Vista 64 is coming and I'm feeling the itch....

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I see so many people buying quad core cpu that don't even have a use for it, other than to say I got a quad core.
What a waste.

This is nothing new with PC enthusiast. It's always been about the latest and greatest. Just because CPU's now have multiple cores it's a waste? People have been buying top of the line $1000+ Pentium's for years and a lot probably never really had a need for one.

The real question is have you seen how a quad core plays solitaire?

 

[nyker96]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
I think I might have to scratch my itch and dump my 6750...I can't help myself and the thought of 8GB and a quad running 3GHz is almost too much for me to take.....the shame of it all....

yes I think your web browsing experience will be 0,001 seconds faster!

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
I think I might have to scratch my itch and dump my 6750...I can't help myself and the thought of 8GB and a quad running 3GHz is almost too much for me to take.....the shame of it all....

Do it!

I did it and the itching has stopped

 

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: gersson

Do it!

I did it and the itching has stopped

That only a temporary relief. It'll come back, always does.

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: gersson

Do it!

I did it and the itching has stopped

That only a temporary relief. It'll come back, always does.

lol I was going to do 16GB (why? I have no idea) but I'd have to get a server board (=no!)

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Good for you.
There are many others who are buying one though without even knowing that it won't make team fortress faster or make much of a difference at all.
They see quad core and assume its an instant speed boost.
For the majority of pc users its not going to do much of anything for them.

Were you one of the people, like myself, who was recommending that no gamer should buy a dual-core CPU ~2 years ago? If so, you were wrong, since that same $300 that they spent on a 2.4 Ghz single-core is pretty much useless to them now. Yet, if they had spent that same $300 on a dual-core 3800, they'd still be able to play the latest games with it. Sure, it would need to be overclocked a few hundred Mhz, but even today, it's a viable gaming processor, assuming the person already owns it. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that same thing is already happening with quad-cores. E.g., it's happening at a much faster pace than the switch to dual-core optimized games did.

 

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: gersson

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: gersson

Do it!

I did it and the itching has stopped

That only a temporary relief. It'll come back, always does.

lol I was going to do 16GB (why? I have no idea) but I'd have to get a server board (=no!)

Yea, its taken every bit of will power I have to not go to 8GB. No reason except memory is so dirt cheap how can I not. I'm just waiting for a MIR to pop up for the same type of memory I have and I'm on it.

 

[Dewey]

Originally posted by: Tweakin

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I see so many people buying quad core cpu that don't even have a use for it, other than to say I got a quad core.
What a waste.

I agree...I just want to throw everything I have at Vista and see if it's really as bad as everyone says it is.

I just finished installing Vista 64 bit on a new Q9450 system (8GB, 8800GTS, ds3l). Seems great. I'm not seeing any problems. Only been running a couple of days...

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: myocardia


Were you one of the people, like myself, who was recommending that no gamer should buy a dual-core CPU ~2 years ago? If so, you were wrong, since that same $300 that they spent on a 2.4 Ghz single-core is pretty much useless to them now. Yet, if they had spent that same $300 on a dual-core 3800, they'd still be able to play the latest games with it. Sure, it would need to be overclocked a few hundred Mhz, but even today, it's a viable gaming processor, assuming the person already owns it. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that same thing is already happening with quad-cores. E.g., it's happening at a much faster pace than the switch to dual-core optimized games did.

Nope.
A dual core actually does benefit a user , even if the application does not support smp.

Quad cores are not going to be in demand for gaming any time in the near future.

How do I know ?
I work with developers daily.
They are having a hard enough time implementing dual core.
Intel has just formed a research group, made of game developers, to try to overcome some of the obstacles that bringing smp to real time applications causes.
Its very hard to code for smp for real time applications.


Is it a waste for a normal user who doesn't have applications that will use quad core to buy one ?
I think it is.
They would have done much better to get a faster dual core.
It would give them a much better overall performance boost.

