Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Quad x Dual
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quad x Dual - Page 4

post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathsnapper View Post
One thing you guys need to remember is he wants this to last 2-2.5 years. By then more games will be optimized to use the four cores and the quad might just be pulling ahead of the dual. Or at least I hope more things are optimized for quadcores in 2010-2011.

While this is solely based on speculation, I have a feeling the quadcore will hold it's performance better than the dual core in the future (i.e. the next few years). Though if the only important performance was today and you were to upgrade sooner, then probably the E8500 because it will clock higher and this will matter more (unless you play quad optimized games out today like UT3 and GTAIV).

I would put my vote towards getting the quad rather than the dual.
Well like i said if you want something to happen people have to support it. But the problem is nobody is avoiding designing games a certain ways because of a lack of quad cores installed in the market. It's simply not needed. If you want to play GTA IV then all you have to do is look inside every game platform on the market. If you got that much CPU then thats what you need. Then you just have to decide if you want to play it on the game platform at low res or play it on computer with a boat load of video capability at high resolution.
A 2 ghz celeron, a 2.8 ghz northwood or prescott 32 bit cpu or even an athlon xp 2800 or higher would run GTA IV if someone threw out a motherboard that supported PCI express and you put enough graphics card in it. Even then you wouldn't need much. 9500GT would do it unless you ran at 1920x1080 rez.
You're not doing very well at speculating and predicting the future if you don't even notice that there's not exactly a ton of games out there that don't play on game systems and those game systems have pretty wimpy cpu's that go back to the desktop market some 4 and 5 years back.
Windows 7 and DirectX 11 will yank alot of chains that just don't exist and possibly couldn't exist for a long long long time. When it takes 10 to 60 million dollars to develop a hot game they aren't going to come out with one that will only run on a quad extreme just so people can feel good about having a quad extreme.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...GPU-Computing&
This is what it's all about. This is what it's been about for years. If you don't need these then all you're doing is making the powersupplies and SLI and tri-SLI cheaper for the people who want those. They might let ya help with folding but they really don't need the help any more.

I also wanted to say that by tight lipped about what they are planning and thinking all these companies don't give you enough information to even make a decision about what sort of future you want to lay a foundation for when you choose what to buy. But the supercomputer thing bugs me to no end. It makes a terrible future possible.

Hello. I'm a biological terrorist. And I'm a PC.
Hello. I'm a shadow government. And I'm a PC.
Edited by Hephasteus - 12/20/08 at 10:53pm
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
post #32 of 40
Everyone except Hephasteus can skip this post. It's just basically me bickering about why his 2ghz celeron and using P4s is fine in games 2 years down the road theory has a few flaws. I realize it's a massive wall of text and don't expect you to read it. Main point? I still suggest the quad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephasteus View Post
Well like i said if you want something to happen people have to support it. But the problem is nobody is avoiding designing games a certain ways because of a lack of quad cores installed in the market. It's simply not needed. If you want to play GTA IV then all you have to do is look inside every game platform on the market. If you got that much CPU then thats what you need. Then you just have to decide if you want to play it on the game platform at low res or play it on computer with a boat load of video capability at high resolution.
A 2 ghz celeron, a 2.8 ghz northwood or prescott 32 bit cpu or even an athlon xp 2800 or higher would run GTA IV if someone threw out a motherboard that supported PCI express and you put enough graphics card in it. Even then you wouldn't need much. 9500GT would do it unless you ran at 1920x1080 rez.
You're not doing very well at speculating and predicting the future if you don't even notice that there's not exactly a ton of games out there that don't play on game systems and those game systems have pretty wimpy cpu's that go back to the desktop market some 4 and 5 years back.
Windows 7 and DirectX 11 will yank alot of chains that just don't exist and possibly couldn't exist for a long long long time. When it takes 10 to 60 million dollars to develop a hot game they aren't going to come out with one that will only run on a quad extreme just so people can feel good about having a quad extreme.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...GPU-Computing&
This is what it's all about. This is what it's been about for years. If you don't need these then all you're doing is making the powersupplies and SLI and tri-SLI cheaper for the people who want those. They might let ya help with folding but they really don't need the help any more.

