newtekie1He wasn't even here a week and he is already on my ignore list. Yep, real dignified.

What are you afraid of, The truth?

kwchang007Ok, the games that Tatty listed, while they may be dual threaded a quad core still will be better. Why? Because you have more than the game running it's two threads through the processor. You have the two threads then all the threads that are going on in the background in Windows.

Uh, I think you mean processes going on in the background. And no, that would result in maybe a 2-5% increase in performance in favor of the Quad-Core.
I myself can have MP3 and MPG decoding at the same time I play a high-end game on my old Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and see no difference in performance pretty much.

kwchang007And yes you want to edit a video, you can't say time isn't precious. How much time do we spend planning things out so we'll be here for one hour, then the next here, and the next here etc. If you don't think saving 5 minutes is important, then that's quite contrary to most people's views. With 5 minutes, I could cook my lunch, or I could practice an instrument, or I could come on TPU and post, or I could play some games, or I could spend 5 minutes going to work and earning more money. If you end up doing alot of editing, then you're going to notice those 5 minutes building up.

I can't even begin to explain how bullshit that claim is. It's almost like you're trying to refute every single thing I'm saying just because you don't like me, despite the fact that you have absolutely nothing to say..
But in any case.. 5 minutes is NOTHING. If you edit your project in an hour and a half and then render it in 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes, and then claim that in those 5 minutes you can visit TPU and thus it's worth it, then I have nothing left to say to you.
If you want to waste your money for 5 minutes, please do.

kwchang007You're trying to say quad core isn't worth it? That's the same view when dual cores came out, but even when we got a HT P4 I could feel the difference between our comp and my friends' comps that weren't HT. Making the jump from HT to dual core was a bigger difference. What about things like Folding, more cores=more work that can be done in x amount of time.

Yeh, I know it was said about Dual-Cores, and guess what? It true! The only thing that Dual-Core CPUs or HT is good for is multi-tasking. And if that's your turn on then please go right ahead and buy the Q6600. Just realize that you would have to have 4 DVD burning sessions in the background to scratch that CPU while I can have 2 and I only need one.

kwchang007As far as overclocking the G0 quad core, did you realize the thread Tatty posted was after he ran the benchmark? Not when the cpu was loaded down. Also, how about ambient temperatures? G0 quad cores can get quite fast compare to previous B3 (that was the old stepping right?) quad cores.

So you're saying that 3.9Ghz temps were IDLE?
If so, then this is only testiment to how horribly tatty can explain things :cool:
Well, from personal experience I can still say that, logically, I doubt that 3.9Ghz STABLE is even close to being possible.

kwchang007There's my support for quad cores. BTW we're not going to get anywhere by just raising clock speeds on dual cores, multi core proves to be the more efficient way of gaining performance.

No, thats absolutely not true.
For a program to benefit from more than a single thread, it needs to be coded for it. Thats why almost all programs will run better on the higher clocked Dual-Core.

[I.R.A]_FBiif 2 was good 4 going be better .. simple ...

If you have 2 highways and 2 cars and you create 2 more highways to make 4, that would make absolutely no difference. Theres no difference.

Jesus what a full of himself WINDBAG :slap: Pointed to no one in particular:D

TukUh, I think you mean processes going on in the background. And no, that would result in maybe a 2-5% increase in performance in favor of the Quad-Core.
I myself can have MP3 and MPG decoding at the same time I play a high-end game on my old Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and see no difference in performance pretty much.



I can't even begin to explain how bullshit that claim is. It's almost like you're trying to refute every single thing I'm saying just because you don't like me, despite the fact that you have absolutely nothing to say..
But in any case.. 5 minutes is NOTHING. If you edit your project in an hour and a half and then render it in 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes, and then claim that in those 5 minutes you can visit TPU and thus it's worth it, then I have nothing left to say to you.
If you want to waste your money for 5 minutes, please do.




Yeh, I know it was said about Dual-Cores, and guess what? It true! The only thing that Dual-Core CPUs or HT is good for is multi-tasking. And if that's your turn on then please go right ahead and buy the Q6600. Just realize that you would have to have 4 DVD burning sessions in the background to scratch that CPU while I can have 2 and I only need one.




So you're saying that 3.9Ghz temps were IDLE?
If so, then this is only testiment to how horribly tatty can explain things :cool:
Well, from personal experience I can still say that, logically, I doubt that 3.9Ghz STABLE is even close to being possible.



No, thats absolutely not true.
For a program to benefit from more than a single thread, it needs to be coded for it. Thats why almost all programs will run better on the higher clocked Dual-Core.

From the top:

Ok, that's how your system runs, and that's a cool thing that you don't lose much fps.

I get 5 minutes to go to classes in school, and need it all, every second counts. And you can't say cooking a meal in 5 minutes while your program is rendering isn't a good use of time, unless you don't eat of course.

Dvd burning :confused: I could have 5 sessions running on my computer and it wouldn't be using the whole cpu. Also, what's this whole thing with I only need one? The idea of a cpu and computer parts aren't to have them run at 100% the whole time. I have a computer that does that with xp, and it sucks.

3.9 ghz is possible to get stable. It's been done as tatty as posted, idk why you are saying it's a fake etc. Why would someone lie? If they got 3.9 ghz on water, why would they say it was on air? Not like it gives you anything by saying it was on air. Oh and I'm hoping you are talking about on air, because people get well over 4 ghz on LN.

And you forget that more and more programs are being programmed to use more than one core. Remember, xp was only designed to handle one core, but they quickly changed their os with a sp. Also, remember the 360 and ps3 are multi-core and take advantage of it to.

Oh and btw nothing I've said in a post to you is bullshit.

