One of our digital video members paid over a grand for the new B stepping intel quad cores when they came out.
Several months later the G stepping with better heat characteristics was half that.
Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.
Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.
Dual core VS quad core
Started by
locally pwned
, Mar 02 2009 07:48 PM
29 replies to this topic
#16
DaChew
-
- Members
- 10,317 posts
- OFFLINE
Visiting Alien
- Gender:Male
- Location:millenium falcon and rockytop
- Local time:09:13 PM
Back to top
#17
Sneakycyber
-
- BC Advisor
- 6,232 posts
- OFFLINE
Network Engineer
- Gender:Male
- Location:Ohio
- Local time:09:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 04:27 PM
One of our digital video members paid over a grand for the new B stepping intel quad cores when they came out.
Several months later the G stepping with better heat characteristics was half that.
OUCH!!
Chad Mockensturm
Network Engineer
Certified CompTia Network +, A +
Network Engineer
Certified CompTia Network +, A +
#18
dpunisher
-
- BC Advisor
- 2,234 posts
- OFFLINE
- Gender:Male
- Location:South TX
- Local time:08:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 05:13 PM
Newer games claim multi-core support...I imagine true support would have to be implemented from the ground up.
That's the problem. Game engines almost have to be written from the ground up to take advantage of multiple cores, and even then it is still a bleep to get it to work correctly. Just because a program is "multithreaded" doesn't mean it is "multicore" optimized. There is a list out there somewhere, possibly on "Tom's Hardware", that lists games/benchmarks and their multicore utilization.
I am a retired Ford tech. Next to Fords, any computer is a piece of cake. (The cake, its not a lie)
3770K @4.5, Corsair H100, GTX780, 16gig Samsung, Obsidian 700 (yes there is a 700)
#19
Swordie
-
- Members
- 792 posts
- OFFLINE
- Gender:Male
- Location:Miami, Florida
- Local time:08:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 06:03 PM
As a general rule, if you're saving money go with AMD. But if you demand the best performance and have the cash to spare, Intel is the preferred choice. Intel's i7 kicks almost all other desktop processors to the ground, but the processors are expensive and require new and costly motherboards.
i7's cost as much as a basic 2 core Computer.. Literally. I saw this in an Ad for Best Buy- a 8GB x4 Phenom costed about 699.99.. This i7 costed 1199.99.. I was a bit stunned..
Anyhow; I'd go with the 4 cores. Even if everyone is saying the games are utilizing them, eventually, the games will. And besides, you could never know, you might need that extra -push-..
Who said I couldn't have everything?
#20
hamluis
-
- Moderator
- 64,230 posts
- OFFLINE
Moderator
- Gender:Male
- Location:Killeen, TX
- Local time:07:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 06:12 PM
Gamers are in a catch-22, IMO (I am not a gamer).
By the time the games take advantage of quad-cores...the video requirements will have escalated, since newer games always (IMO) seem to increase the demands for "optimum performance."
And by the time that many gamers get the hardware for (now-obsolete) games...the cycle has started anew.
I find it very interesting...to say the least.
In the meantime, really good hardware comes about and quickly filters down to price-levels schmucks like me can afford and take advantage of...thanks to the fact that gaming seemingly really drives the Land Of Computers these days.
So ordinary users have systems that are much faster than they need or understand...many of them don't seem to understand that having 4 cores or 2 cores...is not necessarily going to improve the mundane tasks they perform on a system.
Louis
By the time the games take advantage of quad-cores...the video requirements will have escalated, since newer games always (IMO) seem to increase the demands for "optimum performance."
And by the time that many gamers get the hardware for (now-obsolete) games...the cycle has started anew.
I find it very interesting...to say the least.
In the meantime, really good hardware comes about and quickly filters down to price-levels schmucks like me can afford and take advantage of...thanks to the fact that gaming seemingly really drives the Land Of Computers these days.
So ordinary users have systems that are much faster than they need or understand...many of them don't seem to understand that having 4 cores or 2 cores...is not necessarily going to improve the mundane tasks they perform on a system.
Louis
#21
Swordie
-
- Members
- 792 posts
- OFFLINE
- Gender:Male
- Location:Miami, Florida
- Local time:08:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 06:27 PM
I guess you do make a point here. The average computer user won't even know the difference between the Dual and Quad core, besides the price.
Honestly, if your a true gamer, your going to replace all the items you can. And yes; the land of computer is driven by Gamers. It's a sad thing, but it's the reality.
Edit: Edited to remove unnecessary quote. ~tg
Honestly, if your a true gamer, your going to replace all the items you can. And yes; the land of computer is driven by Gamers. It's a sad thing, but it's the reality.
Edit: Edited to remove unnecessary quote. ~tg
Edited by Swordie, 03 March 2009 - 08:48 PM.
Who said I couldn't have everything?
#22
DaChew
-
- Members
- 10,317 posts
- OFFLINE
Visiting Alien
- Gender:Male
- Location:millenium falcon and rockytop
- Local time:09:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 08:41 PM
The gamers or enthusiasts with deep pockets funding R&D is fine with me
I'll come along a year or two later and pick up a 3-400$ card or cpu for less than half that.
If they can afford a 50% depreciation every year more power to them.
