Your Opinion on CPU Brand...

[KyanWan]

As for your 2nd question; I'm an engineer in the Thin Films Metrology department for both opaque and transparent films. Do you work in the same industry (as far as your curiosity goes)?

Cheers,

MenOpaws

I'm not cool enough to work in hardware. Slept in class, lazy, etc....

Work in a small business (family's business) doing software, networking, security.

( In other words - I order supplies, ship packages, and move around inventory - and when something in our network/servers screws up - I get yelled at for it. On the bright side, I've become an expert at backend software & utilities / web integration / lightweight high-volume server-based apps / web interfaces ... ah, and disaster recovery. What I do in IT - is all the boring stuff - people don't care or think about it till it breaks. )

 

[AWPerator]

In games, more cores doesn't mean better gameplay. Valve's games, for example, hardly utilize multicore, and the Core2Duo E8200 will perform the same for a cheaper price as the Q6600.

Still, if you like to multi task alot, such as running firefox, virus scanners, games, and word (or something) all at the same time, and you insist upon quad core, go for Intel.
I still highly suggest the E8200

 

[Havegooda {A|R}]

In games, more cores doesn't mean better gameplay. Valve's games, for example, hardly utilize multicore, and the Core2Duo E8200 will perform the same for a cheaper price as the Q6600.

Still, if you like to multi task alot, such as running firefox, virus scanners, games, and word (or something) all at the same time, and you insist upon quad core, go for Intel.
I still highly suggest the E8200

True, but there are a few circumstances that the quad will pwn a dual core. Examples: Folding, video encoding, certain games (Lost Planet, Supreme Commander), etc.

~Gooda~

 

[Carnage]

Wow, I don't want to interrupt you guys, but keep going, this is very interesting. You guys convince me of getting an Intel

It's like a sop opera, but CPU talk
(think I spelled sop right)

 

[KyanWan]

Who needs convincing? If I've been convinced that Core2 > AMD - with 6 SYSTEMS all running various AMD CPUs (64FX, X2, Even a couple XPs straggling around) that I spent a LOT of money on ... I don't see why there should be any need to say much more.

But true - I still am pretty amused at people getting more than 2 cores. 1 CPU used by windows - and one dedicated to your game is more than enough. Anything over that is you wasting your money.

Well, unless you believe the gamer & uninformed consumer supporting Intel's future CPU development instead of a bunch of deep-pocketed investors is a good thing.

Really - way back when I started up in computers, I saw these oh-so-elite motherboards with 2, 4 CPU sockets ... I was like: "WHOA! OMG! Just imagine having 2 486'S KILLING YOUR PROGRAMS ... omg, Warcraft & Doom would be SO ELITE on that! AWESOME!" I thought your 2 DX40's would be like having a DX80! WOW! COOL! " - And then those Pentium Pros with 4 CPUs - and don't forget that awesome ALR motherboard ... what was it, 6 or 8 CPUs it had going on it? The thing had its own riser card with JUST CPU SOCKETS on it! Damn. It was SWEET.

( Just imagine being new and seeing something like this for the first time. )
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/alan-fm_2020_178169161

Yeah. Turns out a knowledgeable friend of mine pointed out the not-so-obvious. Your program will only run on 1 CPU, unless it's threaded to use 2 CPUs. Nothing will run faster than 40 - unless, you run 2 programs at once - then both will run at 40 - instead of going half as fast.

Aww man.... Nobody ran 2 programs at once on DOS - so it was worthless.

----

SO - keep that in mind. Your system will only be as fast as the fastest core speed. So if you've got a QUAD 2.0 - nothing will run FASTER than 2.0.

However, if you have 4 programs running - all 4 will run at 2.0, as long as your OS can thread them. ( Windows home versions, I don't believe they support multiprocessor. )

Back with older versions - like NT - you needed to pay *MORE* to use *MORE* CPUs. A regular license would say support 2 CPUs. Server versions would support up to 8.

Same with other OSes - like Solaris - more CPUs = more expensive.

Multicores have always been reserved for servers and the like. Where these new CPUs will really shine - Dedicated Web Hosting. Ooooh! Boring stuff!

The REAL reason we're starting to get these multicore CPUs - is the rise of Virtualization - not the need for more gaming power.

Know those shared hosts with 100 websites running on a single server? The more cores the CPU has, the better the virtualization runs. It's all about business -

IMO - business class CPUs - are a real waste of money for a home user.

It's the same reason we don't use Nvidia Quadros in our gaming systems.

Sure - the cards are monsters - but they're just ... not good for anything you or I would be doing on our PCs.

Yeah, even I didn't believe that. I thought - Screw these Riva TNT cards. I'm getting a 3DLabs. And I did. It was sweet - onboard OpenGL - in HARDWARE - processing power that couldn't be touched ... all kinds of perks ( basically - it was a Quadro - before it got bought by Nvidia. )

Guess what?

It wasn't all that good. Why? Because it was geared towards workstation graphics - know - ray tracing and rendering.

Yeah, I was disappointed. Business / Enterprise grade hardware is just that - built for boring stuff.

