Prev: AIW Support in Vista? - Update
Next: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600
From: nospam on 3 Jan 2008 19:28
"JLC" <jc(a)nospam> wrote in message news:otednfy73rUs5ODanZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)comcast.com...
> this was dropped in the end. When I bought my CPU I was trying to get the
> best GPU&CPU combo for Crysis (and other new games as well!) and I found
> this http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-6.html to be very
> interesting. As you can clearly see the game is much more dependent on the
> GPU then the CPU.

Gamespot's review is astonishingly inadequate. All we know is,
many current generation cpus/video cards are enough to run
Crysis at 1024x768 Medium quality, but no combo is enough
to run it at 1600x1200 High quality.

How about 1024x768 High? Very High? Or 1280x1024,
which is the standard/native resolution many, many gamers
run at? We just aren't told by Gamespot's review. STUPID!


From: nospam on 3 Jan 2008 19:30
<nospam(a)sbcglobal.invalid.net> wrote in message news:O3ffj.2906$El5.1669(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> Gamespot's review is astonishingly inadequate. All we know is,
> many current generation cpus/video cards are enough to run
> Crysis at 1024x768 Medium quality, but no combo is enough
> to run it at 1600x1200 High quality.
>
> How about 1024x768 High? Very High? Or 1280x1024,
> which is the standard/native resolution many, many gamers
> run at? We just aren't told by Gamespot's review. STUPID!

Oh wait, never mind:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6182806/p-5.html


From: ~misfit~ on 4 Jan 2008 04:13
Somewhere on teh intarweb "Brian Cryer" typed:
> "Matt" <mattb95(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:f58f97ac-fc2f-48c3-8cf0-af8dce46a44e(a)x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
>> interesting problem:
>>
>> - Pay �165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)
>>
>> - Pay �160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)
>>
>> Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am
>> I correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
>> completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies,
>> as mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:
>>
>> "A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can
>> rarely double the processing ability of each of its constituent
>> halves (e.g. the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the
>> Conroe), due to a loss
>> of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the
>> narrow memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling
>> twice as many cores and threads)."
>>
>> Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded
>> and fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the
>> 2.4GHz quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?
>>
>> Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
>> there's a clear consensus about which to buy!
>
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000942.html seems to
> provide an interesting view on this - just one that stood out when I
> did a google just now.
>
> Most of the time my pc (single core) is idle, and waiting for me to do
> something. I do run some cpu intensive applications where I'm left
> waiting for my pc, but most of the time my pc is idle. To be honest
> most applications can't even take advantage of dual core.

Maybe so but I do like the fact that I can have my dual-core PC doing
something heavy-duty like encoding and still have it responsive and snappy
if I want to check email etc. Encoding on my old single-core was an
overnight job as the PC was useless for anything else once I hit "start".
--
Shaun.

> Its only
> those applications that are inherently multi-threaded (or which can
> be made so) like databases, webservers, some games, that will be able
> to truly take advantage of the move from two to four cores. Whilst
> the number of applications that will be able to make use of multiple
> cores will inevitably increase, is it something that you need?
>
> Despite all this, my plans are for my next pc to be quad core, and
> given the choice that's what I'd go for even if the clock speed is
> slower. Whatever you do be sure to chock it full of as much RAM as
> you can, ie 4GB if you are using a 32bit OS.
>
> Hope this is useful.



From: Fred on 4 Jan 2008 06:04
What about the new Intel Penryn range due out soon. Have you considered one
of them?


"Matt" <mattb95(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f58f97ac-fc2f-48c3-8cf0-af8dce46a44e(a)x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Hey guys. I'm looking at upgrading my PC and I've come across an
interesting problem:

- Pay �165 for a Intel Dual Core E6850 (clocked @ 3.0GHz)

- Pay �160 for a Quad Core Q6600 (clocked @ 2.4GHz)

Now to my untrained eye, the quad-core seems like an easy choice. Am I
correct, or is the performance benefit from the 2 additional cores
completely lost by the low bandwidth connection between the 2 dies, as
mentioned in a Wikipedia article below:

"A quad-core CPU (as a two-die set in particular), however, can rarely
double the processing ability of each of its constituent halves (e.g.
the Kentsfield rarely doubles the ability of the Conroe), due to a
loss
of performance resulting from connecting them (i.e. sharing the narrow
memory bandwidth, and operating system overhead of handling twice as
many cores and threads)."

Will all applications for Windows eventually become multi-threaded and
fully utilise a quad core setup? Because if so then surely the 2.4GHz
quad core would outperform the 3.0GHz dual core in the future?

Basically this comes down to dual core vs. quad core, and I'm hoping
there's a clear consensus about which to buy!

Kind Regards,

Matt


From: John Weiss on 4 Jan 2008 17:08
"Fred" <bluser(a)gmail.com> wrote...
> What about the new Intel Penryn range due out soon. Have you considered
> one of them?

If you always wait to consider a computer part "due out soon," you'll never
buy ANYTHING!

"Consider" what's available now, but with an eye to upgradability (when the
now-future stuff is available and cheaper). P35 and X38 chipsets should
accommodate the 45nm stuff coming out...


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: AIW Support in Vista? - Update
Next: Should I go Dual Core or Quad Core? Intel C2 DUO E6850 vs. Quad-Core Q6600