I also wanted to say that by tight lipped about what they are planning and thinking all these companies don't give you enough information to even make a decision about what sort of future you want to lay a foundation for when you choose what to buy. But the supercomputer thing bugs me to no end. It makes a terrible future possible.

Hello. I'm a biological terrorist. And I'm a PC.
Hello. I'm a shadow government. And I'm a PC.
GTAIV may run on a "2 ghz celeron" and "9500GT". But that's not the point, people want it to run, and they want to run at high settings. Using those components, judging by the PC port, it will probably look worse than on an xbox 360 or a ps3. When people build gaming computers they want their computers to run the game and make it look better than those.

You need to remember that you can't exactly compare game consoles to computers. You see, the consoles are standardized. Every PS3 has a very similar CPU. This means they can optimize for this CPU solely. Same goes for GPUs. They can't do this with PC games. They need the game to run on hundreds of CPUs, hundreds of GPUs, etc. And any given combination thereof.

That's why you can't compare the graphics a console can put out to the hardware it uses through equivalent PC hardware.

Also there are many games out today that won't run well on your proposed "2 ghz celeron" and "9500GT" combo. UT3? A 3ghz e4500 cpu was essentially a bottleneck for me on that game, going to a quad core more than doubled my framerate and made it playable where it was hardly playable before. Crysis? Obviously not going to like the 2 ghz celeron and 9500GT very much. Pretty much any recent game, over the past year, once you pump on some AA and max out the graphics won't run very well on that combo at all.

Now if, theoretically, for some reason Intel only ever made the 2 ghz celeron, over the past 5 years or so. And there was no AMD, meaning basically everybody had this exact same CPU. Then games could be optimized far better to run on this specific cpu and probably no other CPU. This would yield much higher performance on the CPU than we have today. Same goes for the 9500GT. This is not the case, at all.

You're right, they won't make one that requires the quad extreme. They will make the game run on plenty of budget CPUs 2 years down the road fairly well. And they will run on current budget CPUs if you turn off a few settings such as certain particle effects, etc. Today’s quad extreme processors won't be as competitive with even more low-end processors down the road. That's the way technology advances. The point is, the quad will probably be able to turn all the settings higher than the dual a couple years down the road while keeping a more playable framerate and performance. Which is exactly what I was pointing out in my post (had you read it).

Please, put together a computer with the 5 year old processor that you're referring to here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephasteus View Post
those game systems have pretty wimpy cpu's that go back to the desktop market some 4 and 5 years back.
And grab an equivalent GPU. Now put a game that's on consoles and computers, like oblivion or something. Turn up the graphical settings so that it looks as good as the xbox 360 in every way. I would be willing to wager that you will probably get less than 10fps. The xbox one, on the other hand, will play smoothly.

Some things are just non-comparable in such a way.

Also there are a few quad core optimized games already. The market population of dual and quadcore processors is increasing. As this market increases the game developers will be pushed to write code that's better optimized for multithreading. And as this happens things will start to work better with more cores. It's inevitable.

If you turn your attention to this recent STEAM survey (if you're unfamiliar STEAM is an extremely popular digital distribution, DRM, and multiplayer platform) you will see that almost 60% of the people surveyed have moved on to at least dual core, 10% of which are quads:
http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/60534...tx-10-rig.html
And STEAM is most often used and associated with Source games, or other Valve games, such as counter strike and Half-life. Which are games that a lot of people play with older hardware. This enforces the fact that people are moving on to newer CPUs with more cores. The market is increasing and as such more games will be developed with multithreading in mind.

Now I only see one computer you have listed on here. So I don't know if you have a gaming machine. But if you try to run recent games they are a lot more CPU demanding than you let off. You might expect that they don't require a lot more processing power than previous games, but they really do. Maybe try running a few really new games on your computer and see how they do.

