1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Quad Core!

Discussion in 'Computers, Games, Electronics etc' started by endlesszeal, Sep 13, 2006.

  1. endlesszeal

    endlesszeal Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,670
    Likes Received:
    35
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Snap, it looks like Intel is starting to get its ducks in a row and doing some good with their big muscles. The success of their Pentium M lead to Conroe and now to a good quadcore. Its not a true quad-core, two dies stuck together, but still a kick ass processor. Not a big whoop to gamers or single-threaded apps, but if you're into heavy video/audio, encoding, etc... its a nice gain. Im excited to build another rig in 2-3 yrs as my 1.5 yrs old AMD64 is still good enough to run Vista (maybe not HD).

    Intel's Core 2 Quadro Kentsfield: Four Cores on a Rampage | Tom's Hardware
     
  2. TurboMirage

    TurboMirage YEEAAAHHH VIP

    Messages:
    24,577
    Likes Received:
    696
    Joined:
    May 20, 2003
    Location:
    Central, MA
    thats just soooo nice :)

    i LOVE my dualcore.

    mmmmm quadcore....
     
  3. lsvtec

    lsvtec GNU/Linux Evangelist

    Messages:
    5,453
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    Greater Portland, OR
    It is really cool, I admit. But I have to find it amusing that Intel is taking the Gillette route.
     
  4. reikoshea

    reikoshea HS Troll...And Mod Moderator VIP

    Messages:
    12,633
    Likes Received:
    193
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    ahahahahahaha :laughing1:
     
  5. MaaseyRacer

    MaaseyRacer Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco, Ca.
    In all honesty when I went from my single core AMD 64 to my dual care AMD 64, I did not see much of a difference. Especially in gaming (I know most games do not support multiple cores). I think XP handles muli-cores poorly. However, my inner nerd is jerking off with furry about quadcore processors.
     
  6. lsvtec

    lsvtec GNU/Linux Evangelist

    Messages:
    5,453
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Location:
    Greater Portland, OR
    I saw really big performance gains form my 2 Ghz Pentium M laptop to my Pentium D 930 desktop. Kernel compiles are significantly faster, as are any other compile with a decent enough makfile for concurrency.

    The guys at Tom's were saying the same thing, Windows Media Encoder took significantly longer to complete a task with 4 cores than it did with 2. The scheduler in XP is pretty lame.
     
  7. Sabz5150

    Sabz5150 FALCON PUNCH!!!

    Messages:
    3,335
    Likes Received:
    41
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2003
    I have yet to try a dualcore system. I've had my share of dual processor machines though and yes, compile speeds were improved drastically.


    Windows has always had sub-par SMP support. That's one of the reasons I like Linux.
     
  8. 97hatch

    97hatch ?

    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    Anderson IN
    just built me a new system with a amd64 x2 3800 2ghz .(runing at 2.6 and stable as can be :) i went witht the amd due to it being able to comunicate between the cores internally and i just love amd.


    I would have to agree the intell is useing the gillette method more is better
     
  9. endlesszeal

    endlesszeal Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,670
    Likes Received:
    35
    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    WTF?? AMD is also. Theyre going to release the 4X4 quad-core by end of this year and desktop by Q2 of 07'.

    There is no reason to buy an AMD dual-core at the moment unless 1)you're upgrading a single core AMD cpu, 2) Constraining budget 3) Not going to overclock at all.

    The X2 and Core 2 are pretty similar at lower speeds (e.g. E6300 vs 3800, E6400 Vs 4400) but when you start hitting near the 2.4 ghz area, the Intels crush the AMDs and not to mention many Intels are easily going 3.0ghz in beyond, some even 4.0ghz. Not many AMDs can do that except a opterons, fx, san diego, and certain lucky manschesters.


    Anyway, like i said, no real benefits at the moment for anyone outside heavy a/v, but soon when more programs are better written for smp and Windows is more multi-core friendly, it'll be the way of the future.

    note; anandtech got two kenstfield workin gin a mac pro! 8 cores? WTF? crazy.
     
  10. MaaseyRacer

    MaaseyRacer Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,980
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2002
    Location:
    San Francisco, Ca.
    I saw the anandtech article, but Mac OS rocks with multi cpu's and cores. When I went DP, and DC on my macs huge difference. My AMD 64 3700+ to my 4400+ X2 4400+, was not that big of a difference. I was hoping for more. My 3200+ Athlon XP to Athlon 64 3700+ was major. As for AV most of the AV programs are limited to RAM requirement. Final Cut is one of the only ones (Other than Avid) that is breaking that tradition, and has full support for distributed computing. Unfortunatly Logic is still stuck at a 2GB limit, but the distributed computing helps that out greatly. I wish Adobe would get off their asses and move past the 2GB limit.
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page