-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Toms Hardware previews Intel Quad Core Kentsfield
- Thread starter Coolone
- Start date
i'm still not sold on the desktop user's need for quad core. Maybe specific science crunching applications...where the program is specifically written FOR quad core...But I still don't see how the overall results reallly justify 4 cores.
I'm not bashing the technology as it will eventually be useful...but by the time 4 cores is something that we benefit greatly from I see much faster processors on the market
I'm not bashing the technology as it will eventually be useful...but by the time 4 cores is something that we benefit greatly from I see much faster processors on the market
Bobthelost
Diamond Member
Looks good for encoding, a complete waste of time for gaming, nice 🙂
theprodigalrebel
Lifer
They were saying something about a $999 price for the Core 2 Quadro Extreme. Not that $999 is cheap but it's great to see what (a few months from now) $999 will buy in terms of processing power. Hell, just 3 months ago, that's what those retarded P4 965 Extreme Editions cost!
Bill Brasky
Diamond Member
LOL
I think the argument about desktop users not "needing" 4 cores is silly. You could say we don't need a bunch of technology we use daily. But if it's available, why not use it? (besides price) Anyway, I feel confident that if a had four cores, I could put them to good use. 🙂
SpeedZealot369
Platinum Member
:Q
Looks very promising to say the least, but I don't see how 4 cores can be THAT much better then two cores, even for hardcore multitaskers.
Looks very promising to say the least, but I don't see how 4 cores can be THAT much better then two cores, even for hardcore multitaskers.
Bobthelost
Diamond Member
No one does that. Firstly Because you see slowdowns for HD useage in other programs, secondly because you don't need to. If you're running it in the background you obviously don't give a flying monkey testicle about the speed it processes at so you're not seeing any difference over a simple 2 core setup.
Your idea is based upon a theoretical useage pattern that doesn't exist for the most part, mine is based upon reality.
Slowdowns with HDs? Try running a real SCSI RAID array and that problem goes away REAL fast. Those who are looking to plop down the cash for Kentsfield aren't going to be using $50 SATA or IDE disks.
"For The Most Part" being the key word. There is always a cliche that has a use for it, and will use it.
I posted it in the CPU section yesterday but the search function for this site isnt that great admittingly. Although you could have looked at first or second page and found it. ;-)
Anyway, its a interesting read IMO. What suprised me most was that they moved the launch time up to October. Another kick to AMD while they are down I'm guessing. ::chuckle::
Anyway, its a interesting read IMO. What suprised me most was that they moved the launch time up to October. Another kick to AMD while they are down I'm guessing. ::chuckle::