Yes, GPUs will be used as general processors in some certain specific tasks in games in the future as well. I'm glad you recognize this. You also seem to recognize that some of the games you've played have had really good AI and that it's getting a bit better. The thing is, in the past when you wanted 100+ enemies or other beings on screen at a time you would have to dumb down the AI a bit to get decent performance. What people want now is 100 beings on screen, each of which having the best AI possible.

You're right that we don't absolutely need this processing power. You're right that it's basically an arms race between the companies. But as long as this race is happening games will start requiring more power just because the coders don't need to optimize their stuff as well. It's sad, I agree, but it's the current state of the industry.

Your system may only use 0.5-1% but what games are you playing on it? Are you a gamer like the TC? Do you play recent games on your machine? Go ahead and download a few demos, one for games like UT3 that are heavily processor based. I can guarantee you it will max out your processor. You need to remember that your needs aren't exactly the same as the needs of others. The race will continue and the games will follow (to a certain degree).

Remember, the suggestions you are making are for someone who doesn't want to "fight the system" or whatever like you seem to. It's for someone who just wants to be able to go to a store 2.5 years down the road, pick up any of the most recent games, and run it very well. Without having to turn everything off because it's so poorly optimized.

For this I would still recommend the q6600. Even if the e8500 performs slightly better now (and remember, those were the two main options given in the thread) it will probably yield poorer performance than the q6600 in the future. Depending on the games you play it already does from time to time, things don't have to change much. Since they are about the same price my vote goes towards the Quad. That's all I was saying in my post.
Edited by Deathsnapper - 12/21/08 at 9:31am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #33 of 40
Why would you pump AA on a game with decent frame rates. Are you really strolling across the sand in chrysis and taking in the scenery enough to notice the 2 percent improvement in edges on the game?

No chrysis is not going to like a 9500GT at full settings. I was discussing something that was "supposedly" cpu heavy. GTA III was not exactly a graphics killer and neither will GTA 4 be. I wasn't saying 9500GT was all anyone needed but yes I am saying 3ghz or 3ghz capable duel core is all any needs for a long time. CPU's will get more cores because it's just too much hassle to make them go faster.

GPU architecture is screwed up. 512 bit widths are not what games need. 256 bit widths is about all the pipelining they can handle but all the top cards are 512 bits wide. Great for what they are meant for but not so great for graphics.

Saying UT3 doubled in frame rate with more cpu is really an insult to my intelligence. Grab an hour and 20 minute video. Transcode it from 720p to regular old NTSC format on your cpu. Take the same video and transcode with parallel processing software through a 4870 card and you are suddenly looking at a number that is about 20 times smaller than the CPU transcode. If you doubled your frame rate on it you upgraded video at same time.

So you see. Things are going to get nuts. And no I'm not talking about the kind of nuts where apple stops using the powerPC processor and starts using the intel processor and the kind of nuts where microsoft starts using the powerPC . I'm talking the kind of nuts where graphics cards go down on width and go up on speed and cpu's go down on speed and up on cores.

But however it shakes out or whatever way it goes. Doesn't matter because there will probably be alot of product announcements and attempts of hype the next few years but and most of it will be empty talk. The xbox platform uses 2 threads. The playstation 3 is superscalar which is like threading without threading. When games get coded they will be coded for 2 cores until new game platforms that use 4 cores come out.

Any single core pentium 4 with hyper threading and a good overclock, stuffed with plenty of graphics card will run most things without all this often talked about "cpu" choking. It won't score 10k or 12k on 3dmark but it will pull a decent 7 or 8k and the cpu score drop that it contributes to the number isn't going to make it 3/4s of the capabilities in a game. The threads will run through fast enough to not matter because on a dual core the amount of overlap on them isn't that big. Your max and average frame rates will be pretty close but a few and far between games may take a hit on minimums if the game isn't shoot em up and has a big AI or alot of phsyx.
Is a 2003 northwood or a 2004 prescott the gaming cpu for the next 2.5 years. No. But if it can cut muster now with playability and even all be all ya need for most everything then why buy a q6600? It's 4 slow prescotts and 2 of them won't even be in the game for a hella long time. Why not get penryn which is 2 fast northwoods and alot of games will put 1 of them on the bench so much it just barely matters.

