• We've upgraded our forums. Please post any issues/requests in this thread.

Dual Core too slow? - Try Quad Core!

BvB123

New Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
55 (0.01/day)
Likes
2
#1
At the Computex 2005 in Taiwan, the colleagues from The Inquirer have discovered, that AMD will present a quad core CPU in Q1 2006. However, this plan will be only successful, if AMD is able to handle the 65nm production process since using a 90nm process would be too large and expensive.

Show full news post
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
5,358 (1.10/day)
Likes
106
Location
Seattle
Processor X2 3800+ @ 2.3 GHz
Motherboard DFI Lanparty SLI-DR
Cooling Zalman CNPS 9500 LED
Memory 2x1 Gb OCZ Plat. @ 3-3-2-8-1t 460 MHz
Video Card(s) HIS IceQ 4670 512Mb
Storage 640Gb & 160Gb western digital sata drives
Display(s) Hanns G 19" widescreen LCD w/ DVI 5ms
Case Thermaltake Soprano
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2 softmod@Audigy 4, Logitech X-530 5:1
Power Supply Coolermaster eXtreme Power Plus 500w
Software XP Pro
#2
Am I the only one that thinks multi-core anything is getting out of hand?
 

DanTheBanjoman

Señor Moderator
Joined
May 20, 2004
Messages
10,488 (2.12/day)
Likes
1,331
#4
Actually multithreading is the future. Increasing performance per core is getting harder. Multithreading is a simple way to increase performance by large amount. 4 cores would suck up a lot of power though. And a lot of software isn't multithreaded, though that will hopefully change.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,722 (0.59/day)
Likes
44
Location
Canada
Processor Intel Q6600
Motherboard DFI LanParty P35-TR2
Memory 4x1024MB Crucial OC-6400
Video Card(s) ATI HD 3870X2 Crossfire
Storage WD Black 640GB / Seagate 7200.10 320GB
Display(s) 20" Samsung SyncMaster
Case Lian Li PC-A16b
Power Supply SilverStone Decathlon DA750
Software Windows 7 HP
#5
wazzledoozle said:
Am I the only one that thinks multi-core anything is getting out of hand?
Ya I think I agree with you too. Like the dual core is great, but as soon as they get that theres quad, then there will be 8. Its to much for people to keep up with or be able to buy due to price. Except the few people that have a lot of money. :rolleyes:

-Dan
 

SPHERE

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
821 (0.18/day)
Likes
0
Location
arizona (cave creek)
Processor opteron 165
Motherboard dfi cfx3200
Cooling zalman 7000
Memory mushkin xp4000
Video Card(s) x1900xt
Storage 4x320 7200.10 raid
Display(s) 21" sony trinitron
Case v2000b lianli
Audio Device(s) x-fi platinum
Power Supply pcpac 510
Software gaydows
#6
r u kidding the dual cores pwn and please try not to take that as a hollow noob im no noob click one of the links in my sig :) comment thinking that 2.2ghz + another core = 4.4ghz cause im not stupid and i do understand the dynamics of dual cores im getting a 4400+ btw ;)
 
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
1,005 (0.22/day)
Likes
94
Location
South Africa
Processor Intel i7-920 @ 4.0GHz LGA1366
Motherboard Intel DX58 Smackover Motherboard
Cooling TRUE 120 with 2x120mm Thermalright FDB-1600 and 8x120mm Zalman/Coolermaster Case Fans
Memory 16GB DDR3-1333 Corsair @ 8-8-8-19
Video Card(s) Gigabyte GTX 1070 FE
Storage Intel 520 240GB + Intel X25-M 80GB + 4TB Seagate/WD Storage
Display(s) 24" Samsung SA350 + 24" BenQ G2410HD + 2x 22" Samsung 2253GW's + Hyundai 19" B91D+
Case Coolermaster CM690
Power Supply Corsair TX750W PSU
Software Windows 8.1
#7
Why don't they just change architecture? I mean, that's why the PIII was faster than the P4. If Intel does 6 calculations per clock cycle or whatever and AMD does 9 (I believe they have pipes as well), why don't they move to like 16 or sumthin calculations per second? That way you have better performance on a single core without raising clock speed. Or is that too complex to implement? I don't have a clue how the inner electronics of a CPU works so correct me if I'm horribly stupidly wrong... ;)
 

SPHERE

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2005
Messages
821 (0.18/day)
Likes
0
Location
arizona (cave creek)
Processor opteron 165
Motherboard dfi cfx3200
Cooling zalman 7000
Memory mushkin xp4000
Video Card(s) x1900xt
Storage 4x320 7200.10 raid
Display(s) 21" sony trinitron
Case v2000b lianli
Audio Device(s) x-fi platinum
Power Supply pcpac 510
Software gaydows
#8
^if intel did that they would loose their noob market cause they would have to drop their clock speeds down to somewhere around amds infact intel has already done that with the dothans and they pwn but they cant get them past 2.6 even when oced on average :( the dothan is baised on the pIII btw not the p4
 
N

nightelf84

Guest
#9
If you are REALLY into multi-tasking, then a multi-core processor maybe the answer for you. Multi-Tasking tests have showed there is a significant increase in performance when using a dual-core processor.

If you're into games, there's really NO substatial gain in performance. A Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4Ghz) performs just as well as a Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz).

I admit, dual core pwns, but this totally depend on the tasks ur running and whether they are multi-threaded which exploits dual core performance. For most users, its pretty much overkill..
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2005
Messages
1,807 (0.39/day)
Likes
35
Location
Hamburg
Processor Intel I7 2600k@ 4.5
Motherboard Gigabyte p67 ud4 b3
Cooling AC Cuplex kryos Hf
Memory 8096 Exceleram 1600@ 1333 Cl9 1.35v
Video Card(s) Palit Gtx570@950/1900@1.063v
Storage Ocz Vertex 3 120gb, 2tb Seagate 7200rpm s-ata3
Display(s) Asus 24inch Lcd
Case Coolermaster Cosmos S
Audio Device(s) Creative X-fi with Teufel Magnum Power Edition
Power Supply Coolermaster 700W Silent Pro Gold
Software Linux?^^ ;P Windows 7 64bit
#10
hmpf that isnt a future for me!
i saw some nano pcs working and i can say in this case dual core is crap even quad or 8 on a chip will be crap against them!

but for atm it might be a good method to get some money from enthusiast and industry for better server and so on.....