Here's a good discussion kicker! What are your takes on the new C2Q processor line and how do you think this will effect the future?
The Not Official Official Core 2 Quad Thread!
- Thread starter airhendrix13
- Start date
At this time I dont think its worth the price unless you do alot of rendering work. Gamers wont get much benefit from it till next year when more games supporting/utilizing multiple cores make their way to market. Just my first impression/opinion of it.
Probably not even then since games are generally GPU bound even with fast single-core CPUs.
By late next year there might be a few games that fully load a second core for optional physics, but they'll be written to only need 2 cores not 4.
By late next year there might be a few games that fully load a second core for optional physics, but they'll be written to only need 2 cores not 4.
I have to agree with skott. Most apps are still single threaded and multithread apps wont justify the cost of a quad core processor for at least 1-2 years. I say buy a quad core cpu when applications are truly demanding it, not now. As for the 4x4, I have a feeling it will fit in great with use of servers but for a home machine, intel has that well wrapped up.
Question 2: Is intel jumping the gun releasing the quad core early or are we in need of the quad core now?
Your opinions....
Question 2: Is intel jumping the gun releasing the quad core early or are we in need of the quad core now?
Your opinions....
It's really a gamble. How soon will games be implementing multi-threaded programming that benefits from more than two cores? Half a year? A year? Two years? With the articles I read about UT2007, Half-Life 2: Episode 2, and a few others, I'd be willing to bet we'll see games starting to take advantage of four cores (and more) within a year or less.
The main question is, is it better to buy a cheaper dual core now and upgrade to quad core later, or just buy a quad core now and get it over with? I organized a comparison of the two choices to sort out what I think the benefits and risks are, with a focus on gaming. I compared the QX6700 to the E6700, since they're rated at the same clock speed and will show the same performance in today's games.
Quad Core Now
Pros:
Cons:
Dual Core Now, Quad Core Later
Pros:
Cons:
Like I said, it's all a big gamble. No one knows what the future will hold. You could spend $500 on the E6700 now, wait until games are fully multi-threaded and multi-core ready, and spend another $500 on a quad core equal or better than the QX6700 later. However, if games are redesigned sooner than expected, and quad cores become a huge factor in gaming performance, that E6700 could very easily become a thorn in your side, and $500 missing from your wallet.
Yeah, yeah, I know. You could spend $180 on the E6300 instead. This is just a comparison of what you'd have to spend to have the same stock power out of both processors.
The main question is, is it better to buy a cheaper dual core now and upgrade to quad core later, or just buy a quad core now and get it over with? I organized a comparison of the two choices to sort out what I think the benefits and risks are, with a focus on gaming. I compared the QX6700 to the E6700, since they're rated at the same clock speed and will show the same performance in today's games.
Quad Core Now
Pros:
- The QX6700 was released as an enthusiast chip, and Intel already stated that the next quad core release will be targeted more at the main-stream audience; it is not likely to be outdated in the next six months or more
- When Dual Core processors first came out, many suggested that the extra core would be a waste; it's almost impossible to find a high-end, pre-built, single core system these days
- There's no hassle of swapping out your processor in the future
- Many encoding programs benefit from the extra cores
- You get to brag about having the latest and greatest :roll:
Cons:
- AMD has yet to release its 4x4 system, which (though very unlikely) may provide better performance
- AMD has yet to release its quad core, single die processor, which could leave Kentsfield in the dust
- The technology is brand new, and will eventually drop in price
- Early steppings may not be reliable or good overclockers
Dual Core Now, Quad Core Later
Pros:
- If multi-threaded games aren't released in the next two years, you won't be stuck with two extra cores that you can't even use
- Early multi-threaded games may benefit most from dual cores, and only slightly more from quad cores
- The $1000 that you could spend on the QX6700 now may buy an even better $1000 processor in the future
Cons:
- If multi-threaded games are developed sooner than expected, you may find yourself spending $900+ on the QX6700, or $700+ on the Q6600 IN ADDITION to the money you already spent on your dual core
- Quad Cores could be snatched up quickly, and demand may cause the intial prices to raise (consider enthusiasts and businesses)
- If you do any sort of encoding work, have the money spend, and DON'T jump on the quad core bandwagon... ... ...yeah.
Like I said, it's all a big gamble. No one knows what the future will hold. You could spend $500 on the E6700 now, wait until games are fully multi-threaded and multi-core ready, and spend another $500 on a quad core equal or better than the QX6700 later. However, if games are redesigned sooner than expected, and quad cores become a huge factor in gaming performance, that E6700 could very easily become a thorn in your side, and $500 missing from your wallet.
Yeah, yeah, I know. You could spend $180 on the E6300 instead. This is just a comparison of what you'd have to spend to have the same stock power out of both processors.
very nicely done CurseTheSky. unfortunately i believe that technology is being produced too fast for the consumer to keep up with. only a few months after the c2d the c2q is released. this is great that we are moving forward but it is simply puting gaping holes in our wallets.
n7
Elite Member
- Jan 4, 2004
- 21,281
- 4
- 81
Big waste of money for 99% of consumers.