Anyway I'm half asleep and don't know if any of that made any sense. You guys watch some news and hang on to your money. Playing the futures market isn't going to work for any of the stock market or the computer industry. The world is facing grave circumstances.
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
post #34 of 40
Some games really do get more of a benefit than 2% from AA. Some times things just don't look smooth at all and it's a nice thing to have on. Lucky for us this isn't really related to CPU at all and we can kind of omit it from this thread

GTAIV does require a pretty hefty processor. If you look around forums about it you will see people complaining left and right about not being able to run it well on pretty decent machines. Though this one I can't say much more about because I haven't tried it personally on the PC platform, so I don't have direct knowledge here.

Really? Saying it doubled insults your intelligence? To be fair if I was told this without trying it I would feel the same way. I'm not at my main computer now, but I can pop my old e4500 back in (I still have it) and run some bechmarks for you. It doesn't make much sense, but it did. Went from 45-55ish fps to over 100 consistently.

UT3 definitely takes advantage of 4 cores, especially if you don't have a physx card or CUDA capable card. ATi- no cuda. There are other games that scale nicely with more cores already out too. Hell, even the old source engine, years old, does scale well with more cores and more graphics cards. Very well.

UT3 is hugely CPU bound. At lower settings at least (which I prefered when I could barely play the thing!) I wasn't getting very good frames at low settings at 1280x800 resolution before. The upgrade let me kick up the graphics and settle the new, massive, framerate down to something that's still really good (but looks much nicer). Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I don't care. I love the game anyways. But when I popped the new Q6600 I was delighted to be able to play it so smoothly (jumping around 100-120ish fps! way unnecessary so I could kick the graphics up! )

You are talking out of theory. I am a gamer who plays all these games and has gone from 3GHz P4 -> 3GHz dual core -> 3Ghz quad core over the past year. There was a solid jump at every step as far as gaming is concerned. However for the dual -> it was in fewer games where as the P4 -> Core2duo was huge in everything. I can't believe you're even arguing that he shouldn't bother with a dual core, as a gamer I hugely disagree.

Don't worry, what you're saying does make sense. Even if you are half asleep. But I'm just saying that I know first hand that there is a difference. I overclock, game, and love to run benchmarks. That's just something I enjoy. And playing these games has increased in performance every step of the way. Going from P4 to core2 was massive.

From what I've seen it's really game dependant. Some games prefer 45nm duals, others prefer 65nm quads. Believe it or not, there are games that do make use of all four cores, as rare as they are. I have a feeling they will become more frequent.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Bickering back and forth isn't getting us anywhere. How about this: I'll continue playing games and running an FPS counter in the corner every now and then over the next couple years. And I'll keep my old dual core processor. If in 2 years the quad isn't better than the dual in at least 30% of games, and isn't at least the same in the other games, then I'll send you an apology accepting that you were totally right. Think of it as an experiment.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #35 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deathsnapper View Post
If in 2 years the quad isn't better than the dual in at least 30% of games, and isn't at least the same in the other games, then I'll send you an apology accepting that you were totally right. Think of it as an experiment.
So in 2 years, you expect dual cores to be superior in 70% of games and you're calling that a victory for buying a quad? I don't understand the logic. I fully expect quads to be useful in 2 years, but perhaps today's quads will be too slow.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel 2500k Asus P8P67 Galaxy GTX580 8GB G Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80 gb SSD, Raptor 150 Windows 7 Home Premium 24" Samsung LCD Saitek Eclipse 
PowerCaseMouse
PCP&C 750W Antec P180 Logitech MX-510 blue 
  hide details  
Reply
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472 View Post
So in 2 years, you expect dual cores to be superior in 70% of games and you're calling that a victory for buying a quad? I don't understand the logic. I fully expect quads to be useful in 2 years, but perhaps today's quads will be too slow.
They will be slow but still faster then the current dual cores. For example Athlon64 was faster in 2004 then X2 in games cause higher clock speed but if you test them now even though they are not that fast X2 will win with a lower clock
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti FE AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
Ishimura
(21 items)
 
