Random Thinking - Will there soon be a 6-Core Mobile Processor?

rated by 0 users
This post has 13 Replies | 2 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 645
Joined: Feb 2010
wallacemanengine Posted: Sun, May 9 2010 4:36 AM

With intel's recent release of the i7 Mobile Quad Core Series of processors, Intel is way ahead in the game over AMD. AMD, being stuck on their recent Turion II Ultimate Edition X2 Dual Core processor series; is more than likely trying to find a way to come back at Intel. So far, they've made one huge blow, in the Graphics Department. With the release of the Radeon 5900 Series; came the first ever 2GB Single Deticated graphics card. Now however, AMD must get out of their "Ultimate Turion Problem" by either coming out with a faster Mobile Quad Core than the i7 Mobile or by possibly creating the first ever mobile 6-Core processor. Now the possibility of even doing so are nearly impossible because of power consumption, and the fact the laptop would need to weigh about 30 pounds. Even if these computers are ever made, noone will want a 30 pound laptop and so they will not sell very well at all. So it all boils down to: Will innovation for mobile computers halt at Quad Core processors, will Intel pull ahead again, and will AMD be able to make a comback and get out of the "Ultimate Turion Problem"?

Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Sun, May 9 2010 9:52 PM

Well I don't think the 5900 was the first dedicated 2GB card. EVGA as I remember had some GTX280 cards that were 2GB's. Also it's all a manufacturing issue, 6 cores is a relatively new thing and they would have to wait until the die shrinks to a point where they can make a mobile processor out of it and not have it take as much heat and power, because who'd want a laptop who's power is constantly drained. Also Laptops do not weigh 30 pounds, processors themselves are as light as a feather. And it's the same problem with AMD too so don't assume it's just Intel. Basically what I think is, we will have mobile hexa-core processors but in the near future. The problems still need to be worked out and the benefits need to come to them.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 6,181
Points 90,135
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: United States, Virginia
Moderator

I don't think AMD is going to come out with mobile 6 core CPUs any time soon. Lets face it. They are not going to outright beat Intel in the speed arena. What they are really concerned with is beating them on the low and mid range price. And when it comes to that I think they are doing a pretty good job.

Take a look at the current 6 core offerings.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010340343%201302855196&bop=And&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Order=PRICE&PageSize=100

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 645
Joined: Feb 2010

Nah im pretty sure the 5900 came first although I could be wrong but I doubt it seing as NVIDIA is too focused on their ION Technology. Also, Laptops can be any weight, the one im on right now is kind of old school and weighs 14.3 pounds as is, also the new Toshiba Qosmio Q880 weighs in at 18.8 Pounds and features an Intel i7-Q720M Processor so more cores is sure to go up in weight, especially if Toshiba goes through with their new 20 Inch Laptop Idea, which too me sounds like an awful idea. The 18.4 Inch screen is big enough for god sakes!

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 645
Joined: Feb 2010

Oh as for Bob on the Cob, yes I think your right, AMD Will never beat Intel in speed pecause of 3 things. 1.) AMD tries to be eco-friendly and you cannot reasiticly save power while demanding top-notch performance. 2.) AMD computers on average are $100 cheaper than Intel Computers and are designed for budgets. 3.) AMD computer still do not have Hyper Treading Tecnology! you would think by now the morons would invent a similar technology but no, AMD is just way too focused on their new 6-core processor technologies. However, that being said, the 6-cores are very, VERY nice. However, Intel has faster ones!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Mon, May 10 2010 9:58 AM

wallacemanengine:

Nah im pretty sure the 5900 came first although I could be wrong but I doubt it seing as NVIDIA is too focused on their ION Technology. Also, Laptops can be any weight, the one im on right now is kind of old school and weighs 14.3 pounds as is, also the new Toshiba Qosmio Q880 weighs in at 18.8 Pounds and features an Intel i7-Q720M Processor so more cores is sure to go up in weight, especially if Toshiba goes through with their new 20 Inch Laptop Idea, which too me sounds like an awful idea. The 18.4 Inch screen is big enough for god sakes!

