all of you quad core naysayers...

[Toadster]

Many people are whining "you don't need quad core" - but in other threads - you say that you'll buy AMD's quad when it's released - so which is it?

Are you downtrodding the current generation quad core products and just state that the applications aren't ready yet (denying any benefit)

Or - are you just going to jump on the quad bandwagon when you're team comes up to bat? (and thereby succumb to the benefit then?)

<stirring the pot before Q6600's are $266>

 

[Capt Caveman]

Weak

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Weak

LOL - surely you mean my post, not my CPU

 

[manowar821]

Who the hell said that "quad-core isn't important"?

I'll be waiting for Phenom.

 

[IGBT]

..I'm using an e6600 and still have a xp2400+ box. Don't want the thermal headaches of a quad core or the power consumption. I'll wait a couple years and see if the thermal/power character gets better.

 

[MarcVenice]

Back up your statement with some qoutes perhaps ? I dunno man, it's simply a fact that you will benefit more from a higher clocked c2d versus a lower clocked qaudcore. And I doubt people are saying they will buy a AMD qaudcore, there are barely any benchies out yet? How the hell would they know if it's gonna be better then a g0 stepping qaud from intel? The obvious benefit could be in it being a native qaudcore, but I for one don't know how that will affect things.

I think qauds are basicaly just for bragging rights, and will continue to be for probably another year or so, even when AMD's qaudcore comes out. Exept for people who actually do multitask like mad, encode stuff etc.

 

[Arkaign]

I don't think native vs sandwiched dual/quad core makes much difference in the end. The sandwiched Pentium 4 (Pentium D) ran exactly like you'd expect two P4s to run. Meaning : A 2Ghz A64 ran like a 3.2Ghz P4, and a 2Ghz A64 x2 ran like a 3.2Ghz PD. Given the heat/etc, I'd have gone with AMD against the P4/PD, but the fact remains, unless the cores need to communicate with each other extensively, it doesn't matter much. C2D is fast because of awesome IPC performance, not because its a native dual-core. C2Q same story, although the bus sometimes hits its limit feeding it access to memory.

Meh. We need AMD's new stuff to be good, but it's looking sort of iffy so far.

 

[Dacalo]

I am not really interested in Kentsfield. I think I will be upgrading to a E6850, and then wait for Yorkfield.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
I think qauds are basicaly just for bragging rights, and will continue to be for probably another year or so, even when AMD's qaudcore comes out.

I think the same way-- sure it would be nice to have one, but I still don't need one. As soon as I need one, I'll buy one. And the company that gets my money will be the company that has the most performance for my $$.

 

[f4phantom2500]

most things dont take advantage of quads yet, though i think they will pretty soon (within the next year or 2 i think), and the current quads don't oc well at all. so for most applications a higher clocked dual core will be faster than a quad that can't oc well. however, intel's 45nm quads and amd's new quads have promise, and since the extra cores don't really benefit right now, the general consensus is that you might as well wait for the new quads and see how they overclock/how much they're utilized by software at that time. of course, people who do things that take advantage of quads stand to benefit now, but i think most of the people here are gamers and/or overclockers so dual core chips are the better choice. plus they're way cheaper, which means better performance in apps that don't utilize quads for much less money, especially when you take overclocking into consideration. so there's no reason to buy quads until they overclock well *and* are more advantageous for the more common apps. because even if they overclock as well as dual cores, if the software doesn't utilize the extra cores then what's the point.

at least, that's my opinion .

 

[aigomorla]

I have 3 quadcores.

Q6600 @ 3.6
X3220 @ 3.7 <--- her max stable, however i keep her at 3.375 as a NAS. Uses less voltage then my Q6600 and is easier to cool because its a older quad.
X3210 <--- donated to my friend who needed a computer.

They all crunch on WCG.

I can care less about phenom, because i'll be picking up a penryn V8 around that time.

I MAY look into agenda FX octo, if it ever comes out, but im done with quads.



And the truth is, you really dont need a quad unless you do some serious graphic editing, or major crunching.

