New gaming rig build £1215

[Azazel]

yes u know why u need a quad.. and your quad does better than most.. but however u look at it getting two cores up into 4.5 gig land just has to be easier than getting four up there.. and four cores that are actually doing something just has to generate a lot of heat..

so i stick to my faster cooler dual argument as a general rule..

but slower quad is better if u use the kind of software u do.. i have no need for quad myself.. in truth i have little need for dual.. finding something that makes effective use of both cores is difficult..

seeing two cores at 50% as opposed to one at a 100% dosnt overly impress me..

folks often say things use more than one core.. they often do but not effectively.. two cores working at less than 50% seems all two common..

and believe it or not there are folks out there having just moved from two to four and not being overly impressed are selling their 6600 chips and thinking about buying the new "faster" wolfdale two core chips..

its caused quite a laff in one forum folks thinking about "upgrading" from 4 back down to 2.. he he

praps we all just want something new to play with..

trog

ps.. an interesting comparison tween new and old and 4 and 2... the joke of it is.. if such a thing existed.. a fast single core chip with a decent cache level.. it would be sat up there right amonst the duals and the quads..

it dont say a lot for the £700 quid super chip quietly sat there not getting a mention either does it..

http://www.legionhardware.com/document.php?id=714&p=3

ahh great link...thx ....

 

[trog100]

an unusual comparison test that one.. they arnt trying to show how good the 700 quid flagship chip is.. its just thrown in to make up the numbers..

it does tell a very interesting story thow..

trog