Check the sites son. Some manufacturers made a custom version with 2GB's of memory. Not 1GB for each GPU like on the 5900.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010380048+1068337012+1305520548&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&Subcategory=48&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&srchInDesc=

Also. The fact that a newer processor could increase the weight of the motherboard is ludicrous at best. CPU's don't weigh a lot, and the motherboards don't weigh a lot either. The only thing that can add weight to a notebook is the hard drive, DVD drive or any additional stuff such as a dedicated mobile GPU. While it's true that laptops can be any weight (especially gaming notebooks), the fact that a new processor will add weight to a notebook is stupid.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Mon, May 10 2010 9:58 AM

*double post, sorry guys. didn't realize it until now*

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Mon, May 10 2010 10:09 AM

wallacemanengine:

Oh as for Bob on the Cob, yes I think your right, AMD Will never beat Intel in speed pecause of 3 things. 1.) AMD tries to be eco-friendly and you cannot reasiticly save power while demanding top-notch performance. 2.) AMD computers on average are $100 cheaper than Intel Computers and are designed for budgets. 3.) AMD computer still do not have Hyper Treading Tecnology! you would think by now the morons would invent a similar technology but no, AMD is just way too focused on their new 6-core processor technologies. However, that being said, the 6-cores are very, VERY nice. However, Intel has faster ones!

Okay, here are things were I have to correct you.

1. The eco-friendlyness of AMD is not the reason why the processors are slow. I mean it's eco-friendly if it uses less power and the manufactures found ways to make the process of manufacturing it eco-friendly but that is not a valid reason why AMD processors are slow. I mean come on, Intel processors has a SpeedStep thing that basically controls the clock speed of a processor in order to make it consume less power and produce low heat and even that makes it eco-friendly.

2. While AMD processors usually are cheap, they are not purposely designed for budgets. AMD creates processors that are basically one step behind Intel in terms of performance, this is not due to the fact that they create processors for the budgets. A well known fact is that in 2005, AMD's processors basically beat Intel (The Pentium D era) because they were producing products based on Pentium 3 technology if I remember correctly and Intel's processors were inefficient as ***. But then Intel came out with the Core 2 Duo's and they reclaimed their performance crown.

3. *facepalm* Hyper-threading technology does not equal up to a faster processor, it is an Intel gimmick (although some apps do work nice with hyper-threading). Even a Core i5 Quad-core processor doesn't have hyper-threading and it is faster then an AMD processor. But I do applaud AMD for making cheap, affordable 6-core processors.

There is basically no explanation to why Intel is faster then AMD, more advanced technology, some special production process we don't know about, we don't know! But it is fact that Intel has the fastest processors around.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 645
Joined: Feb 2010

Ok look since your obviously not getting this I will explain it to you in dumbest terms I can describe. Yes I Understand that processors are featherweights compared to the rest of a machine, but because of the processor change, you will need a larger power supply (Bigger Battery), Larger/More Powerful Motherboard and or Memory (Laptop Size Increases, along with WEIGHT), and a few other things that will bemome heavier as well, overall DRASTICALLY increasing the overall size and WEIGHT of the machine.

I also Understand that companies do offer LIGHTWEIGHT versions of laptops with even the newest technology in them. For example, you CAN get a 16 inch laptop with the i7 Quad Mobile but the 17 inch laptops are specifically recommended for breathing room between components. Also, 15 inches is PROVEN to be the smallest size of a laptop with enough room inside of it so even fit a motherboard that can run an i7 Mobile Quad. Therefore, if a 6-core mobile processor ever revieled itself, to get a High-End version of it (i.e. like the i7's high end Toshiba Qosmio Q880, which weighs 18.8 pounds), the machine would weigh at LEAST 20 pounds if not 25-30.