That's what Quad CPUs are. I guess you could pick em up if you've dreamed of running a Quad or Oct CPU system - or you've always got 50 windows open ... but as for what everyone here, I'm sure, is interested in ... ain't going to do much for you. Sorta like the flash drives I talked of in the techtalk section. It's absolutely awesome tech for your OS and everyday computing - but ... not so much for your gaming.

 

[aleatorystories]

I got one of the AMD Phenom's and its been good to me so far, I recommend them to anyone, reasonably priced and good results. Haven't tried OC'ing though, little weary after what happened last time I tried OCing

 

[MenOpaws]

Who needs convincing? If I've been convinced that Core2 > AMD - with 6 SYSTEMS all running various AMD CPUs (64FX, X2, Even a couple XPs straggling around) that I spent a LOT of money on ... I don't see why there should be any need to say much more.

But true - I still am pretty amused at people getting more than 2 cores. 1 CPU used by windows - and one dedicated to your game is more than enough. Anything over that is you wasting your money.

Well, unless you believe the gamer & uninformed consumer supporting Intel's future CPU development instead of a bunch of deep-pocketed investors is a good thing.

Really - way back when I started up in computers, I saw these oh-so-elite motherboards with 2, 4 CPU sockets ... I was like: "WHOA! OMG! Just imagine having 2 486'S KILLING YOUR PROGRAMS ... omg, Warcraft & Doom would be SO ELITE on that! AWESOME!" I thought your 2 DX40's would be like having a DX80! WOW! COOL! " - And then those Pentium Pros with 4 CPUs - and don't forget that awesome ALR motherboard ... what was it, 6 or 8 CPUs it had going on it? The thing had its own riser card with JUST CPU SOCKETS on it! Damn. It was SWEET.

( Just imagine being new and seeing something like this for the first time. )
http://us.st12.yimg.com/us.st.yimg.com/I/alan-fm_2020_178169161

Yeah. Turns out a knowledgeable friend of mine pointed out the not-so-obvious. Your program will only run on 1 CPU, unless it's threaded to use 2 CPUs. Nothing will run faster than 40 - unless, you run 2 programs at once - then both will run at 40 - instead of going half as fast.

Aww man.... Nobody ran 2 programs at once on DOS - so it was worthless.

----

SO - keep that in mind. Your system will only be as fast as the fastest core speed. So if you've got a QUAD 2.0 - nothing will run FASTER than 2.0.

However, if you have 4 programs running - all 4 will run at 2.0, as long as your OS can thread them. ( Windows home versions, I don't believe they support multiprocessor. )

Back with older versions - like NT - you needed to pay *MORE* to use *MORE* CPUs. A regular license would say support 2 CPUs. Server versions would support up to 8.

Same with other OSes - like Solaris - more CPUs = more expensive.

Multicores have always been reserved for servers and the like. Where these new CPUs will really shine - Dedicated Web Hosting. Ooooh! Boring stuff!

The REAL reason we're starting to get these multicore CPUs - is the rise of Virtualization - not the need for more gaming power.

Know those shared hosts with 100 websites running on a single server? The more cores the CPU has, the better the virtualization runs. It's all about business -

IMO - business class CPUs - are a real waste of money for a home user.

It's the same reason we don't use Nvidia Quadros in our gaming systems.

Sure - the cards are monsters - but they're just ... not good for anything you or I would be doing on our PCs.

Yeah, even I didn't believe that. I thought - Screw these Riva TNT cards. I'm getting a 3DLabs. And I did. It was sweet - onboard OpenGL - in HARDWARE - processing power that couldn't be touched ... all kinds of perks ( basically - it was a Quadro - before it got bought by Nvidia. )

Guess what?

It wasn't all that good. Why? Because it was geared towards workstation graphics - know - ray tracing and rendering.

Yeah, I was disappointed. Business / Enterprise grade hardware is just that - built for boring stuff.

That's what Quad CPUs are. I guess you could pick em up if you've dreamed of running a Quad or Oct CPU system - or you've always got 50 windows open ... but as for what everyone here, I'm sure, is interested in ... ain't going to do much for you. Sorta like the flash drives I talked of in the techtalk section. It's absolutely awesome tech for your OS and everyday computing - but ... not so much for your gaming.

A lot of what you are saying was like that, but games have come a long way and became very resource demanding programs especially video. Games these days ask for more video power then graphic design programs (Aut-CAD and what not more). As far as multi core CPU's goes, a lot of big games these days requier 2 cores. Single core CPU's are phasing out. And don't forget even if your game might not use multiple cores, your OS will (most likely Vista, since XP went officially off the market in July this year), and as far as 64 bit vs 32, HL2 for example comes in 64 bit and a few others. Getting a 4 core CPU might mean that you're not need it right away, but you're defenitly setup for what's to come, and get some life out of your system before you have to "upgrade" again. Last thing, most console comps run on multiple cores/CPU's (XBOX 360 for example is a 3 CPU system), now why would they do that if games wouldn't use it? I rest my case

 

[xenophek]

That's a tough question, because most people are hardcore on either side of the fence. I've owned and used both brands, and I can say I love my Core 2 Duo more than any other I've ever owned. It's crazy, my friend and I have the same video card and basically the same hardware, but (I believe) because of my Duo I scored over a thousand more points on the 3dmark06 test than my good friend. He's using a Phenom x4.

