If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
It's obvious that AMD is trying to compete with lower prices on OLDER chipsets vs. the new Intel Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme.
Both those new chips form Intel toppled the best AMD FX-64 chips and their configurations in most benchmark reviews.
So technically, do you want to shell out for a processor that will be considered (Even Match) or (Incredibly Tough) by SE's Benchmark standards? (Actually I have no idea how the Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Extreme does on the SE Vana'diel Benchmark 3.
Core duos work in parallel. Apparently, they're the most advanced thing out right now for processors and computers.(correct me if I'm wrong)
They're old news for anything other then desktop systems. I'm working on a SMP system right now that does tasks in parallel so thats not news either. Sun's Niagra processors released late last year have 8 cores. The biggest difference is they also have an OS that handles Threads well and has applications that are threaded and SMP aware.
Multicore processors will give most desktop users a grand total of 0 benefits that couldn't also be had by getting a faster single core processor then they currently have. It would probably also be cheaper.
Hmm, now that I've looked at some prices and test results, it seems like the new Core 2 processors have a significantly better performance/price ratio than the AMD processors even with the massive price cuts.
I'm especially intersteted in Intel Core 2 Duo E6300. It seems to easily beat anything AMD has to offer in its price range.
If you are buying or building a new higher end system then just wait for the new Intel chips to show up in mass, they are looking to be quite fast.
But it is also a good time to upgrade a old system or buy/build a Pentium Dual Core, AM2 or a AMD 939 system. Just avoid the pentium 4 single cores unless ther are super super cheap. AKA Preshott's (Prescott was the cpu core name)
Single threaded programs can make some use of dual cores but it limited by the application and the OS.
Basically for a single threaded game will not play any faster (might even play slightly slower) with a dual core but will "usually" suffer slightly less severe drops in fps. There are some advantages to using dual core processors but to fully use dual cores they need to start programing for a multi threaded environment.
The only game I can think of that can use dual cores well right now is a patched version of quake 4. (not that im recomending buying that game)
I will most likely upgrade my amd 3200+ to something faster but my system is already Incredibly Tough in Vana'diel bench, and it plays oblivion. But throw in good priced Zalman or Scythe cpu cooler and a (939) 4000+ or X2 4200+ will be all mine
Dam with these new processors cant make Preshott and EmergencyEdition jokes any more.
But atleast AMD beat Intel at there own game for a few years, and yes almost everyone admits Netburst was crap.
Last edited by Thrasher; 07-20-2006, 05:12 PM.
Reason: Spaceing
Comment