As for the Graphics thing, of course manufacturers can make their own CUSTOM versions yes, but I was referring to the STOCK profile GPU's (i.e. what you buy DIRECTLY from either NVIDIA or ATI), in which case ATI was the first with a STOCK 2GB SINGLE GRAPHICS PROCESSOR for computers.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 645
Joined: Feb 2010

Correcting me? No offense but quite a bold statement considering I am 4 years through a 6-year masters degree in Computer Engineering. I simply think you misunderstood me, so let me explain:

The Eco-Friendliness of an AMD Processor is PART of the reason they are slow, it is this and the fact that AMD Processors are cheaper and less Performance-Oriented. AMD Focuses on consumers, not performance. AMD offers much more affordable computers that can still get the job done for money-wearry people such as myself. The only reason AMD even keeps manufacturing chips is so that AMD computer owners can get at least a good feel for High-End Intel Computers while being able to save a good amount of cash. For Example, although they both suck as companies, Dell And HP both offer AMD and Intel system models that are nearly EXACT in features, size, processor speed, and memory, ect, ect. However, when you look at the exact details of each system, one performs better than the other, and that "other" costs about $100 less. The more expensive one is ALWAYS the Intel-Based system. Why? Hyper-Threading Technology. As all technological geeks (such as ourselves) know, Hyper Threading technology DOES NOT IMPROVE PROCESSOR SPEED, I NEVER SAID THAT. What it does is it creates two logical processors out of a single Phisical Processor (i.e. If you have an Intel i7 Quad Core, you have 8 Threads of Processing), making the OVERALL PROCESSOR PERFORMANCE (i.e. system SPEED) FASTER. Plus Intel simply has better engineered, more high quality hardware, which goes without saying.

In conclution, Hyper Threading Technology DOES make your computer MUCH faster, but WILL cost you a pretty penny. Also, on a side note, AMD Sucks!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Wed, May 12 2010 3:30 AM

wallacemanengine:
Correcting me? No offense but quite a bold statement considering I am 4 years through a 6-year masters degree in Computer Engineering.

Really? You never mentioned that before, in any of your posts.

wallacemanengine:
The Eco-Friendliness of an AMD Processor is PART of the reason they are slow, it is this and the fact that AMD Processors are cheaper and less Performance-Oriented. AMD Focuses on consumers, not performance.

Tell me how the AMD processors are eco-friendly. Because every day, processors are getting smaller and consuming less power and generating less heat, making them sort of eco-friendly. Also you may not know this but Intel also focuses on the consumers, you should take a closer look at the processors that are not marked "extreme".

AMD is a company and like most companies they try to make the best chips they can with the budget they have. While I do appreciate them for making processors that are representative of their price, I just don't think that's what they do. From when they started, they've been making clones of Intel processors and now they're in competition with Intel. Sure Intel might have better processors but how do you know what their purpose is?

wallacemanengine:
The only reason AMD even keeps manufacturing chips is so that AMD computer owners can get at least a good feel for High-End Intel Computers while being able to save a good amount of cash.

What feel? What could possibly be different from the AMD processors and the Intel processors? Except for differences in application speed and Game FPS. Again, you don't know what their purpose is but I'm writing this from the perspective of a corporation. AMD is a competitor to Intel and therefore must try to meet or pass Intel in both speed and performance.

wallacemanengine:
For Example, although they both suck as companies, Dell And HP both offer AMD and Intel system models that are nearly EXACT in features, size, processor speed, and memory, ect, ect. However, when you look at the exact details of each system, one performs better than the other, and that "other" costs about $100 less. The more expensive one is ALWAYS the Intel-Based system. Why? Hyper-Threading Technology.

I think the difference in price is due to the Intel processors costing a little bit more then the AMD processors, and no, it's not because of the Hyper-Threading technology. Like I said, not every Intel processor has Hyper-Threading. Look at this processor.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115215

It's a mainstream version of the Core i7 but it does not have Hyper-Threading. I know what hyper-threading is since I owned a Pentium 4 processor in the past but I'm just saying that it's not the only reason why it's fast and why Intel processors cost so much. But I do agree with you on the fact that Intel has better engineered, more high quality hardware.

