higher clocks vs more cores

[ed29a]

I think it really comes down to budget users vs. non-budget users.

Envy, pure and simple.

 

[grkM3]

How'd that 90nm Prescott work out for you? Or your 2.9GHz max-clock Llano compared to an 1100T?

If you are looking for suicide peak clocks, then sure, every node has impressed in this regard.

But looking at 24x7 stable clocks, my 32nm 2600K does 5GHz whereas my 65nm QX6700 did 4GHz.

I'm not expecting a 3770K to do much more than 5.3-5.5GHz 24x7 stable. But no doubt you'll be able to take it to 6GHz on some silly stupid Vcc and without any serious stability testing.

But be smart about this discussion and recognize you are talking about something that is very different from what the rest of us are talking about. It is your loss if you refuse to acknowledge this reality, the rest of us have no problem recognizing it for what it is.

you cant compare presscott that was a whole new arch and was way ahead of its process tech that intel had at the time.

if you built a prescott today in intels fabs with 22nm trigate you could bet your life it would clock like mad.

ivy is the same arch as sandy and its being made with trigate,it will clock higher with less power.I cant believe you just brought up different chips and different arch along with different fabs that build them.

if intel built an 1100t in there fabs with 22nm you think it would clock the same?

your 2600 clocks better than your qxxx becasue of intel fabs and advancments they made to the arch

 

[Diogenes2]

What was your original point, again ?

 

[AdamK47]

Prescott wasn't new. Willamette, Northwood, and Prescott all used the same NetBurst microarchitecture.

 

[jhu]

This is what I do with my computers. So more cores please.

 

[aigomorla]

If your machine doesnt show this... it wont impress me... i dont care what overclock you have... in my eyes its lacking!

if u have that machine i STRAIGHT UP HATE YOU like everyone else on this forum and post because we cant afford that machine, and try to enlarge our epenis by boosting the imaginary overclock and processor favored benchmarks, to match it in speed when its just not possible.


^ this is to make IDC go OH NOES~

 

[Concillian]

^^^lol

if Blizzard keeps releasing games that can only fully load up 2 cores (WoW, SC2, Diablo 3? I bet Diablo 3 too) then we're going to be needing the higher clocks.

I love Blizzard games...

But the truth is that they are made to scale down pretty well. They gameplay is so good that it overshadows middling graphics that don't demand serious hardware.

this is a case of want vs. need. You can want Diablo III to make use 4 cores, but the reality is it doesn't need it because Blizz is coding so laptop users can play Diablo III okay.

SC2 is a little different, as people probably play that competitively. That's one where you really want to be smooth with lots of units, but WoW and DIII are kinda like "who cares" as these play pretty well on Athlons and Phenoms and don't need 6GHz Ivy Bridge CPUs to offer smooth and consistent gameplay. Whatever their next major release is will have to be able to utilize more cores though. SC2 has more releases planned, but I expect these to be using the same engine.

 

[janas19]

I love Blizzard games...

But the truth is that they are made to scale down pretty well. They gameplay is so good that it overshadows middling graphics that don't demand serious hardware.

this is a case of want vs. need. You can want Diablo III to make use 4 cores, but the reality is it doesn't need it because Blizz is coding so laptop users can play Diablo III okay.

SC2 is a little different, as people probably play that competitively. That's one where you really want to be smooth with lots of units, but WoW and DIII are kinda like "who cares" as these play pretty well on Athlons and Phenoms and don't need 6GHz Ivy Bridge CPUs to offer smooth and consistent gameplay. Whatever their next major release is will have to be able to utilize more cores though. SC2 has more releases planned, but I expect these to be using the same engine.

Hey, that was very educational for me, so :thumbsup: to you

 

[Idontcare]

If your machine doesnt show this... it wont impress me... i dont care what overclock you have... in my eyes its lacking!

if u have that machine i STRAIGHT UP HATE YOU like everyone else on this forum and post because we cant afford that machine, and try to enlarge our epenis by boosting the imaginary overclock and processor favored benchmarks, to match it in speed when its just not possible.


^ this is to make IDC go OH NOES~

I have a single-threaded app that is windows based but I can spawn (and use) hundreds of simultaneous instances.

Would love to have a rig like what you showed there, provided it doesn't cost me $10k of course.

But it probably would, because I need about 2GB ram for each core (thread). The ram alone would probably be the single biggest cost adder in such a machin I imagine.

 

[soccerballtux]

If your machine doesnt show this... it wont impress me... i dont care what overclock you have... in my eyes its lacking!

if u have that machine i STRAIGHT UP HATE YOU like everyone else on this forum and post because we cant afford that machine, and try to enlarge our epenis by boosting the imaginary overclock and processor favored benchmarks, to match it in speed when its just not possible.


^ this is to make IDC go OH NOES~

I can tell by the pixels.