Intel to Release 3.33GHz Dual Core, Axes Pentium D

Softpedia writes:

"Intel is ready to go beyond its chips' current limit of 3.2 GHz with its new Core 2 Duo E8600 processor. The new CPU will be based on a 45-nanometer dual core Wolfdale architecture and seems to work at 3.33 GHz (the stock core clock speed)."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
meepmoopmeep3370d ago

i wonder when CPU technology will pass this bottleneck. it's been quite some time now

Delt43370d ago

I agree man hopefully in the next year they can over come this cause seriously..............

Says you3370d ago

thz to the table instead of this little improvement!.

IntelligentAj3370d ago

A 100 megs difference? I'll admit the 6mb of cache is great but is this a major breakthrough?

Bonsai12143370d ago

i seriously doubt you'll see any real world performance difference between 3.33 and 3.2.. is that extra 133mhz really worth the couple hundred more you'll end up paying?

for instance, the performance between the 2.0ghz macbook and the 2.2ghz macbook are negligible.

Fezthebest3370d ago

i agree and disagree with you, i mean yeah there isn't much of a difference, and you probably wont see much of a difference but still for overclockers this is great. this is probably meant for those people who don't overclock but are still looking for a faster processor.

Bladestar3370d ago

It's not a bottle neck... you will not see an increase in Hz as much as you saw before... the future is not faster CPU but multicore... It's common sense...

Lots of research is being done into multicore... as matter of fact I heard talk about 65 cores CPUs... the problem with multicore is the complexity of making software that can take advantage of it... it's quite complex and if not done right can just mess things up... it's also still a manual process and developers have to pretty much implement it themselves...

This is why Microsoft is spending so much money into this area... for example TPL.. or Task Parallel Library... this kind of research will eventually create an abstraction layer that will remove the complexity of Parallel programming... transparently... once this happends you will see a great jump in multicores... multicores is the future... not increase in speed... though ofcourse as new technology will come they will get slightly faster... but the real power will be on multicore...

Here let me give you an example, what would you rather have fixing your backyard.... one fast person that can get one stuff at a time... or 4 people that arent that fast but that can do 4 things at the sametime? now imagine 64 cores running at 3.3 Ghz each? each one of them dedicated to one specific task? for games... one enemy AI, other collition.. other sound... on and on... I hope that microsoft continues this tradition with the next xbox 360... add at least 16 cores... and a great API like the one microsoft research is working on...

DJ3370d ago (Edited 3370d ago )

Only one type of processor in the world, but there isn't. I'm actually disappointed in AMD and Intel since they haven't rectified the problem with current CPU architecture the way that IBM has, which is inter-chip communication and L2 cache (which needs to be completely eliminated since it's a huge performance bottleneck).

Right now, Intel's planning multicore CPUs with around 30 MB of L2 Cache, but that still doesn't solve the problem of missed data retrievals, which waste hundreds of cycles per screwup. Yeah, I'd love to see 32 and 64 cores on a CPU die, but unless they work efficiently it's really just a waste of engineering dollars, especially if architectures like Cell suddenly get introduced into the PC market. Right now, the Cell CPU (released 2005) is still outperforming Quad-core offerings from Intel by a margin of 3~5 depending on the tasks thrown at it. That is a huge difference in performance, and a lot of it is simply because ancient x86 and PowerPC architectures were ditched for something more efficient, and more inclined to the demands of today's software applications. Cell's still far from perfect, but Intel and AMD definitely need to start violating some patents if they expect to catch up, or even keep up.

Again, this depends a lot on whether future revisions of Cell are introduced into the PC market, or if the next Playstation is sold as a PC from the get-go. Probably won't happen, but if it does then we'll probably have yet another exciting battle in the CPU front.

Multi-core is not the future; proper usage of multi-core architecture is. I know you want to spread propaganda about "how much Microsoft contributes to the world", but it's far more important to properly educate others, not spread doctrines.

Bladestar3370d ago (Edited 3370d ago )

ohhh god DJ! I was not talking or insulting your all powerfull Cell.. as matter of fact I was not thinking and talking about the Cell at all... I was also not talking about Intel, AMD or IBM bla bla bla... but multicore.... which apply to every CPU including the Cell...

Look at this

IBM resource on Multicore... Seriously you Sony fanboys have to make a war out of everything... I know you think that everything Sony does is perfect.. but this time I was not talking about the Cell... but multicore which is something that applies to every CPU.... or what... you are saying that multicore do not apply to the CELL nor IBM?

"Multi-core is not the future; proper usage of multi-core architecture is. I know you want to spread propaganda about "how much Microsoft contributes to the world", but it's far more important to properly educate others, not spread doctrines."

I didn't know that Multicore was a Microsoft thing... there I gave you a link about IBM and multicore... IBM is one of the biggest contributor to the multicore landscape...

You are just alergic to Microsoft and wherever they do is wrong... and can't stand anything that microsoft is doing.. or does...

Then again.. what do you know about anything... you are so dumb that you didn't even know IBM involvement in this arena...

Show all comments (13)