While I do agree with you on some things, I completely disagree on others. AMD like every other company is working very hard and their latest processors are catching up to Intel but don't assume that you know their purpose. While AMD does offer cheaper processors then the competition, it is not their main purpose.

Also I think you mean two "virtual processors" as they're not really true processing cores but additional threads.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 645
Joined: Feb 2010

I agree with all you have said above. Not ALL AMD processors are based on eco-friendliness, and not ALL Intel processorsare performance based. While I do reconise the fact that the i5 series QuadCores somethimes DONT have Hyper-treading technology, the ones that do, such as i7 Quad Cores, Cost more money, because 1.) Newer Technology, 2.) Better Speed, 3.) HT enabled.

AMD isnt ALWAYS eco-friendly, but if you look at dates of similar processors, such as Phenom II Quad and Core 2 Quad, the phenoms run at a lower speed, using less wattage, meaning more Eco-Friendly. While this may not have been pourposly slower than Intel, it still is. And because of this simple fact, AMD is forced to locer their prices.

Once AMD Picked up on this fact, AMD began focusing MORE (NOT COMPLETELY) on affordable consumer products, such as the latest Athlon II processor (Check out HotHardware Headlines). There is your proof. Intel has never reverted to a previous series of processors just to unleash a new cheap one, but instead improve their older series as well, and that, my friend, is a fact.

by the way, i also did mean "virtual processors" thanks for that correction. For some reason I had a brain fart and couldnot explain threads...

so in conclution, we are both right. while AMD doesnt focus COMPLETELY on cheaper, slower products, they still make SOME for that very pourpose, in fact, I might even goas far as to say thats the way MOST AMD processors are... 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 3,236
Points 37,910
Joined: Mar 2010
AKwyn replied on Fri, May 21 2010 4:10 PM

wallacemanengine:
While I do reconise the fact that the i5 series QuadCores somethimes DONT have Hyper-treading technology, the ones that do, such as i7 Quad Cores, Cost more money, because 1.) Newer Technology, 2.) Better Speed, 3.) HT enabled.

You're not getting the point. The Intel Core i5 processor that doesn't have hyper-threading is still faster then the AMD processor. The usage of hyper-threading technology as the ONLY reason why Intel processors are fast is very idiotic.

wallacemanengine:
AMD isnt ALWAYS eco-friendly, but if you look at dates of similar processors, such as Phenom II Quad and Core 2 Quad, the phenoms run at a lower speed, using less wattage, meaning more Eco-Friendly. While this may not have been pourposly slower than Intel, it still is. And because of this simple fact, AMD is forced to locer their prices.

What do you mean by speed, I've looked and the Phenom II Quad's and the Core 2 Quad's have the same speed in gigahertz. Which is the frequency the processor performs at. Perhaps you mean the efficiency of the processor, in that case AMD made a CPU artichecture that couldn't quite keep up with the Intel's and due to an excess supply which they were not selling, they had to lower the price.

wallacemanengine:
Once AMD Picked up on this fact, AMD began focusing MORE (NOT COMPLETELY) on affordable consumer products, such as the latest Athlon II processor (Check out HotHardware Headlines). There is your proof. Intel has never reverted to a previous series of processors just to unleash a new cheap one, but instead improve their older series as well, and that, my friend, is a fact.

Same here, the Core i5 and i3 lines are also designed for budget. You keep omitting the Core i7's and the Phenom's for some reason. Both of AMD and Intel's lines that I suggested are focused on budget but there are also lines that are made for Performance. Also I don't know what you mean but the Core 2 Duo's and Quads are being sold, right now, with no improvements or new features added to them.

 

"The future starts with you; now start posting more!"