Silent Knight
(13 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7 3770K @ 4.6GHz ASRock Z77E-ITX eVGA GTX 1080 Ti FE AMD Radeon R9 16GB DDR3-2400MHz  
Hard DriveHard DriveCoolingCooling
SanDisk Ultra II 960GB Toshiba X300 5TB Corsair H100i GTX eVGA Hybrid Water Cooler  
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
4x GentleTyphoon AP-15 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Philips Brilliance BDM4065UC 4K Razer BlackWidow Chroma  
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
eVGA SuperNOVA 750 G3 Define Nano S Logitech G502 Proteus Core PECHAM Gaming Mouse Pad XX-Large 
AudioAudioAudioAudio
Audioengine D1 DAC Mackie CR Series CR3 Audio-Technica ATH-M50 Sennheiser HD 598 
Audio
Sony XB950BT 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom II X4 955 @ 4.2GHz ASUS M4A79XTD EVO AMD Radeon HD 7970 3GB @ 1200/1500 2x 4GB G.SKILL Ripjaws X DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
OCZ Agility 3 60GB WD Caviar Green 1.5TB 2 x Seagate Barracuda 2TB XSPC Raystorm 
CoolingCoolingOSPower
EK-FC7970 XSPC RS360 Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit Corsair TX750 
Case
NZXT Switch 810  
  hide details  
Reply
post #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by sccr64472 View Post
So in 2 years, you expect dual cores to be superior in 70% of games and you're calling that a victory for buying a quad? I don't understand the logic. I fully expect quads to be useful in 2 years, but perhaps today's quads will be too slow.
No, I said at least the same. Meaning quad > dual in 30%, quad>=dual in the other 70%. Take note of the equal sign. Like say there are 10 games. 3 of them run better on the quad, and the other 7 run the same on both the quad and the dual. The dual never winning. If it's atleast that then it's a good gain. I expect it to be higher, of course, but 30% is still a lot of games.

What I'm saying is the dual won't be "better" than the quad. It will be either the same or worse for the most part. Otherwise I will appologize and admit he was right and that the quad is pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZealotKi11er View Post
They will be slow but still faster then the current dual cores. For example Athlon64 was faster in 2004 then X2 in games cause higher clock speed but if you test them now even though they are not that fast X2 will win with a lower clock
Exactly.
Edited by Deathsnapper - 12/22/08 at 10:40am
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hephasteus View Post
You're not doing very well at speculating and predicting the future if you don't even notice that there's not exactly a ton of games out there that don't play on game systems and those game systems have pretty wimpy cpu's that go back to the desktop market some 4 and 5 years back.
how can you say they have wimpy cpus when the ps3 has a 7core cell processor clocked at 3.2 ghz? and the 360 has an amd tricore? game systems used to use old cpus but now they use the best to keep up with the market.

also everyone keeps saying go quad now with the logic that future quads will run better than the duals.. now why would you buy a quad now thinking "o someday soon better quads will come out!" lol that makes no sense..
Edited by Drackula2000 - 12/22/08 at 11:30am
Quadcore!!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom X4 9850 2.5Ghz BIOSTAR TFORCE TA790GX NVIDIA 8600GTS 256MB GDDR3 G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000333AS 1TB Win 7 RC ASUS VH222H Black 21.5" 5ms PC POWER AND COOLING SILENCER MKIII 600W 
  hide details  
Reply
Quadcore!!
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD Phenom X4 9850 2.5Ghz BIOSTAR TFORCE TA790GX NVIDIA 8600GTS 256MB GDDR3 G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 ST31000333AS 1TB Win 7 RC ASUS VH222H Black 21.5" 5ms PC POWER AND COOLING SILENCER MKIII 600W 
  hide details  
Reply
post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drackula2000 View Post
also everyone keeps saying go quad now with the logic that future quads will run better than the duals.. now why would you buy a quad now thinking "o someday soon better quads will come out!" lol that makes no sense..
No, we're not saying that. We're saying the same quad that you buy now will perform better in the future due to changes in the software. Not due to newer quads being released (but that will also adversly have an effect on the way the software is developed and should help as well).

