• 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.

You can never have enough CPU!

Hulk

Diamond Member
Two weeks ago I upgraded from a P4 3.06 to an E6400 o/c to 3.2GHz. As you can image the performance increase was absolutely stunning. Video editing previews were MUCH better, lower render times, windows snapping open, etc...

I was thinking, "man this is gonna satisfy me for a long time."

Well I'm already thinking about quad core. Last night I was compressing some video, surfing the web, and watching TV and the TV was stuttering a bit. I was thinking, "damn! I need quad core!"

I'm a core junkie!
 
I'm not.

I would much rather have 5 GHz C2D than more same speed or slower C2Q.

There are far too few applications benefitting from more than 2 cores for me to get very excited about quad core+

Then again, if you're an insanely heavy multitasker, i suppose...
 
Only video editing I see using more then 2 cores is Hi def codec. basic mpeg2 stuff seems become IO limited and rarely use more the 50-70% of total 4 cores....

I had quad amds and saw little advantage. I have a quad INtel chip now and see similar gains over 2 cores in similar apps. I need to try some of the new H.264 codecs more thoroughly but usually higher the quality and analysis it will use 4 cores....

DVDshrink only maxes at 85-88% of all 4 cores but when deep analysis is runnig it is about pegged at 100% for entire duration.
 
I'd even go so far as to say that 99% of all people that want Quad Core CPUs will not even use 4 cores let alone maxing out 2. There's alot of "me too" and "I have the best stuff" attitudes flying around lately.
 
I like the single core socket 939's. I bought a spare last week. I intend to use them until my last stick of ddram dies. I bought a total of 7 sticks in the last 3 years, including a dual channel pack of crucial for only $50 after rebate. I gave away an old system a few days ago to a co-worker who was using an old pentium hand me down. He was very happy to get a socket a system with leftover parts.
 
Originally posted by: Duvie
Only video editing I see using more then 2 cores is Hi def codec. basic mpeg2 stuff seems become IO limited and rarely use more the 50-70% of total 4 cores....

I had quad amds and saw little advantage. I have a quad INtel chip now and see similar gains over 2 cores in similar apps. I need to try some of the new H.264 codecs more thoroughly but usually higher the quality and analysis it will use 4 cores....

DVDshrink only maxes at 85-88% of all 4 cores but when deep analysis is runnig it is about pegged at 100% for entire duration.

*drool* i've been doing a lot of x.264 encoding recently and itching to try it on a c2d 😀
 
I agree. A fast enough CPU can run a browser and other things at the same time, we don't need a core for every single application when we suddenly decide that everything has to be done at the same time. That's why processors have time-sharing, after all.
 
Back
Top