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 30
Points 645
Joined: Feb 2010

I really wish there was an easier way to explain this to you man, but there is not one. Therefore we will continue arguing over this for quite some time because there is no real way for me to explain this to you in a clear sence that would actually make sence to you; however, I will attempt it anyways. As per say your first point, that the i5 non-Hyper Threading series out performes the Phenom or Phenom II Series. Intel's i5 Series has been very unique in their desktop processor arcatecture lately. While I am not an Intel Engineer, my schooling at Colorado Technical University has givin me some insight as to the differences between Intel and AMD. Since we seem to be discussing the same facts over and over again, I will start off with a "fresh post" right here. Detail by detail, I will explain the main differences in the processor industry between Intel and AMD.

The first, and most obvious points to be made here today are that Intel currently triumphs over AMD in the processor industry because of overall performance and popularity dominance. The second and yet another obvious point to be made here today is that Intel-based systems (weather it be desktop or notebook), cost on average 5% more than AMD-based systems. Yet another obvious point is the fact that AMD does not offer a multi-threading technology like Intel's HT (HyperThreading) technology. A final and yet another obvious point is that Intel's Processors contain better build quality, more pins, and other features such as SpeedStep (the Automatic Adjustment of Processor Speed to save power for laptops), offering the first 64-Bit Operating Arcatecturte (back in the days of Windows XP and the Pentium III), as well as a few other features I cant think of off the top of my head.

Using these FACTS, one can easily determine that Intel's technology will be faster than AMD's technology at any state, weather it be desktop or laptop, solo, dual, or quad core technology, gaming or buisness purpose.

Now back to your first point. While the i5 may not have HT technology included, it does on average offer better speed (in GHz) than the recent Phenoms and Phenom IIs and also has more pins to it as well as an obviously faster motherboard in use with it and finally, better build quality overall. Each and every one of those just-stated FACTS can individually mean the difference between a faster, more powerful system, and a less powerful, more budget based system, as the AMD based system is obviously going to cost much less than the Intel one.

While AMD does not purposly design their systems for budget (they do actually strive for performance sometimes), because of their inability to keep up with Intel, they are FORCED to begin a standing point on budget based systems to attract customers and keep the company alive. Meanwhile, Intel has it easy, dominating in all fields of power, clearing out manufacturers such as Alienware, Falcon-West, and AVA Direct. One of Intel's latest processors, the i7-720QM Mobile Quad Core processor, equipped with HT, SpeedStep, Turbo Boost, and a number of other, smaller features, has sparked wide range demand for gaming performance laptops, and thus Intel has shot so far into the lead over AMD, that there is actual controversy from the engineers at AMD over weather or not they will EVER be able to catch back up with Intel. AMD has; however, taken the first step in the attempt to regain power over the computer market, with one of their lastest processors, the Athlon II series of 6-core desktop processors, designed SPECIFFICALLY for extremly low budgets. These processors, so far, have been a tremendous success to AMD, and have shot through the world with flying colors.

Now to the next point, the i3 series were based on buget needs, yes; however, they are still on average $75 more than simple Athlon II based systems, which means AMD is still the stronghold in budget needy customers. The i3 series is also the same as the i5 is over Phenom, offering staggering performance options that dwarf AMD in every way.

The final point I will discuss here today is that the reason Core 2 Quads are not being improved yet they are being sold is because Intel is much, much too busy engineering the lastest i7 6-Core Systems, such as the i7-980X 6-Core Extreme Edition desktop processor, which, by a LANDSLIDE, destroys anything AMD can currently throw at it, and with very little effort as well. One could even go as far as to say the i7-980X's Extra Threads, created by HT technology, themselves alone could out perform AMD's latest Phenom II Processor all together.

In conclution, with the supporting FACTS above, one can clearly conclude that AMD simply creates buget systems because they have to, to keep AMD alive and on the market, because if they costed as much as Intel-beased systems, there would be absolutly NO reason to buy an AMD based system what so ever.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (14 items) | RSS