For me its crunching. But let me tell you guys straight, a quadcore @ 3.2-3.4ghz <--- about max on air, will lose to a dualcore @ 3.6.

And the dual core is a hell of a lot easier to cool.

 

[Toadster]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: aigomorla

And the dual core is a hell of a lot easier to cool.</end quote></div>

what temps do you have on your quads?

mine is around 68C when doing full bore BOINC 24x7 - but idles in the low 30's when i'm not BOINC'ing

my system on average runs at about 257W, and when tasked can jump to 360W...

 

[aigomorla]

My Q6600 @ 3.6 @ 75F ambients:
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...73/aigomorla/Q6600.jpg

My X3220 Doing bionic @ 60F ambients: <-- miss this temp. :T
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/NewTemps.jpg


Sorry no screenie of the X3210. Had to take her off water because my best friend wouldnt trust herself with a watercooled rig.

 

[Modelworks]

My biggest complaint about quad core, and even dual core , is that there isn't enough software taking advantage of it.

I do 3d work and it will devour as many cores as you can get.
Got 2, gulp, 4, 16, 32, bring it on !

The problem is all the other software.
Adobe Premiere , had to render out a clip last night and it sat there , using just 60% of a dual core.
Gaming , Oblivion- not much to gain, supreme commander - yeah somewhat

I'll go quad core when the price drops because of the 3d work, but for the average user I just see them having quad cores most of the time doing nothing.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
X3220 @ 3.7 <--- her max stable, however i keep her at 3.375 as a NAS. Uses less voltage then my Q6600 and is easier to cool because its a older quad.

Quad core NAS? WTF is your NAS doing that will even touch the potential of a quad core cpu?

 

[sdsdv10]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: aigomorla
X3220 @ 3.7 <--- her max stable, however i keep her at 3.375 as a NAS. Uses less voltage then my Q6600 and is easier to cool because its a older quad.

quad core NAS? WTF is your NAS doing that will even touch the potential of a quad core cpu?

From his previous post.

Originally posted by: aigomorla
I have 3 quadcores.

Q6600 @ 3.6
X3220 @ 3.7 <--- her max stable, however i keep her at 3.375 as a NAS. Uses less voltage then my Q6600 and is easier to cool because its a older quad.
X3210 <--- donated to my friend who needed a computer.

They all crunch on WCG.

I believe the NAS part is just a side use of the machine (not his desktop unit). The majority of the time it is contributing to distributed computing efforts.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: sdsdv10
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JackBurton
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: aigomorla
X3220 @ 3.7 <--- her max stable, however i keep her at 3.375 as a NAS. Uses less voltage then my Q6600 and is easier to cool because its a older quad.
</end quote></div>
quad core NAS? WTF is your NAS doing that will even touch the potential of a quad core cpu?
</end quote></div>

From his previous post.

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: aigomorla
I have 3 quadcores.

Q6600 @ 3.6
X3220 @ 3.7 <--- her max stable, however i keep her at 3.375 as a NAS. Uses less voltage then my Q6600 and is easier to cool because its a older quad.
X3210 <--- donated to my friend who needed a computer.

They all crunch on WCG.
</end quote></div>

I believe the NAS part is just a side use of the machine (not his desktop unit). The majority of the time it is contributing to distributed computing efforts.

It sounds more like a file server rather than a dedicated NAS unit.

 

[aigomorla]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: JackBurton
<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: aigomorla
X3220 @ 3.7 <--- her max stable, however i keep her at 3.375 as a NAS. Uses less voltage then my Q6600 and is easier to cool because its a older quad.
</end quote></div>
Quad core NAS? WTF is your NAS doing that will even touch the potential of a quad core cpu?
</end quote></div>

its actually a cruncher, that doubles as a NAS.

My enitre setup pulls around 35K points per day on WCG. Im a middle weight cruncher over at XS forums.

:T

So yeah, its a file server/cruncher/NAS. I have my HTPC stream off it, and my main rig. And theres a whole lot of porn on storage.

j/k about the porn

 

[Toadster]

Originally posted by: aigomorla

j/k about the porn

uh huh