CPU/Mobo I ♥ Dual Cores
- Thread starter Arun1
- Start date
- Status
Arun1 said:
Regardless of the fact that you can scale higher, won't the off-die mem controller effectively nullify the performance gains?
The future belongs to quad, hexa and octa cores. No point sticking to dual cores. The dies are shrinking (32nm's on the anvil). Eventually everyone is going to make programs optimized for these cores. Every new advancement in the field of computer architecture becomes obsolete in the next 15-18months. You can call it sort of a life-cycle. The only thing constant in life is change, as they say. Just my 2 cents.
Crazy_Eddy said:
Should it? I honestly don't know.Performance gains seem to be proportional to clock scaling levels though,at least for the reviews that have come out for now.Bit-Tech Review
I don't understand the purpose of this thread. Are you planning to buy one but confused to either wait for hexacore or is this another one of the discussion threads and people open up?
Do all threads need to be of a news update or help request type?The Sorcerer said:
This thread is about the dual core comeback and how its not going anywhere at least for another year.
I will be getting the 670 unless intel does something dramatic like release a dual core without an IGP or maybe release a 680/690.
And while we're at it this thread is not about me pissing off users who have invested in quad core or planning to get one.I'm not getting the 670 just for the sake of it.If I were to be convinced that quad core is definitely the best way to go I would get a quad but I respectfully disagree with the opinions of some in this thread regarding how close the quad core future is that's all.
Multi Core is the future.Period.There are physical limits restricting how far we could scale a core and we have to go multi core.I'm just of the opinion that the future isn't around the corner as of yet contrary to what the chip makers would like to say.
^^ As some others said, quads are not the future, they are the present. Dual cores are the past, but they are not going to be phased out anytime soon either. Dual cores would still be preferred by people on budget and cannot afford a quad or by those whose needs are casual/small enough to be easily handled by a dual core.
As far as I am concerned I make full use of my quad at home (all four cores and over clocked to 3.6 GHz) and I have already seen that I can make effective use of 8 cores as well. So I am eagerly waiting for affordable 6 and 8 core processors.
What anyone is saying to is that just because you do not have the needs that make full use of a quad does not mean that quads are useless for home usage for everyone else. There are a lot of people who make effective use of quads at home and eagerly waiting for more.
As far as I am concerned I make full use of my quad at home (all four cores and over clocked to 3.6 GHz) and I have already seen that I can make effective use of 8 cores as well. So I am eagerly waiting for affordable 6 and 8 core processors.
What anyone is saying to is that just because you do not have the needs that make full use of a quad does not mean that quads are useless for home usage for everyone else. There are a lot of people who make effective use of quads at home and eagerly waiting for more.
^^ Yeah, but in the end, you cannot simply claim that quads are not worth buying. They many not be worth buying to you, but they may be worth it to a lot more people than you think or claim. No ones forcing you to buy one, people can only suggest, the final decision is still left you. If you are happy with a dual core, then so be it, but people who buy quads are also happy with their purchases. Its not like they bought them uselessly. They bought them because they felt they needed the extra muscle and they could afford it.
Whats wrong with making claims as long as there is some sense in it,I'm not saying don't buy quads and go for dual cores no matter what,clearly if I were doing anything like video rendering,image processing,or any processor heavy stuff in general where the apps are clearly optimized for several cores,I wouldn't even think twice about going for a quad.People who do stuff like this know who they are and couldn't care less about improvements in the dual core line.
However there seems to be a general mentality among many in this thread that more money=more performance and more cores=more performance always irrespective of what you're needs are.
Also budget is not the only thing keeping people from buying a quad.The i5 670 at $300 and costing more than the i5 750 isn't really for the budged oriented.
However there seems to be a general mentality among many in this thread that more money=more performance and more cores=more performance always irrespective of what you're needs are.
Also budget is not the only thing keeping people from buying a quad.The i5 670 at $300 and costing more than the i5 750 isn't really for the budged oriented.
He has a point here that there's no point of this thread.
No offense intended. But there's seems to nothing useful here rather a debate. You come here claiming you <3 Dual cores and what's that gota do with the others. Even I love Jockey Underwear's doesn't mean I can go to general section and post a topic "I <3 Jockey Underwear's" and wait for any one who disagree.
^^ No offense taken ;-)
The thread title doesn't always give away what content to expect.Maybe if you hadn't selectively ignored parts of this thread you might have seen my reply to the post you quoted and whats wrong with a little ♥ symbol in the title,you guys are going all grammar nazi rather than focussing on what was discussed.
There hasn't been much talk as the issues are pretty clear and isn't much to add because from the looks of the thread there seems to be a general consensus that people would rather go for a quad than a highly clocked duo at the same price.To each they're own.
The thread title doesn't always give away what content to expect.Maybe if you hadn't selectively ignored parts of this thread you might have seen my reply to the post you quoted and whats wrong with a little ♥ symbol in the title,you guys are going all grammar nazi rather than focussing on what was discussed.
There hasn't been much talk as the issues are pretty clear and isn't much to add because from the looks of the thread there seems to be a general consensus that people would rather go for a quad than a highly clocked duo at the same price.To each they're own.
Arun1 said:
Isn't that the point of seeing 32nm dual cores from intel?
Arun1 said:
lolwut? Its a perfectly common question. People ask question so that they will know. Your first post itself makes an impression that you are confused and you're just laying down your confusion which is sparking of a needless debate- or you're just starting another fruitless debate.
Arun1 said:
Hate to break it to you, but multi-core was here for a really REALLY long time, even forconsumers.
So again, is this about your confusion for a rig or is just another debate that you you're trying to spark?
The Sorcerer said:
way to take something out of context.Dual core is technically multi core but it was very clear I was referring to more than two cores and the problems they bring along.
There is was no sparkly warkly stuff intended,I guess you can't expect a cool discussion when most people are on quad or planning to get on quad and you start talking about how dual cores aren't that bad and might be better than quads in some cases,cases which you probably fit into very well.
As for your other your other quotes I feel I have replied to them already.
I prefer dual cores only to keep my gaming PC as power efficient as possible. Also, since i ALWAYS use 4xAA/16xAF, most of the games i play are GPU limited so it would make little sense to go in for a quad (esp since Westmere can do 2 threads/core).
Am looking to upgrade a E4300 @ 3GHz and got my eyes on the i3-530.. But still, i would prefer a 32-nm DC Westmere without the IGP. IMHO, i3 makes more sense than the i5 DCs.. The only diff. being the Turbo Mode.
Am looking to upgrade a E4300 @ 3GHz and got my eyes on the i3-530.. But still, i would prefer a 32-nm DC Westmere without the IGP. IMHO, i3 makes more sense than the i5 DCs.. The only diff. being the Turbo Mode.
imoen said:
The i3s give the best bang for the buck and a safe choice given its low price.Early reports suggest 4Ghz stable on air is very much achievable easily beating most of the core2duo lineup and matching the top of the line E8600.
amitn18 said:
Cheaper-yes
Better-Depends on what you'd use it for
- Status