Intel Planning Six-Core Processor, Will Call it 'Dunnington'

[candle_86]

who gives a crap, for one the P4 was not a gaming chip, but for media encoding ect it creamed AMD, go back and look. For another who gives a rats ass about all this, we all know when the day is over we buy what are budget will allow.


And star wars boy, turn 13 and stop taking like a moron please, it got old after the first post

 

[Tatty_Two]

who gives a crap, for one the P4 was not a gaming chip, but for media encoding ect it creamed AMD, go back and look. For another who gives a rats ass about all this, we all know when the day is over we buy what are budget will allow.


And star wars boy, turn 13 and stop taking like a moron please, it got old after the first post

Agreed!.....tiresome it be

 

[devilhood]

Tiresome? I'm new here and I already think he's a lunatic, his posts read like he just pasted some random disjointed part of his brain into babelfish in order to strum up some kind of conversation that eventually leads to empty space

 

[erocker]

Since you are new here, I'll let you off with a warning. Please read the rules.

 

[devilhood]

I'm familiar with the rules and I apologize.
It is my opinion that I just felt he deserved the comment, because, it was overly frustrating to read through this thread due to the way he constructed his sentences.

P.

 

[Morgoth]

may intel bewith you lol!

 

[candle_86]

amen my brother, amen.

Intel is path unto comptuing righteousness

Though sadly i use AMD, but only untill i save up more money, then its by by Satan hello God

 

[zekrahminator]

Keep it cool guys.

 

[[I.R.A]_FBi]

may intel bless your loins with bounteous hairs ...

 

[tiys]

The discussion is old, the way 2 (or more) cores are bundled is completely irrelevant. A Pentium D is as much a dual core as an X2 or C2D. Saying things like "duct tape" is just popular/fanboy talk. As you know C2Q still outperforms Phenom X4, and since you say "duct taping" is a poor lazy design per se and poor design = poor performance you're obviously wrong somewhere.

AMD already said the cheaper and faster method Intel uses is the better one months ago. Making a native quad core didn't do AMD any good, they got behind and it didn't perform as planned.

Additionally Netburst isn't a poor design, on paper it was good. Problem was heat, Intel planned to clock them far higher which would do them good. It was more a failed design than a poor one.

I think you don't have your facts straight either. Then again yours are mostly based on fanboyish arguments while I have no clue where tiys got his.

You provide a good point!

As for my previous post, I read it somewhere, but I can't remember where it was from.

 

[MagnusEgallo]

Keep it cool guys.

mmmm, buying me one when are you, hungery am I......