Dont Buy A New Computer

posted on November 14th, 2006, 5:33 am

Dont buy a new computer untill the end of the year from what I have read intell will have a quad-core processor out at the start of 2007. So dont wast your munny on a new computer when legisy 1st comes out just whate 1-2 munths and the speed of prosesers will dubal.

posted on November 14th, 2006, 8:29 am

well the speed of processor aint changing, intel are releasing there E6X50 range where all of them support a front side bus of 1200 if i remember right...
as for quad core, they have already been tested and benefit gaming in absolutely no way, however did benefit video encoding and scene rendering in max. personally i dont do much of either so im happy to get an E6600 and overclock it, be more hten pwerful for legacy cuz well come on, anyone going to imagine the price of DDR2-1200mhz ram... just look at 1000 now...

its all about your graphic card mate, not your processor these days... everyone should wait two months for ATI to release their direct X ten beast so the price war can start.

[DOCa Cola]

posted on November 14th, 2006, 8:30 am

Last edited by DOCa Cola on November 14th, 2006, 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

for gamers quadcore isn't worth yet anyway - only very few games yet make use of more than ONE core today. prices will be much to high anyway except you are 'enthusiast' gamer you won't care high prices anyway .
also quadcore is available in form of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 with 4x 2.66GHz cores already.
for pure gamers multi core cpus current just aren't that interesting due to lack of support by current games. still, desktop applications and especially of course those like 3d studio max, adobe premiere and many other more professional applications will of course benefit much of multicores as they are often were previously written for dual processors anyway.

posted on November 14th, 2006, 6:08 pm

That and for the most part you have to remember that those first launch quadcores are going to have a few glitches at launch, that an as of current the Intel Core Duo is even outperforming AMD's flagship model

posted on November 14th, 2006, 6:53 pm

for gamers quadcore isn't worth yet anyway - only very few games yet make use of more than ONE core today. prices will be much to high anyway except you are 'enthusiast' gamer you won't care high prices anyway .
also quadcore is available in form of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 with 4x 2.66GHz cores already.
for pure gamers multi core cpus current just aren't that interesting due to lack of support by current games. still, desktop applications and especially of course those like 3d studio max, adobe premiere and many other more professional applications will of course benefit much of multicores as they are often were previously written for dual processors anyway.

to quote the usenet full ACK from my point; right now i just know two games that support more than one core:: Gothic3 (hahah lol Bugic3 should be more fitting) and Supreme Commander; but erm thats scheduled for 2007 i think; the other part is of course the coding part; do you know how much work it is to code a multi-threading application under c++; To be honest i don't know it either, from what i heard its a pain in the *lovely behind you use to sit on*; So i guess you have to WAIT until a proper quad-core supporting game comes out ^^ unless you can get your fingers at some raytracing games, but i doubt that

posted on November 14th, 2006, 7:43 pm

for gamers quadcore isn't worth yet anyway - only very few games yet make use of more than ONE core today. prices will be much to high anyway except you are 'enthusiast' gamer you won't care high prices anyway .
also quadcore is available in form of the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6700 with 4x 2.66GHz cores already.
for pure gamers multi core cpus current just aren't that interesting due to lack of support by current games. still, desktop applications and especially of course those like 3d studio max, adobe premiere and many other more professional applications will of course benefit much of multicores as they are often were previously written for dual processors anyway.

I remiber hering a roomer a wile back that vista mite chage that and fores all aplications to use molty cored proseser. I cant say if this is a fact becuss it was a wile ago I read this be for the oreginal dule core.

Eny one know if this is true?

posted on November 15th, 2006, 1:31 am

well i have read multiple news statements and one form EA themselves who have loads of money who have stated to make a multi-threaded game adds 6 months to development, requires extremely good coders and is incredibily more expensive as the problem is telling the game what to actualyl thread when...
now that dont mean companies wont do it, it just means you have next to no chance for them ever bothering to write quad core for ages, its just not beneficial to the companies making it...

however for rendering and any developing software its pretty different and its a great benefit have quad core, they did a test on techup i think and on average a quard core was 70% fast at everything rendering and encoding wise then ahtlons top model overclocked and on average 40-50% to faster then a core 2 duo

posted on November 15th, 2006, 4:54 am

Dang. I wonder what the games made for it will look like when they actually get around to making them...

posted on November 15th, 2006, 4:57 am

Well The report I read said that by 2010 thay will have CPUs with 100 and up brains. Thay must have some thing up thare sleevs.

posted on November 15th, 2006, 8:22 am

you know not all reports are true...
intell demonstrated a 1 Terrahertz chip that had something like 500 cores but it wont be released....
as times goes on, give it fives year we will move awya form this multiple core thing and move onto a different system for processors, just the way it has to be if were going to progress processor wise, maybe gt onto quantum mechanics or using light, its concept has been proven, just needs more research

posted on November 15th, 2006, 4:04 pm

Well pentem lasted about 15years. Well will move in to malatronics wich uses proteens as swiches wich has the pertinchal to speed computers up like 1,000,000,000 times faster than what silacon can do.

posted on November 15th, 2006, 9:17 pm

the Intel chip you mentioned actually had 80 cores and used a new technique to intergrate the cores with a higher internal bus speed on the chip

i dont think we will move away from this approach as it seems to be the next logical course till Quantum Processing but who knows

posted on November 16th, 2006, 5:21 am

Well the atical I read was not refering to a pusific proser but was tolking about what will be posabule.

And yes we will prity soon. be cuss silacon the tecnolgy all of ower computers are basted on is reaching a seeling. We will need to move to some thing new mallacronics is the most likey replasment.

posted on November 16th, 2006, 5:44 pm

The article im referring to is this

http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6119618.ht...19618&subj=news

where he wants to release an 80 core chip within 5 years,

the reason this is all meant to be possible is the silicon lazer that intel have been developing but i dunno it seems a little far fetched but then again if u compare what we had 10 years ago to what we have now it doesnt seem like that much of a leap

posted on November 24th, 2006, 2:04 am

*sighs* It's true, I think, that games are much more graphics card oriented these days. Half-Life 2, I believe, gave great gameplay and visuals and I THINK it was processor driven ('cause it didn't fail on my computer's rather whimpy Radeon X300), but graphics cards just seem to be the new candy.