:)

[SniperDaws]

Thread locked because we don't know what the topic is. All we have to go on is a smiley face.
And if it WAS about CPU's or Overclocking, it has morphed into a grammar class.

Locked.

Anandtech Moderator - KP

 

[Miramonti]

 

[PKing1977]

It is all about where the market is taking the chips. I remember I got my X2 right when it came out. There was a huge discussion about how pointless two cores were. However, it is clear that the clock speed war is about over and new tricks are needed to get speed. If I had goten a single core chip at that time, I think I would be feeling it, but since I got an X2 the life of my system is still good. Not that you cannot use a single core chip, but the software is starting to catch up.

PKing

 

[gingerstewart55]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
where are the doubters now?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

All you Dual Core owners can suck lemons, if id of listened to you i would of missed out.

I'd personally clean up your rant by substituting the proper word "HAVE" where you have "OF"......like this......

"All you Dual Core owners can suck lemons, if I'd HAVE listened to you I would HAVE missed out."

I know when you say it "I would've" it sounds a lot like "I would of", but it's have, not of.

Welcome to 3rd grade English.

 

[Cogman]

/me patiently waits for penryn and Phenom to be released. e6600 working well...

 

[JustaGeek]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
where are the doubters now?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

All you Dual Core owners can suck lemons, if id of listened to you i would of missed out.

What are you trying to say...?

The title says the Quad Core is pointless - meaning useless...?

And then you are saying the Dual Core is bad...?

Can you clarify your message...?

 

[MetaDFF]

Originally posted by: JustaGeek

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
where are the doubters now?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

All you Dual Core owners can suck lemons, if id of listened to you i would of missed out.

What are you trying to say...?

The title says the Quad Core is pointless - meaning useless...?

And then you are saying the Dual Core is bad...?

Can you clarify your message...?

I think he is trying to say that those people who suggested him to buy a dual core CPU by arguing that the two extra cores are pointless should now be regretting their decision since UT3 shows extra benefit from those cores.

I think he was trying to make a sarcastic comment, but it just didn't come across

 

[MetaDFF]

I think a more fair comparison would have been a stock clocked E6850 vs an Q6600 since they are selling for the same price range. I mean obviously a 2.66 GHz quad core will outperform a 2.66 GHz dual core system ...

Another comment that anand made is: "If 3D games follow the same trend that we've seen over the past two years, it'll be another two years from now before we really see significant performance increases from quad-core processors. "

I totally agree quad+ core is the future, but for people who have upgrade cycles on the order of 2 years, it shouldn't matter much that they got a dual core CPU, since most software today (except encoding) benefits from the faster clock speeds. By the time multi-core software is common they would have long upgraded to a quad+ core system.

 

[MarcVenice]

Tbh, I think qaudcore is in fact pointless in UT3 Who cares if you have 100fps or 200? LoL, even crt's don't have refresh rates that can keep up with that ...

 

[Dkcode]

Posting flame bait like that is hardly going to entice comprehensive and positive replies. Also the personal attacks, especially the one insulting his grammar is a lame way to go about it.

Regarding the benchmarks - the quad cores are showing a benefit, but hardly light years in front. Performance across the board is excellent.

 

[JustaGeek]

Actually, it feels so good to see triumphant posts like this one...

Someone is really, REALLY happy here.

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
where are the doubters now?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

All you Dual Core owners can suck lemons, if id of listened to you i would of missed out.

I don't quite understand. Are you trying to show us that even with a single core processor and a CPU-limited resolution, you can still get 90+ FPS in UT3 ?

 

[n7]

I do appreciate the review from AT, but performance isn't nearly that good ingame, as their flyby doesn't stress CPU or graphics nearly as much as in game battling 20 players.

Also, performance is going to be worse when the retail game comes out sporting the higher details & textures.

They've certainly done a good job making the engine utilize multi-core systems, which should show even more benefit with the retail release & actual ingame benching.

 

[SerpentRoyal]

Those inflated numbers only look impressive at low resolution...about 9% improvement when comparing quad vs. dual. If you're running at 60 fps with a DC CPU, then a quad may give 65 fps. Gonna lose sleep over 5 fps?

 

[SniperDaws]

Originally posted by: gingerstewart55

Originally posted by: SniperDaws
where are the doubters now?

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3127&p=4

All you Dual Core owners can suck lemons, if id of listened to you i would of missed out.

I'd personally clean up your rant by substituting the proper word "HAVE" where you have "OF"......like this......

"All you Dual Core owners can suck lemons, if I'd HAVE listened to you I would HAVE missed out."

I know when you say it "I would've" it sounds a lot like "I would of", but it's have, not of.

Welcome to 3rd grade English.

 

[SniperDaws]

 

[SerpentRoyal]

And 45nm quads is only a few months dow the road. Never overpaid for PC hardware unless the current rig cannot handle your needs. All DC CPUs north of 3.0GHz should run the latest games smoothly if you have an adequately powered GPU.

 

[dflynchimp]

Jeez...thread starter needs to take a chill pill.

At this point I think having a quad core still means mainly bragging rights... the performance scaling has not reached the 1:2 range so it's not a world of difference apart between dual and quad.

MetaDFF is partially right tho, a price-point comparison might be more useful as of status quo. But as we all know, prices have a habit of changing, while the performance of a cpu does not.

reminiscing on the past, I recall a time when I was drooling over an Athlon 64 FX-55...anyone in the same boat?

 

[AmberClad]

Oh dear...I wonder what set him off all of a sudden ...

"Ginger twat"? Were you born in the 1940s or something?

 

[rodrigu3]

I agree with serpent - they run those numbers at low resolution and low viewing distance to make it CPU limited; when they crank up the detail and make it a more realistic test you see that it is not SIGNIFICANTLY different. In case people haven't taken statistics - if something is not significantly different, that means that you could have generated the result randomly; therefore it doesn't mean anything. I'm surprised I haven't seen people that perform benchmarks and reviews post at least a p number, which is why I always approach reviews with some degree of skepticism. The purpose of the anandtech review is to show how cache, cores, fsb, and clock speed affect performance in a purely CPU-limited situation; otherwise there's no difference. Another thing to take into consideration is that even if the difference is real, whether you will notice the difference without using stopwatches and benchmarks etc. Between 10 and 20fps? Yeah, you will notice a difference. But between say 60 and 70fps? No, you won't.

Edit: umm... moderator anyone? Lol he changed the topic too... nice way to ask for a ban

 

[sgrinavi]

HUH? is it really worth all that?

 

[AmberClad]

Originally posted by: rodrigu3
Edit: umm... moderator anyone? Lol he changed the topic too... nice way to ask for a ban

This deserves a nomination for Thread of the Year. Fastest meltdown evar :Q?

 

[heyheybooboo]

I think 'pointless' may be a bit over the top but to each as own . . .

I'd like to see an examination of core utilization as to actual cpu/core load as I wonder how much of performance gain is due to threads running in parallel across cores.

I think a portion of performance gain can be attributed to the WinV thread scheduler and execution - how much . . . who knows ??? . . .

I think programmers are also learning how to better use higher process priority flags and assigning tasks across individual cores.

I think this would have as much to do with performance gain as multiple threads running in true parallel - and would explain why a bigger boost is not seen in the single- to dual-cores on to the quads . . .

Edit: Even P&N ain't this wacky . . .

 

[dflynchimp]

thread-starters needs to take his own advice and F*** ** ****** ****

 

[manowar821]

HAHA oh wow this thread took an awesome turn.