I'll come along a year or two later and pick up a 3-400$ card or cpu for less than half that.
If they can afford a 50% depreciation every year more power to them.
Chewy
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
#23
Swordie
-
- Members
- 792 posts
- OFFLINE
- Gender:Male
- Location:Miami, Florida
- Local time:08:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 08:50 PM
50% Depreciation.. Yearly? For a Q6600?.. Are you sure? I don't think it will drop that badly this time around, but like for the i7's, or new Phenom Blacks, that's not a rare sight. The Q6600 was 699 at one point. You can get it now for only about 269.
i7's currently cost about 999. I think they might be about 449 around March 2010.
More Supply= Lower Prices
i7's currently cost about 999. I think they might be about 449 around March 2010.
More Supply= Lower Prices
Who said I couldn't have everything?
#24
DaChew
-
- Members
- 10,317 posts
- OFFLINE
Visiting Alien
- Gender:Male
- Location:millenium falcon and rockytop
- Local time:09:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 09:16 PM
the Q6700 @ $280.00 5/10/2008 this was the G stepping and an improved model over the B stepping extreme
At launch time, Intel's price for the Core 2 Extreme X6800 was US$2999 each in quantities of 1000
The Core 2 Extreme was officially released on July 29, 2006.
In some cases you see a 50% depreciation in 6 months or less
Deep deep pockets
At launch time, Intel's price for the Core 2 Extreme X6800 was US$2999 each in quantities of 1000
The Core 2 Extreme was officially released on July 29, 2006.
In some cases you see a 50% depreciation in 6 months or less
Deep deep pockets
Chewy
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
#25
Swordie
-
- Members
- 792 posts
- OFFLINE
- Gender:Male
- Location:Miami, Florida
- Local time:08:13 PM
Posted 03 March 2009 - 09:55 PM
Core 2 Extreme is 799 I believe. It's a.. approximate 75% depreciation from 2006. It's be 18 months, so yeah, you got it right on the spot with the 50-6 month policy :]
Who said I couldn't have everything?
#26
the_patriot11
-
- BC Advisor
- 6,940 posts
- OFFLINE
High Tech Redneck
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wyoming USA
- Local time:07:13 PM
Posted 04 March 2009 - 10:04 PM
Bill gates who once said 2 meg of ram is more memory then anyone will ever use?
I'm heard 648KB of RAM, or something in that area.
He wasn't looking at computers with graphics, games, and multimedia capabilities of our computers now. He was probably just thinking word processors, basic games.
well, he prolly said that to, you forget who were talkin about here, the biggest virus producer on the market
"Silence in the face of Evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.
#27
Swordie
-
- Members
- 792 posts
- OFFLINE
- Gender:Male
- Location:Miami, Florida
- Local time:08:13 PM
Posted 04 March 2009 - 11:26 PM
That's only because 80% of the Market is Microsoft. If Microsoft was Linux, I highly doubt Microsoft would still be the biggest virus producer on the market.
Who said I couldn't have everything?
#28
the_patriot11
-
- BC Advisor
- 6,940 posts
- OFFLINE
High Tech Redneck
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wyoming USA
- Local time:07:13 PM
Posted 05 March 2009 - 12:14 AM
yeah, thank God its not, we dont need bill gates ruining linux to. and youve obviously never heard the joke that windows is the only virus with documentation or the only one you pay for, etc etc. the joke was that windows itself was the virus. lol jokes just arnt any fun if you have to explain them. . .
"Silence in the face of Evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.
#29
DaChew
-
- Members
- 10,317 posts
- OFFLINE
Visiting Alien
- Gender:Male
- Location:millenium falcon and rockytop
- Local time:09:13 PM
Posted 05 March 2009 - 08:29 AM
Dual core VS quad core
Let's try to stay on topic
Let's try to stay on topic
Chewy
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try.
#30
the_patriot11
-
- BC Advisor
- 6,940 posts
- OFFLINE
High Tech Redneck
- Gender:Male
- Location:Wyoming USA
- Local time:07:13 PM
Posted 08 March 2009 - 01:07 AM
Id say right now for your average community and even for most gamers, dual core is more then enough power then one needs. quad cores are nice but far more power then we can or ever will use. In fact, hate to admit it, most of the games I run will run on a 3 ghz single core. face it, most of us are just geeks and enthusiasts who just plain love having all that power at our fingertips, whether we can use it or not. As of yet, I have only used one quad core, and thats it, I put duals in all my builds to keep them affordable to the customer, and pretty much none of my customers so far have any need for a quad. me personally, I game, but my athlon x2 6000+ windsor does everything I want it to and has power left over. I play mainly COD4 and CODWaW, and when I ran certain benchmarks, even that super pi benchmark I found off this site, it actually compares pretty well to intels q6600. granted the q6600 is a low end quad by todays standards, Id still say to match up pretty evenly in most my tests to that particular quad is pretty good. (i have used a q6600 at church, but most of these tests was taking my results and matching them up with what others on the internet have posted) so Im pretty happy with my dual core, I hope to have it last me a few years cuz my wife told me im not allowed to build myself another one for a few years. lol. anyway thats my 10 cents. :D
"Silence in the face of Evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act." ~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
If I don't reply within 24 hours of your reply, feel free to send me a pm.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