Do I use quad cores ?
You bet.
And not one or two.
But sometimes 40-135 of them at one time.
I do 3d rendered animations for cutscenes in gaming and often the render farms we use are composed of hundreds of quad core + dual core machines.

When I see someone who buys a quad core just to have one, then its not put to good use, I see that as a waste.

 

[richwenzel]

vista64 is actually more annoying than XP....

 

[Dewey]

Originally posted by: richwenzel
vista64 is actually more annoying than XP....

Could you please site an example? I'm new to Vista 64 and I find it pleasant in many ways. Definitely no worse than XP in my short experience.

 

[deepinya]

Once Vista becomes a better gaming platform, Ill move to it. Most benchmarks favor XP heavily in frames.

 

[chizow]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: myocardia


Were you one of the people, like myself, who was recommending that no gamer should buy a dual-core CPU ~2 years ago? If so, you were wrong, since that same $300 that they spent on a 2.4 Ghz single-core is pretty much useless to them now. Yet, if they had spent that same $300 on a dual-core 3800, they'd still be able to play the latest games with it. Sure, it would need to be overclocked a few hundred Mhz, but even today, it's a viable gaming processor, assuming the person already owns it. And, in case you hadn't noticed, that same thing is already happening with quad-cores. E.g., it's happening at a much faster pace than the switch to dual-core optimized games did.

Nope.
A dual core actually does benefit a user , even if the application does not support smp.

Quad cores are not going to be in demand for gaming any time in the near future.

How do I know ?
I work with developers daily.
They are having a hard enough time implementing dual core.
Intel has just formed a research group, made of game developers, to try to overcome some of the obstacles that bringing smp to real time applications causes.
Its very hard to code for smp for real time applications.


Is it a waste for a normal user who doesn't have applications that will use quad core to buy one ?
I think it is.
They would have done much better to get a faster dual core.
It would give them a much better overall performance boost.

Do I use quad cores ?
You bet.
And not one or two.
But sometimes 40-135 of them at one time.
I do 3d rendered animations for cutscenes in gaming and often the render farms we use are composed of hundreds of quad core + dual core machines.

When I see someone who buys a quad core just to have one, then its not put to good use, I see that as a waste.

Well here's an easy one for ya you can take to your bosses and get a nice pat on the back for: Use the extra cores for real-time in-game video recording. That's part of the reason I upgraded to a Quad, as FRAPs just annihilates performance in some games that already stress 1/2 cores.

Another example would be running multiple games or multiple instances of the same game simultaneously. Might not seem a huge benefit to most, but it is quite convenient for MMOs or perpetual on-line games. Or if you don't feel like saving/exiting and want to take a break or play a different game, you can just alt-tab instead of exiting and reloading etc. Combined with 8GB I found it also improved my gameplay experience, as I'd frequently play through entire games without quitting out, just alt-tabbing. When I resumed cached data stayed cached for the most part (unless it was force purged) so there wasn't as much loading when I resumed.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Nope.
A dual core actually does benefit a user , even if the application does not support smp.

So, you're young enough that you weren't around when we all starting making the switch from single-cores to dual-cores, obviously. Are you aware that it's been more than a year since any major title was released that wasn't dual-core optimized? If so, you'd realize that your exact argument can be made to support only buying a quad-core today, since any newer game will be utilizing 100% of at least two cores (all by itself), meaning you'd want to buy a minimum of three cores today, now wouldn't you?

Quad cores are not going to be in demand for gaming any time in the near future.

Man, you are uninformed, aren't you? Here's a screenshot of a game I bought in late 2006, utilizing all four of my cores, at my monitor's native resolution, with an overclocked 8800GT: http://img208.imageshack.us/my...6600coreusage01jj2.jpg

 

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: Dewey

Originally posted by: richwenzel
vista64 is actually more annoying than XP....

Could you please site an example? I'm new to Vista 64 and I find it pleasant in many ways. Definitely no worse than XP in my short experience.

