you cannot write code that says something like this:
core 1 do this
core 2 do this
core 3 do this
etc

Basically you just create new threads and the cpu's scheduling algorithm tells which core will do what thread/instruction. Also if programmed well all data will be protected from race/starvation issues for dual cores and monitors will be set up to prevent information from getting messed up

Maybe rabb1t or somebody else will know the codenames, otherwise I'll go find a roadmap and get back to you. ;)
I know the octa-core is the Yorkfield... i think the quad-core is the Kentsfield

[Fozzik]

Well, I think the first sort of quad-core is called Kentsfield... it's really just two dual-core CPUs on the same package. They have a "real" quad-core single-die CPU on the roadmap (I would guess) I just don't know what the name of it is.

[Giftmacher]

A little clarification: If a game or program is made with dual-core in mind, then it is also quad/octa/etc-core optimized.

Really? Well that's good to know, I was under the impression you'd see a benefit but multicore code still needed to be tweeked to get the most joy out of Quad cores. Pretty good to know I'd see the benefit in work and play. :D

Gift.

[Meran]

The engineering that goes into this a slightly more complicated. It is _possible_ that a game is written with only two threads, meaning it would take advantage of at most 2 hardware threads (i.e. 2 CPUs, or one Intel CPU with hyperthreading) (...er... the OS needs to run somewhere too...). Or you could create the game to have 3 threads, or 6 (like for games on the 360).

IMHO a good game architecture would divide up its processing depending on the hardware it has available --> Oh! You have 4 cores, let me spawn 3 threads, I'll put sim on thread 1, render on thread 2, and sound on thread 3, and then the OS will have thread 0! Or maybe you don't care about the OS, or whatever.

The Moral is ~ games developed for JUST 2 cpus aren't neccessarily "optimized" for n-cores. However, we'd all hope that any development for more than one core would just go all the way and make the damn thing extensible.