Most current games are not optimized to spread the CPU load among four cores. But this is changing. So right now a game may use only two of the quadcores four cores. The other two would be sitting there basically doing nothing. However some other game might make use of all four cores, so while the quad core processor can use all four to it's advantage, the dual core would have to do all the work on only two cores.

So what we're saying is that someday better software will come out and make use of the extra power, even if most current stuff doesn't (some does already, mind you).

Hope that makes it easier to understand for you. So what I was saying is that even if they score the same framerates and scores in most games today (some are better on the quad already) the games of the future will probably coded a bit differently and actually make use of these extra cores.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q6600 @3.2ghz UD3P (F7 bios) Sapphire 4870 (512mb) 4gb Mushkin 800mhz 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 640gb LG dvd writer? Whatever. Vista x64 business Acer x203 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G15 (v2) 750TX Antec 900 intellimouse explorer 4 (whatever, works well). 
Mouse Pad
Really? Um some zboard pad I got free 
  hide details  
Reply
post #40 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drackula2000 View Post
how can you say they have wimpy cpus when the ps3 has a 7core cell processor clocked at 3.2 ghz? and the 360 has an amd tricore? game systems used to use old cpus but now they use the best to keep up with the market.

also everyone keeps saying go quad now with the logic that future quads will run better than the duals.. now why would you buy a quad now thinking "o someday soon better quads will come out!" lol that makes no sense..
Well no they aren't wimpy in a sense, it's just that they are somewhat specialized. G5 is is a graphics based processor and cell is just a very very very tiny mainframe topology. They are good at 64bit and good at graphics but compared to anything from the 32 bit hayday on PC they lack because their instruction sets are not as complete. When amd topped out 32 bit with xp 3200 it did nearly every often used instruction at 1 clock cycle and when 468 pin intel topped out they left many more instructions needing 2 and even 3 clock cycles but those processors are not wimps by any standards and they are not going be scared of anything thats playable right now. Part of the reason for that is anything made in the last 3 years is finally using the hot extension that were added into those chips years and years back in their ancestors before they ramped clock speed. They wouldn't be good processors for this website but you certainly are not going to shatter their self esteem or usefulness with crysis and I haven't looked everywhere but I can't find anything that needs more cpu than crysis. GTA4 MOST certainly does not but I'll look around some more.
By the time 64 bit dual cores finally get around to using sse3 and sse4 in really good ways alot of people on this board can't understand just what kind of animals these things are as graphics processor support platforms.

If you want to make me believe that 3 ghz quad cores or faster are necessary you are going to have to show me a press release about someone chaining 400 programmers to desks for 4 years and spending 200 million dollars. If you can't afford a really fast quad core then you are not only wasting your money you're shooting yourself in the foot. Because games are going to use it like a single or double core for a very very long time. Not only will your quad NOT be faster it will be significantly slower than a higher clocked dual core. This is the only thing I can come up with for people talking all this junk about choked cpu. That situation is the only thing that would make any sense to me.
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
Goofy
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD 4850e 2.4Ghz 22 watts 1.1v 1500HT 300FSB Gigabyte GA-M78SM-S2H What I'm Testing 2 2gb Geil PC6400 960MHZ 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
Hitachi 160gb SATA-II Pioneer DVR 111D Redhat Core 12 x86_64, Windows XP HANNspree 20" 1600x900 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitec Premium Desktop Mini-Box M3-ATX 120 Watt DC-DC Spire Logitec 
Mouse Pad
Xtrac 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Intel - General
Overclock.net › Forums › Intel › Intel - General › Quad x Dual