Thats like same as a old geezer saying.
I LIKE MY 10 YEAR OLD PIECE 0 SHIT COMP AND ALL I EVER USE IT WITH IS WRITING STUFF. LIKE, WHATS THE POINT IN HAVING ALL THOSE GOOD STUFF?
No actually it's not and I don't appreciate a stupid spam responce.
I got a question as well,
Why the hell do you need a Quad C ore processor?! I got a Duo Core and I'm perfectly happy the speed is perfect! If I would ever upgrade, It'd be to a 3.0GHZ Duo core, What's the point in having a Quad core?
Some people do. There is definitely a market for it, and it only makes sense that Intel and AMD are taking advantage of it.
But the thing is, you can't do everything as well on a dual core as you can a quad core, regardless of whether you feel like you don't need it, a lot of people do need/want it and could put a use to having quad cores instead of dual cores. People would still be using 486's if they could.
Also, if you have not noticed, software is getting increasingly demanding as hardware does. Take Operating systems for example. Compare the system requirements from XP to Vista.
I work with 3d programs and multitask a lot, but I still don't see the use for a Quad core, I mean if you can get a 3.0DUO you should be happy... I haven't seen on program my 2.13DUo has a problem running. I'm sure in the next 2-4 years there might come a time to get one, but right now I think people should not waste the extra money and just get a fast DUO.
Let me answer that for you:
Would you rather export a movie like FF7: Advent Children in two months, or two weeks? (That's an example, not an actual statistic)
Quad Core would have many uses for 3D Modeling and Animation and all that stuff.. It would/should speed up the render ten-fold..
None.
Quote from ClansAreForGays
So, what exactly are you referring to in that article?
None.
Wth do you want to say?
I haven't heard of any "tri-cores" yet, and I doubt I ever will. Though probably possible, it would most likely waste some resources anyways.
Yes, you can tell which process makes best use of which type of processor (if that's what you were saying). But really important is only how many processors it supportsa at max, and this can best be told by the programmers of that program.
Why should I have a dual and a quad core on my board? If I add the money I spent for the dual core to the money of the quad, I can easily get a quad clocked as high as the dual core, and thus I wouldn't need the dual core at all.
More RAM is pretty much always a good thing (except for your electricity bill) - as long as you can use it. for 16GB of RAM might need a 64bit System.
Acutally AMD will release tri cores sometime in 2008, no clear release date yet. AMD will believe that it will also increase its CPU Market.
If AMD quad core cpu has one damaged core but the other three works. Isn't much more helpful to disable that one core and ship it out as a tri core? You'd save money and make more money from it, so thus their going to go with that statement.
Dual and a quad? I was talking about having 2 Quad core CPU, (Dual Quad Core = 2 Quad Core CPU) on the same motherboard enabling up to 16gb of ram.
Anything over 4gb, you'll need a 64bit cpu.
Does anyone know when DDR3 will become mainstream for motherboards? Some say till at least 2010.
As well as PCI-E v3.0 and USB v3.0
None.
Does anyone know when DDR3 will become mainstream for motherboards?
Probably whenever it is that the cost of DDR3 finally comes way down from where it is (currently at least 4-6 times as much as DDR2 or maybe even more since the cost of DDR2 has come down).
None.
Quote from ClansAreForGays
So, what exactly are you referring to in that article?
I am fully aware of Moore's law, but I am not sure what your point is, perhaps you could actually make one? K THX LOZLZOZLZ
PCI-E v2.0 is already out, Bruteal, and is being incorperated in new chipsets, I believe. Considering it's backward compatibillity, I do not think it is going to take very long for it to replace v1.0
The same applies to USB 3.0, however I have not seen it incorperated into anything yet.
None.
If you have a dual processor mobo, definitely go with dual core processors in preference. I currently average 150% processor utilization on 2 single core processors(macos 10.4), but there are times where i think I could use 3 or 4 cores, depending on what I am doing. Capturing and encoding video from my tuner card could take 2 cores, while encoding and burning a dvd takes another(I have been doing a lot of this with home movies), leaving 1 free for starcraft.
Aside from that, Windows is horrible when it comes to scheduling processor time, you would be lucky to fully utilize half the cores on a dual-quad windows machine, even if you run programs that are fully multithreaded.
None.
Aside from that, Windows is horrible when it comes to scheduling processor time, you would be lucky to fully utilize half the cores on a dual-quad windows machine, even if you run programs that are fully multithreaded.
Yeah. Windows TT
I heard that Vista was offering about 0.1% better support for multithreading. Yay.
None.