Even i don't have any immediate interest, since it's going to be years before we actually see more than one or two games start to truely utilize all four cores efficiently.
I do a fair bit of video encoding, but IMO, unless you're someone does encoding video/audio for a living, it's not worth it at all.
Even i don't have any immediate interest, since it's going to be years before we actually see more than one or two games start to truely utilize all four cores efficiently.
I do a fair bit of video encoding, but IMO, unless you're someone does encoding video/audio for a living, it's not worth it at all.
I hope it helps lower the price of dualcores a little, otherwise, not of great interest right now.
as long as you can actually use it I don't think it's a waste software will support it sooner or later and take the real advantage of having multiple cores.
I read somewhere Intel was saying they'll have 1 million quadcores out before AMD gets a single one out. So I think Intel is just trying to keep AMD knocked on its butt for as long as possible. I am hoping however that AMD's version is a huge success. Not because I plan to get one (not planning on it anyway) but because if AMD matches or exceeds Intel's it'll create competition with Intel and that'll be good for us consumers. Imagine a QuadCore price war? That'd be sweet! It'll keep Intel from pricing too high maybe?
This i definitely agree with.
I'm interested in always having the 'latest and greatest' but can't really afford budget stuff....lol.
So, bring on the price wars!!
Alright lets move onto a new question. What are you looking forward to thats coming out in the near future? I'll start.
I am very excited about some of the new technology like the G80, RD600, and DDR3, but I also know that they will have a variety of problems that will only take more cash to fix.
For example:
DDR3 is going to bring overclocking to a new level but you can guarantee that 2 gigs of it will at least run you $400-$600. Look at DDR2 when it first came out, it actually ran a wee bit slower than DDR! Of course over time DDR2 started to shine but at release DDR3 will be over priced and under implemented.
The G80 will truly be a monster. But this won't come at a price. There has been rumors it will be 10"-12" long. I don't think it will be quite this large but with all the extra transistors you can count on a bulky card. It is also rumored it will take about 230 watts of power! Put the rest of the system together and you'll end up with a 600 watt and up system. One more thing. The G80 will be the first direct x10 compatible card. This means Nvidia has no mistakes to look at yet and adjust off of. I think it will be best to wait a couple months and let ATI and Nvidia sort out the flaws so you really get your moneys worth.
The RD600 has already proven to be a hefty overclocker. But we must look at ATI's current situation. (this is more for intel users.) ATI has said they will not be making chipsets greater than 1066MHZ for intel sockets. So if you're looking to run DDR3 and/or some newer quad cores, you might be fresh out of luck. Of course in the PC market things can take a sharp turn.
I am very excited about some of the new technology like the G80, RD600, and DDR3, but I also know that they will have a variety of problems that will only take more cash to fix.
For example:
DDR3 is going to bring overclocking to a new level but you can guarantee that 2 gigs of it will at least run you $400-$600. Look at DDR2 when it first came out, it actually ran a wee bit slower than DDR! Of course over time DDR2 started to shine but at release DDR3 will be over priced and under implemented.
The G80 will truly be a monster. But this won't come at a price. There has been rumors it will be 10"-12" long. I don't think it will be quite this large but with all the extra transistors you can count on a bulky card. It is also rumored it will take about 230 watts of power! Put the rest of the system together and you'll end up with a 600 watt and up system. One more thing. The G80 will be the first direct x10 compatible card. This means Nvidia has no mistakes to look at yet and adjust off of. I think it will be best to wait a couple months and let ATI and Nvidia sort out the flaws so you really get your moneys worth.
The RD600 has already proven to be a hefty overclocker. But we must look at ATI's current situation. (this is more for intel users.) ATI has said they will not be making chipsets greater than 1066MHZ for intel sockets. So if you're looking to run DDR3 and/or some newer quad cores, you might be fresh out of luck. Of course in the PC market things can take a sharp turn.
I can use 4 cores!!! But the price for the Q6600 was more then 2.66x the cost of the C2D 6600...If it gets down in the 550-600 I could possibly bite on it...I paid 550 for my (2) opteron 265s and this thing oc' mildly to 3ghz would be almost double it in speed....
I would love four cores. I'd run F@H on all of them and PWN the boards.
Overclock it.
When gaming, let one or two cores off the hook. FTW.
Overclock it.
When gaming, let one or two cores off the hook. FTW.
Here's info on the G80.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4812
About 92% increase in performance over the X1950XTX!
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4812
About 92% increase in performance over the X1950XTX!
Hmm, Core 2 Duo that uses 65W, and a Quad that uses 130W but nothing takes advantage of the power?
I think I'll get a Kentsfield-capable motherboard with a Core 2 Duo processor and wait until I see the need for 4 cores.
I think I'll get a Kentsfield-capable motherboard with a Core 2 Duo processor and wait until I see the need for 4 cores.
it depends for what. in certain cases, it can really help. say rendering in 3D Studio Max. in games at low resolutions it can help a lot. but at high resolutions, you're going to be GPU bound anyway. IMO, worth it but only for rendering and multi-threaded apps. not for gamers.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter