The rumors have it that Intel is launching the Q8xxx series of quad-core CPUs:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37945/139/

Anticipated launch price is $203:

http://www.slashgear.com/intel-cor [...] 312054.php

This should put them in competition with AMD triple-core chips.

With Nehalem on the higher end, Q9 in mainstream, and Q8 on the lower end, Intel is poised to market their quad-core CPUs to the broad range of market demands and applications.

So from the looks of it, Intel is really making an effort to push quad core into the mainstream.

I wonder if that's a good move though.

Why not?
It looks like Intel is trying to push 4 then 8 then 16 etc. cores into the market, and these programmers better get on the ball.

Ray-tracing anyone?

Not to mention putting the final nail in AMD's coffin. I hope they lighten up on AMD though, I do think that is a mistake.

Actually I don't think its a good idea. Most consumers don't need quad core to run daily applications. They would prefer to maintain a relatively decent performance, but at a massive low price (EeePC is a very good example of this).

As a result, I think Intel should start to focus on utilizing smaller process technology and high performance circuitry in building small form factor C2D processors.

I have faith that they can pull through =P. I am an optimist, and fairly hardcore AMD fanboy (not thunderman hardcore, lol AMD4LIFE)

Actually I think it is overall quite positive.

This brings solid performance to the triple and quad core offerings out there and will help force game and app developers to make use of the additional cores for our benefit.

I think that many (not most because of the low end lappy market I would imagine?) new machines being sold over the last 18 months are now dual core ... but there are still tons of single core machines around ... most of the market.

With both Intel and AMD pushing 3 and 4 core machines it is up to the software designers to catch up.

Game development in particular is hampered because the designers still want to ensure low end PC owners can run their games.

There are not many that are yet taking a punt putting out games like Crysis and Oblivion ... very demanding on hardware.

We are actually being held back by Joe Public.

Kill all single core PC's ... that's a good start.

This forces designers to maximise 2 core PC's at least.

I'd liketo see game houses make a few new games that are quad core or go away.

I am sure they are frustrated too.

Investing in design that has to cater for the lowest common denomenator is just about making sureyou can get your investment capital back and start showing a profit.

With quite a few games bombing out over the years it can be a risky business.

Duke Nukem Forever will likely only run on an octalcore machine ... lol.

I'm gonna take this as positive news even though AMD's Phenom sales will be servely hurt...

Remember how dual-core was considered high end? $1000 dollar Athlon X2s?

The faster a CPU guy cuts down prices the faster more cores become mainstream ie. I can afford them...

This is a great move as it will most likely AMD shall lower their prices and cause a ripple effect in the market...

They are doing that as well. They are a big company you know.

I don't see this being much cheaper than the current low price leader q6600. I assume these new 8xxx quads will be 45nm? I supposed that will get a few people to buy over a q6600, but honestly, the decreased L2 cache and the mighty high stock fsb coupled with a low multiplier make this new 8xxx quad not an overclocker's choice.

Still it will push prices down and that's all I care about (Wow that makes me sound shallow)

i still want a Q9...

i don't get it, for those specs, why not buying a cheaper Q6600 with 2.4ghz and 8mb cache. does the fsb make such a diffrence? 4 mb cache seems so low!

Sure but it may end up like a non-OC'able Pentium Dual-Core...

I was thinking the same thing. I imagine Q6600s will become scarce, in the not too distant future, then their price will rise to where they aren't so attractive. Ultimately they won't be available at all.

The market segment for decent performance and low power is covered by Atom family of processors:

http://www.tomshardware.com/review [...] ,1947.html

Unlike ARMs, Atom CPUs have x86 IS making them easily compatible with a large amount of existing software. You can take a mini-ITX MB like this:

http://www.tranquilpc-shop.co.uk/a [...] oards.html

and assemble a small computer with decent performance like this:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mobil [...] aunch.html

It is expected that these computers will evolve in the direction of the decreasing form-factor, blending into the emerging market of MIDs (Mobile Internet Devices).

It's amazing though that neither Intel or Amd can reduce power consumption of current quads, especially .45nm. I went from a celeron 430 to e4300 (pin modded at 1066) and found the performance more than adequate. I would spend the extra money on the quad if the power consumption were lower. Amd promised the 9100e at 65 watts, but I haven't seen one yet.

I don't really see the point of a faster CPU in my machine... I've tried out my brother's OC'd Qx9650. Sure its abit faster... but not enough so that I'm willing to upgrade... Besides the normal application I use (itunes, firefox and painter) won't receive much benefit.

Still...

It's all about ecoolness, for lack of ability to use the standard word.

You just said it, for what YOU use...try encoding to MPEG2 on your brothers machine vs your machine or h.264, or try rendering or something that has hardcore lighting and a lot of light sources and you'll see a huge difference.

For just Ituning and painter we could still be running thunderbird 1.4s and we'd be more than covered...

I bet you don't use Vista yet...that'd make you want a faster cpu and especially harddrive.