I find all operating systems to be annoying at one time or another. I do agree that Vista 64 bit is nice and for me it works, but for some change just isn't accepted well. My PC is a gaming machine and I have no problems playing any of the latest games. Waiting on a sale for Assassian's Creed so I can try that out.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: flexy
wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista

8gb might be overkill...but nothing speaks against ist, especially now with ram so cheap.
I am pretty satisfied with my Q6600 at amost 3600...although i sometiems wonder when are all those 4 cores actually really used

I just had a horrible thought. What if Windows 7 is just as bad as Vista? Don't say it can't happen either

Exactly, people keep saying wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista. Umm, Windows 7 will just build off of Vista not to mention we won't see it until probably 2010 at the earliest. By then XP will be almost 10 years old. How many power users are still using Windows 98 now, ten years later?

I disagree. Gates has said it will be out in the next year. ME was a disaster, and it was only two years between ME and XP. Vista is going down in history as another ME.

 

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: flexy
wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista

8gb might be overkill...but nothing speaks against ist, especially now with ram so cheap.
I am pretty satisfied with my Q6600 at amost 3600...although i sometiems wonder when are all those 4 cores actually really used

I just had a horrible thought. What if Windows 7 is just as bad as Vista? Don't say it can't happen either

Exactly, people keep saying wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista. Umm, Windows 7 will just build off of Vista not to mention we won't see it until probably 2010 at the earliest. By then XP will be almost 10 years old. How many power users are still using Windows 98 now, ten years later?

I disagree. Gates has said it will be out in the next year. ME was a disaster, and it was only two years between ME and XP. Vista is going down in history as another ME.

Umm, wrong. The media took what was said and ran with it. They have already come out to say don't expect Windows 7 until 2010 at the earliest. Article.

Vista is now where as bad as Windows Me, anybody that has used both operating system for an extended period of time knows that.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: flexy
wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista

8gb might be overkill...but nothing speaks against ist, especially now with ram so cheap.
I am pretty satisfied with my Q6600 at amost 3600...although i sometiems wonder when are all those 4 cores actually really used

I just had a horrible thought. What if Windows 7 is just as bad as Vista? Don't say it can't happen either

Exactly, people keep saying wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista. Umm, Windows 7 will just build off of Vista not to mention we won't see it until probably 2010 at the earliest. By then XP will be almost 10 years old. How many power users are still using Windows 98 now, ten years later?

I disagree. Gates has said it will be out in the next year. ME was a disaster, and it was only two years between ME and XP. Vista is going down in history as another ME.

Umm, wrong. The media took what was said and ran with it. They have already come out to say don't expect Windows 7 until 2010 at the earliest. Article.

Vista is now where as bad as Windows Me, anybody that has used both operating system for an extended period of time knows that.

So Gates was BS-ing? I doubt it. It looks like he leaked something he shouldnt have, and now they are trying to back-track. They dont want people to stop buying Vista.

Vista users can be content in knowing that they were the beta testers for a *hopefully* superior OS that all of us XP-ers can jump to in the next 12-18 months.

 

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: bka4u2c

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: flexy
wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista

8gb might be overkill...but nothing speaks against ist, especially now with ram so cheap.
I am pretty satisfied with my Q6600 at amost 3600...although i sometiems wonder when are all those 4 cores actually really used

I just had a horrible thought. What if Windows 7 is just as bad as Vista? Don't say it can't happen either

Exactly, people keep saying wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista. Umm, Windows 7 will just build off of Vista not to mention we won't see it until probably 2010 at the earliest. By then XP will be almost 10 years old. How many power users are still using Windows 98 now, ten years later?

I disagree. Gates has said it will be out in the next year. ME was a disaster, and it was only two years between ME and XP. Vista is going down in history as another ME.

Umm, wrong. The media took what was said and ran with it. They have already come out to say don't expect Windows 7 until 2010 at the earliest. Article.

Vista is now where as bad as Windows Me, anybody that has used both operating system for an extended period of time knows that.

So Gates was BS-ing? I doubt it. It looks like he leaked something he shouldnt have, and now they are trying to back-track. They dont want people to stop buying Vista.

