View Single Post
Old Jan 30, 2010, 07:14 AM   #103
PP Mguire
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Venus, Texas
Posts: 2,272 (1.30/day)
Thanks: 276
Thanked 461 Times in 394 Posts
Send a message via AIM to PP Mguire Send a message via MSN to PP Mguire Send a message via Yahoo to PP Mguire

System Specs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kei View Post
I totally understand where those people are coming from, but why are those people even contemplating looking at something they know they'll never use anyway.

If I were those people I'd be looking into the X2's, X3's, i3's, or i5 duals and leave this other stuff to the people that are actually gonna use it. I see absolutely no reason for 90% of the users here to worry about/"upgrade" to the X6's when they come out. Sure it's great for marketshare so by all means go for it, but not if you're gonna complain that it's not slaughtering or making your 4Ghz dual or tri obselete lol.

Kei
Quote:
Originally Posted by TIGR View Post
I think people are largely thinking of software that can't take advantage of all cores, so that clock rate matters more for many things, especially games. It will probably be a few years before ubiquitous multi-core software support erases sub-quad core CPUs from the market, and until that time, there will continue to be demand for high-clocking dual and triple cores over lower clocked 4, 6, and 8 core CPUs.

I do wonder what, if any optimizations might come between the current models and this.
Which is exactly what i was saying, and deemed a fanboy because i was stating facts.

A faster architecture and faster clocks with programs designed to use the less dense faster cpu will outperform something with more cores and less clocks when programs arent designed to use upwards (mostly) of 2 cores.

Its simple, i have had AMD through all the days and now have i5. Why? Because its simply faster in every aspect without the burnt wallet feeling i7 leaves you with.

I game, my i5 is faster than a 955 in all games i play (i used to have 955 both at 4ghz) so its easy to see why i would have an i5 over Phenom 2.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wile E View Post
That's not what the OP claims. No way to know which one is accurate. I tend to believe the OP more, but 3.2 would be nice.



There really aren't any major optimizations compared to current cores according to rumors. But the thing that's wrong with these from an enthusiast perspective is that I'm willing to bet they won't clock anywhere near as well as Gulftown.

This is still too little too late from AMD. They should've tried to jump straight to octo core or something to leapfrog Intel.
Another thing ive been saying. Of course im deemed a fanboy because im blatently saying im tired of crap, AMD.
PP Mguire is offline  
Reply With Quote