SSSShhhhhhh ;)

Emmmk...all that aside, someone mentioned they thought the huge increase in speed in source was due to sse4. I was under the impression Source did not yet support sse4 so how could that be the cause of the increase in speed?

Please remember to be polite and civil when discussing news. If you find yourself incapable of maintaining the proper form of behavior please refrain from posting at all.

Please get this back on topic or it will be closed.

Thanks
Thermopylae_480

Intel are just so frigging on the ball right now and we the consumer are getting the best of it, oh man i love Intel so much, keep it up guys.:respect:Intel

Tatty_OneSSSShhhhhhh ;)

Are you and everyone here just going to discard what I've said because you don't like to hear it?

I kept with the discussion and came out on top, and yet people seem to be against me..

This forum is quite juvenile, now isn't it?

kwchang007Oh and btw nothing I've said in a post to you is bullshit.

Wow, that's almost as bad of a lie as Fox Noise pertaining to be "Fair and Balanced".

EVERYTHING you've said is Bullshit, and I have already corrected it.

Your problem is you either don't have nearly enough knowledge (which is your fault for not wanting it) or not enough critical though, which seems to be very common these days.

TukBut the more important question is, what did u do when u could only render a project in 30 minutes? Now u can do it in 15 and u are still moaning? That sounds kind of spoiled to me, especially since I have a Single-Core Pentium 4 for the time being.

How does that pertain to a quad being better than a dual? The quad is better in this scenario, period. That's all that matters.

TukWell, if 5 minutes matters that much to you, then you should really spend the 5,000$ needed for a high-end workstation. Turn that 10 into 5 minutes.

TukAnd buying a Quad-Core only to shave off 5 minutes of off a project does?

I'll address both points at once.
Yes, that 5 minutes means something to me. Not to mention, when I'm mixing, the additional threads of the quad would allow me to run more plug-ins and effects simultaneously. I also game, so to someone like me, the gaming computer with a quad makes more sense. To compound things, the E6850 and Q6600 are the same price, how does buying a quad equate to spending $5k on a workstation?

Now, a dual may be a better purchase for you, but it is not the better purchase for everyone, which is the way you are making it seem.


Now, back on topic: I'd really like to see what the quad version of this could do.

omg, ive just waded thru what i can only call a thread contaminated by crap.

Tatty just beat him over the head with the butt of your rifle and be done with it. Will save us laughing to death then hurting from to much laughing then getting pissed off coz the thread missed the first turning on the right and now is heading down to ape-shitville

TukWow, that's almost as bad of a lie as Fox Noise pertaining to be "Fair and Balanced".

EVERYTHING you've said is Bullshit, and I have already corrected it.

Your problem is you either don't have nearly enough knowledge (which is your fault for not wanting it) or not enough critical though, which seems to be very common these days.

Talk about a statement that was beyond reason to say. I don't have enough knowledge? If I say 5 minutes is valuable that's an opinion, because I like every minute and second of my days. If you don't think it's valuable, I have no problem with that, but when you call my opinions bullshit, then you're the one that's being ignorant. You can't respect other people's opinions, and what kind of non-ignorant person can't respect someone's opinion? Also, since when did a dvd burning session tax one core to the max? Last time I checked my bottleneck was in the burner, how fast it could operate, how fast my hdd can move information, the ram, nb, etc, but it was all how fast it could move, not my cpu. Is 4ghz+ quad core on Liquid nitrogen bull? No it's not, just look at the futuremark hall of fame (3dmark06).

@GSG- They also improved the dividing capabilities, maybe that's why it performed better in source?

TukAre you and everyone here just going to discard what I've said because you don't like to hear it?

I kept with the discussion and came out on top, and yet people seem to be against me..

This forum is quite juvenile, now isn't it?

Thanks for calling me a "senior member" earlier, although thats not really the way it works here, my "star count" is just about number of posts, the "thanked" count is only a fairly recent addition and between the two of them it is an indicator of contribution to these forums, we dont really go too much on the seniority thing until a member becomes a moderator, there are plenty of new people here with few stars that have a good knowledge, certainly in certain area's that can teach many of us a few things.

Strange thing is, it would appear from what I have read over the last page and a half that you seem to be the only one thinking you came out on top.....wonder why that might be? If you feel the need to be competative feel free to do some benching and post some scores in the various competition threads, competition is good.....but what matters most is the way you compete.

It really does sadden me that you feel that this forum is "Juvenille", by that statement you obviously include me so I would genuinly like to thank you for that, at the age of 47 I am rarely referred to as a Juvenille anymore, but based on the fact (evidenced in the last couple of pages) that a number of these "Juvenille" forum members think that your approach has not shall we say ....been too endearing then perhaps you should take a small look at yourself before pointing your finger at others, apart from that....welcome to TPU......I hope your stay with us is worthwhile and beneficial.

TukEvidence does not equal proof.

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:



. . . and if I may say so, I completely agree with Tatty's posts - and the evidence he uses to backup his claims.


IMO, I think you're arguing with a fanboi, man, you won't ever be able to get him to admit defeat. I'm surprised he's not trying to make stuff up . . . yet.



and if I might say so - Intel CPU's are notorious for running much cooler than AMD's. As for multithreading - anything that utilizes or has more than one core is considered multi-threaded. Whether it's a 2nd logical core, or multiple physical cores. I even saw a fps bump with the Quake4 patch on my Hyperthreaded P4. I only have one physical core, but I also have a 2nd logical core. Psuedo-dual-core (or simulated, or emulated - whatever you want to say).

Listen to me when I ask it please.

Oh dear, it seems as though Track has gotten past his IP ban...time to put him back in his place.