Yes, but I think the quad core CPU's on the market now are designed for servers. I don't think the desktop or mobile versions have been released yet.
Also those quad core chips aren't true quad cores. There are 4 cores but they're on two chips I believe, so technically they're not true quad cores.
I'm waiting for AMD to rebound, they got the shit kicked out of them when Intel released the Core 2 Duo. They should be releasing something amazing in the next year or so. AMD isn't used to loosing the performance battle with Intel, they were badly embarrassed.
If I remember correctly in the future Intel is going to go below 45 nm's. I think to 35 nm's and maybe even as low as 25 but I might be wrong on that.
When you say 64 are you talking about the number of cores that can be theoretically placed on one chip? I read somewhere that at least in theory the number of cores on a single chip will grow by leaps and bounds, I just can't remember if the number they used was 64 or not.
Yes, ATI is releasing the R600 but not until the fourth quarter of 07, that's a whole year after the 8800 hit the market.
Firstly, being a fanboy of any brand (in your case AMD) is stupid. You're telling me, you'll pay more for an inferior product because you adore AMD?
Come on now, grow the fuck up...
Pound for pound, Intel beats AMD so badly in this round it's not even funny. Intels 45nm fabrication process is a year ahead of IBM and AMD's. That means more transistors per CPU, more CPU's per wafer, thus cheaper and faster, less energy hungry CPU's from Intel.
There are quad cores available in the non-Xeon niche, but yeah you're right, they're basically 2 dual core CPU's glued together.
I was actually joking about 64 cores, but... I do believe Intel produced a proof of concept CPU with 64 cores. 64 cores isn't the limit, the limit is determined by how much these technology companies can shrink the CPU dies.
You're probably correct about the graphics cards. Certainly nvidia pulled out the can of whoopass with the 8800.