 

[Jubei]

Here's what I'd do:

Figure out how much money you want to spend on the CPU. If your budget goes over anything AMD offers, then Intel all the way. If not then compare benchmarks for Intel and AMD processors that cost about the same. Use benchmarks that simulate things that you do, a game you'll never play or an app you'll never use isn't the best benchmark for your needs. For example when I built a PC in January of this year the AMD X2 6000+ blew the doors off the Intel chips in the same price bracket. Sure clock for clock the Intel chips are champ, but dollar for dollar back then it was AMD. But do the comparison yourself. Things change in nine months.

 

[Carnage]

Here's what I'd do:

Figure out how much money you want to spend on the CPU. If your budget goes over anything AMD offers, then Intel all the way. If not then compare benchmarks for Intel and AMD processors that cost about the same. Use benchmarks that simulate things that you do, a game you'll never play or an app you'll never use isn't the best benchmark for your needs. For example when I built a PC in January of this year the AMD X2 6000+ blew the doors off the Intel chips in the same price bracket. Sure clock for clock the Intel chips are champ, but dollar for dollar back then it was AMD. But do the comparison yourself. Things change in nine months.

Ofcourse things changes in 9 months. Look at the 8800gtx, they were at 4+, now they're like mid 150+. (correct me if I'm mistaken, cause I'm guessing)...So here's another question. On the motherboards. what do FSB do? I know what they stand for, but I see them like 1066 or more...Thnx in advance guys. Very interesting.

 

[KyanWan]

A lot of what you are saying was like that, but games have come a long way and became very resource demanding programs especially video. Games these days ask for more video power then graphic design programs (Aut-CAD and what not more). As far as multi core CPU's goes, a lot of big games these days requier 2 cores. Single core CPU's are phasing out. And don't forget even if your game might not use multiple cores, your OS will (most likely Vista, since XP went officially off the market in July this year), and as far as 64 bit vs 32, HL2 for example comes in 64 bit and a few others. Getting a 4 core CPU might mean that you're not need it right away, but you're defenitly setup for what's to come, and get some life out of your system before you have to "upgrade" again. Last thing, most console comps run on multiple cores/CPU's (XBOX 360 for example is a 3 CPU system), now why would they do that if games wouldn't use it? I rest my case

I would expect multithreaded games to take advantage of dual before quad.

Yes, true - it's coming. I don't argue with that. BUT - most games on the market are made to be run on the most systems possible without change. If the core of your game requires 2 CPUs - I'm not sure how you would scale it down to one ...

( Well, technically - it should work the same way you multithread. Create multiple processing threads to do multiple tasks at once. The multithreaded OS would handle the process threads and distribute them as needed. So, I guess the OS would probably scale the multithreaded programs - HOWEVER - I'm guessing if a game did that, with the power it needs and the amount of calculations, having software handle the threading might make it slower than it should be. Just like when you're running a ton of programs your system starts buckling under the weight. The other option is to make 2 versions of the software - one good version, and one unicore version. This option, dual development, is really not an option. *cough* enough of that. )

Anyways - they're shooting for compatibility. My $ is on the dual core getting overly popular. Not quad.

Dual will most likely become the standard - one CPU for your apps, one for your OS.

Mind you - this isn't the first time multiple CPUs have come to the desktop market. Anyone remember the Math co-processor? Way back when, you'd get 2 cpus ( processor, math processor ) if you needed the performance. These days, the math coprocessor is unknown. It got integrated into the CPU.

Ditto with the dual cpu setup. Now, you've got 2 CPUs on 1 chip.

Hmm ... wonder ... what's the max performance that can be squeezed out of these chips? I'm guessing that there's an eventual molecular limit as to how fast the electrical signals can travel in those CPUs. We'll hit it some time.

I guess at that time (don't tell me we're there ... ... nah, I doubt that ) - some other way to speed up computing will be needed. This last case here - IMO - is really when multiple processors will advance big time.

---

Welcome to the death of sequential programming. At this point, advancement of our computing experience lies squarely on programmers to utilize fully all this killer new hardware we've got at our disposal.

Hell ... I'd love to see quad core become the new standard for gaming. I'm a bit hesitant on accepting it just because I know how standards & compatibility works.

Notice how long it took to get Wireless N out there. How about IPV6? We're still not on it. Tech - takes forever to get standardized. Once it is, though, it flies.

A new standard of computing - like true, actual multithreading on multiple processors - is really going to take some time to get going. Because the cost of implementing this - lies on the entire *world* getting on standard with new multicore CPUs - to ensure that programs all run optimally on a majority of systems. Consoles are a WHOLE different beast - because EVERYONE is forced to have the SAME multiple core CPU. That's why the software runs so good ALL of the time on EVERY single system.

[ If quoting me just quote a couple lines and chop it off. I write too much. ]