__THISRES__81653.jpg "Fly... by °Phill 3 weeks 5 hours ago")
QUAD CORES
After AMD released the DUAL cores ahead of INTEL (and Intel was broken hearted...) INTEL got back on the game by first releasing the new QUAD CORES (YEY!) (lucky...) Then AMD was lagging and released their version, the PHENOM CORES where some benchmarkers found many bugs. (T_T). It didn't leave a really good taste in the mouth.
Ok... Here are the questions...
Which would you prefer NOW, INTEL's Quad Cores or AMD's Quad Cores?
Which would you prefer (after AMD cleans up the mess on their cores), INTEL's Quad Cores or AMD's Quad Cores.
Ok, the volume of the transistor is getting doubled while the space is getting really smaller. Cores of the future are getting denser in the tiniest package. Anyway, the rate is always double (base 2 logarithm) i.e.( 1,2,4,8,16,32) like binary. 4 cores is quad core. 8 cores is octo cores... I guess... Ok now, what would they name a die package with 16 cores in it? =) XD
Ok... Here are the questions...
Which would you prefer NOW, INTEL's Quad Cores or AMD's Quad Cores?
Which would you prefer (after AMD cleans up the mess on their cores), INTEL's Quad Cores or AMD's Quad Cores.
Ok, the volume of the transistor is getting doubled while the space is getting really smaller. Cores of the future are getting denser in the tiniest package. Anyway, the rate is always double (base 2 logarithm) i.e.( 1,2,4,8,16,32) like binary. 4 cores is quad core. 8 cores is octo cores... I guess... Ok now, what would they name a die package with 16 cores in it? =) XD
My one in a million angel
I'm running an Intel Core 2 Q6600 Quad Core CPU right now, and I'm very happy with it, the CPU usage almost never hits 100%, I'd take Intel.
Yeah. Seeing that they really crafted a really powerful core, Intel is leading and AMD eats dust...
My one in a million angel
16 cores would be hexadeca core. same premise as geometry.
i've always preferred AMD, but that's mainly because they often pair it with larger cache and bus. but side-by-side, i've always found them to be relatively equal, so i look for the RAM , cache and bus specs when i'm considering a PC.
i've always preferred AMD, but that's mainly because they often pair it with larger cache and bus. but side-by-side, i've always found them to be relatively equal, so i look for the RAM , cache and bus specs when i'm considering a PC.
4 months 2 weeks ago
From what I've heard, they've already fixed their buffer problem (http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/27/amds-fastest-phenom-x4-9850-desktop-cpu-tested-intel-points-an/)
Also, I'd jump on the bandwagon and go with Intel, since they're about the same price and Intel has faster ones than AMD, if you want like the 3.0GHz stuff.
And 16 cores would be hexadeci- I'm guessing, since hexadecimal is base 16 ;)
Also, I'd jump on the bandwagon and go with Intel, since they're about the same price and Intel has faster ones than AMD, if you want like the 3.0GHz stuff.
And 16 cores would be hexadeci- I'm guessing, since hexadecimal is base 16 ;)
I have 2 dual core processors (Intel X5150's) in my computer giving me a quad core system, if I wanted to, the system will take 2 quad cores giving me an 8 core system. Though I don't feel the need to upgrade at the moment as it's fast enough for the tasks I need it to perform.
I'm running some batch video re-encodes at the moment so it's sitting at ~95% total CPU usage on all cores (and will be for the next few days. I've left the system processing at ~95% for weeks at a time before). I have no problems playing WoW and running other OS's at the same time or doing other tasks though.
So far I've been very pleased with my Intel system. Given the choice though I'd go with whichever platform gave me the best price to performance for what I want to do. Currently that would be Intel.
That said I've been quite happy with my older AMD systems.
I'm running some batch video re-encodes at the moment so it's sitting at ~95% total CPU usage on all cores (and will be for the next few days. I've left the system processing at ~95% for weeks at a time before). I have no problems playing WoW and running other OS's at the same time or doing other tasks though.
So far I've been very pleased with my Intel system. Given the choice though I'd go with whichever platform gave me the best price to performance for what I want to do. Currently that would be Intel.
That said I've been quite happy with my older AMD systems.