Vista users can be content in knowing that they were the beta testers for a *hopefully* superior OS that all of us XP-ers can jump to in the next 12-18 months.

Well alrighty then. If you believe there will be a new OS next year then continue to wait. The choice is yours. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy anything.

I enjoy Vista 64 bit just like I enjoyed using XP SP2. Just remember how you feel now because I can guarantee there will be the same back lash when Windows 7 is released, its happens with every operating system they've ever released back to 3.1.

Windows 7 is going to build off of Vista with the things they initially wanted to include in Vista. The only way it won't be is if they scrap Windows Server 2008 altogether too. The two go hand in hand.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Nope.
A dual core actually does benefit a user , even if the application does not support smp.

So, you're young enough that you weren't around when we all starting making the switch from single-cores to dual-cores, obviously. Are you aware that it's been more than a year since any major title was released that wasn't dual-core optimized? If so, you'd realize that your exact argument can be made to support only buying a quad-core today, since any newer game will be utilizing 100% of at least two cores (all by itself), meaning you'd want to buy a minimum of three cores today, now wouldn't you?

Young , that depends on your defenition.
I think I'm getting to be older than dirt.
I'm old enough to have kids in college, served in the first gulf war and have gotten degrees in electrical engineering, digital logic, and parallel systems design.
Don't confuse mult-tasking with multi-threading.
Saying that you would want to buy a minimum of three cores, because games are 'dual core optimized' shows you really don't understand how threading, especially in windows works.

Telling someone to purchase something for applications they might need in the future is not wise when they can purchase something that they can take full advantage of now for less money.

For the average user it is better to get the fastest dual core now than a mid range quad core.

Quad cores are not going to be in demand for gaming any time in the near future.

Man, you are uninformed, aren't you? Here's a screenshot of a game I bought in late 2006, utilizing all four of my cores, at my monitor's native resolution, with an overclocked 8800GT: http://img208.imageshack.us/my...6600coreusage01jj2.jpg

Uninformed ?
When was the last meeting you attended with game developers ?
Not opinions from a forum.
My last was november of 2007 with Blizzard North .
Did you attend GDC ?
I did , and can tell you that quad core was not what developers were talking about.

Do you have colleagues at Intel that are telling you about the conferences they attend discussing the issues they are having using smp in real time applications ?

I do , and the problems they are seeing are not going to be resolved quickly.

You played a game that made use of more than two cores.
That was in 2006, so where are the flood of games that use quad cores ?

 

[aigomorla]

mmmm well seeing how this is convince me thread:

You guys think i have enough ram?

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0892.jpg

Model is probably gonna beat me up now for wasting all those chips by not using them. <hiding>

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: aigomorla
mmmm well seeing how this is convince me thread:

You guys think i have enough ram?

http://i125.photobucket.com/al...aigomorla/IMG_0892.jpg

Model is probably gonna beat me up now for wasting all those chips by not using them. <hiding>

<-----------Throws mouse at aigomorla

I just hate to see powerful hardware sitting idle

 

[Tweakin]

sheesh...I'm sorry I ever asked the question

 

[bka4u2c]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
sheesh...I'm sorry I ever asked the question

Sorry, about that. Did sort of hijack the thread huh?

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Tweakin
sheesh...I'm sorry I ever asked the question

well when i read the title of this thread, its a please convince me to get nicer hardware thread.

Well, your asking to be convinced in nice hardware.

BTW the ram sticks you see i bought all on discount, the ones i paid for the most i use because i cant stand thinkn of 400 dollar sticks sitting idle.

But the most expensive of those chips is probably the patriot 4gb kits, which i have 2 of, and paid 69.99 for! The team xtreme's i paid 49.99 The OCZ i paid probably 59.99

The Tracers costed me a hugh penny, but i restrict usages on those. There my best sticks clocking @ 1210mhz with 5-5-5-10. But unfortunately they die really fast when under load or stress for long periods of time. So i just use them for a bench here and there.


When you F@H or WCG, dying ramsticks is the first problem you usually run into after a few months.