hm...this could be used for gaming or.... gaming.

This really puts the Cell to shame now, doesn't it?

when are the 45nm quads coming? i really cant see any reason to have 6 cores on a processor unless you are into hardcore rendering and encoding.

@parcaelum: Better check out those quad-core benchmarks. They don't give much improvement when compared to dual core. PC game devs are just starting to embrace dual-core processors full-on now.

Though this will cause, through trickle-down effect, a significantly cheaper quad core, which will bring more of them into gamers' cases. Thusly, devs will be all the more willing to write more code specifically for the newest multi-coriest CPUs.

Well with Windows, you can run an antivirus scanner on one core, spyware blocker on another, WGA on a third...and IE 7 on the other three.

@rekoil: No, IE 7 just gets 2, the other remaining processor is for MS Word.

@el_gordo: Dual-core cups have been supported for quite some time in quite a few games. HL2 supported it 2 years ago?

12-core Mac Pro... DROOL...

@Xavoc: I do realize that there are a lot of games that work much better with dual-core CPUs. Just so happens that my single-core AMD still plays games fairly well, though I must admit it is getting quite tired. The single-coriness of my box at home is indeed its weakest link these days.

Microsoft should use this for the Xbox720 and add a BR player ;)

Tufnel's Law suggests the 11-core processor is just a year away.

@dakh: I assume Intel will be developing that under the code name "Stonehenge"?

@Xavoc:
"support" is very different from "taking advantage of."

most games now will support multicore processors. very few will truly take advantage of them- the main game thread will use up 75% of core 1, while miscellaneous bits like sound or what not will take up 5% of cores 2 and 3...

who the hell creates the name for these things!?

@Sheemo44:

although true, I would rather have a great processor/shitty name than the other way around

I'm still holding out for the Ocho.

Nehalem isn't related to Penryhn, it's a new processor architecture manufactured on the same 45nm process as Penryhn

@JasonR: Skulltrail? Or are you holding out for eight cores on one chip?

@Sqube: No, The Ocho, you know... The ESPN channel that shows lawn tractor drag racing and dodgeball tournaments.

@Sheemo44: They're named after rivers. In this case the Nehalem river in Oregon. Carry on!

I'm getting real close to pulling the trigger on my next home system, which will act as game rig, media center, and business machine all in one. This question of whether to use a dual core (e8400 fits my needs) or a quad core (q6600 anyone?) is relevant, but it would seem that at the present dual core processing is more than adequate. I can't see myself crunching video whilst playing COD4 anyhow, although maybe sometime in the future that will become a desire.

Honestly, choosing a mobo/RAM is almost more of a pain in the neck these days - there's so much great stuff out there, figuring out how to max out bang for buck is getting tricky!

Cheers!

I'd forget about six cores for a while in anything except weather modeling or the next Pixar film. When shopping for my last system I almost went quad until I found out the OS needed and the fact nothing supported them (least of what I use). Got the dual core E6850 (3ghz) and am happy as a clam with it. Ever since Gillette went to five blades on the Mach 5, Intel has been planning six cores.

THIS RULES!

Now, when McAfee farks, and steals a whole core, and Adobe thinks it needs one solid for adproxy.exe and another for Lightroom, and another for Photoshop, and Microsoft's Explorer decides it wants a full core to tie up, I'll still a whole core for firefox to abuse (which it will).

Actually, that's my favorite part about running older applications. They aren't smart enough yet to steal multiple core-cpu cycles at a time. So I can only lose a single core at a time.

Won't be long before that changes to, but that's what dual chip quad cores are for ;)

@banmojo: i just built a machine for my gf with a q6600 in it and i am quite pleased with its performance and how much faster it encodes / rips dvds compared to my current computer (p4 3.0g bleh). gaming wise the q6600 will not disappoint you, however the e8400 has an edge because you can overclock it a bit higher and most games cant even take advantage of multiple cores. im planning on putting a 45nm quad in my next gaming rig but if its going to be long until they are out i have will just use a q6600 (i do a lot of video encoding, otherwise i would use the e8400)

also a bit of advice on ram. newegg has some great deals on 2x2gig sticks of G.Skill pc2 6400 and 8000

My maxwell render cluster will be happy with some new and fast nod's. with these puppy's i look forward to a performance increase of 100 to 150 %, depending of how many machines i upgrade.

My cluster contains of 3 Intel core2 2.2Ghz. one amd X2 cpu, two MBP 2.16Ghz.

Most likely the prize on dual core will drop and at that time i will chose if i should buy more machine's to my baby cluster.

All the better to run Linux :]