#749093 Quote Report Edited by ~DeepDragoon 4 months 2 weeks ago
+++ So long, and thanks for all the fish +++
4 months 1 week ago
I have a Q6600 too, and i managed to overclock it to 3.0 GHZ so it runs pretty well. To answer your question, octo core stuff isn't perfected yet. It's just basically 4 duo cores stuck together. That's why the extreme duo core systems are still faster than quad core in terms of benchmarking because the transfer of data (Moore's law i think) from a core to another takes longer...But a 16 core thing, i have no idea what it's called
4 months 1 week ago
A) Stop posting your topic in all caps, that's clearly against the rules.
B) Quad core is nice and worth it in my eyes when going to build your own desktop. With the power they have I'm sure I can finally run Insurgency and UT2k4 at the max graphics, although Insurgency maybe no since the only thing more demanding than the Source engine right now is the Cry one.
B) Quad core is nice and worth it in my eyes when going to build your own desktop. With the power they have I'm sure I can finally run Insurgency and UT2k4 at the max graphics, although Insurgency maybe no since the only thing more demanding than the Source engine right now is the Cry one.
Anime Planet: Spudsy2061
Intel simply has the better Quad core processors, performance wise. So unless you're really on a budget and/or you're no overclocker, I see no reason to buy AMD right now.
Myself, I've had a single core AMD A64 and am now working with an Intel C2D E6420. My next PC will have the next generation processors, which will be either the Nehalem or the Shanghai (Intel and AMD respectivily). Of course there's nothing clear about the performance yet, but my bets are on Intel.
Myself, I've had a single core AMD A64 and am now working with an Intel C2D E6420. My next PC will have the next generation processors, which will be either the Nehalem or the Shanghai (Intel and AMD respectivily). Of course there's nothing clear about the performance yet, but my bets are on Intel.
I doubt they'll name processors by the number of cores too far into the future; it'll just be model numbers.
@GA; Actually there is one good reason to buy AMD right now, and that is if you're building an HTPC, the 790 chipset has onboard video capable of churning out 1080p video with a 1.8GHz Sempron. With its 50nm package technology on the chipset it also runs cooler and more efficiently than any of Intel's mainstream- or enthusiast-oriented boards. Get a huge heatsink for the CPU and run completely fanless except for the power supply (I don't trust fanless PSU's quite yet).
Either way, it is hard to recommend AMD right now for pretty much everything else. I used to be an AMD only guy, but since the Core 2 came out, I went Intel and don't foresee going back anytime soon.
@GA; Actually there is one good reason to buy AMD right now, and that is if you're building an HTPC, the 790 chipset has onboard video capable of churning out 1080p video with a 1.8GHz Sempron. With its 50nm package technology on the chipset it also runs cooler and more efficiently than any of Intel's mainstream- or enthusiast-oriented boards. Get a huge heatsink for the CPU and run completely fanless except for the power supply (I don't trust fanless PSU's quite yet).
Either way, it is hard to recommend AMD right now for pretty much everything else. I used to be an AMD only guy, but since the Core 2 came out, I went Intel and don't foresee going back anytime soon.
4 months 1 week ago
I have cider mill OTL
The idea of quad cores is still so young it isn't funny, it is hard to get an operating system to work with duel cores let alone quad. You have to mod XP to get it to work with a duel core, I have no idea if it will even work with a quad efectivaly. Most software just isn't made to take advantage of the tech yet.
I'm sorry, but did you just pull that entire paragraph out of your ass?
I bet s/he did.
Anyway, would it be more cost-efficient to have more cores or faster processors in fewer cores manufacturing-wise? I would think fewer, but I have no idea or experience with that. :) Knowing the cost of the two would give us an idea of what to expect in the coming years.
Anyway, would it be more cost-efficient to have more cores or faster processors in fewer cores manufacturing-wise? I would think fewer, but I have no idea or experience with that. :) Knowing the cost of the two would give us an idea of what to expect in the coming years.
Orchid@GA; Actually there is one good reason to buy AMD right now, and that is if you're building an HTPC, the 790 chipset has onboard video capable of churning out 1080p video with a 1.8GHz Sempron. With its 50nm package technology on the chipset it also runs cooler and more efficiently than any of Intel's mainstream- or enthusiast-oriented boards. Get a huge heatsink for the CPU and run completely fanless except for the power supply (I don't trust fanless PSU's quite yet).
Sorry for the late reply, but this topic is about Quad Cores and high performance CPU's, hence I referred to that. I know the mentioned AMD chipset in ideal for a home cinema PC, but you're not gonna pop in a Phenom in such system.
I even got an AMD chipset in my PC. Only they've called it ATI, because it's for an Intel proc. (Abit Fatal1ty FI90HD mobo)