Geek Out!

live.pirillo.com

More Information

In time I'm sure their full potential will be able to be grasped.....so should I get one?


My options of CPUs on different PCS are...

Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 2.33GHz

or

AMD Phenom X4 9850 Quad Core 2.5GHz


or I can get one of these dual cores..


Athlon X2 7750 2.70GHz

or

Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 2.8GHz


So really the question is what is better? More cores, or faster CPU speed?

Views: 16

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

if your programs don't fully utilize all 4 cores then its pretty useless

however if the processor prices are the same, i'd go for a quad anyways lol

if you like messing with pins go with amd, they still overclock better......i just prefer intel cpu installs

for a cost savings i'd wait until the upcoming core i5 and i3's come out as it will force a markdown on the current core 2 duo and core 2 quad lines
i have no clue what you are talking about, mine came with zero bent pins.
bent pins = worst nightmare
i'm just not very gentle with cpus and i've had amd pins fall off.....not saying they come out of the box with bent pins lol
Well the thing is they're all in the same range ($500-$700 for the comps with the CPUs)......so yeah I guess I'll run with the quads. But what are these i3s, i5s, and i7s I've heard of?
the core 2 and core 2 quad lines are being replaced by the nehalem series....otherwise currently known as the i7

i7 will be the high end, i5 mainstream, and i3 value based

as far as i know the i7 and i5 are quad core, with the i3's being the mixed low end quad/dual core

check this out for more details http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18944
i'll agree amd can be a fine alternative, it all comes down to preference :)

i hate pins so i stick with intel heh
I was less excited about the i7's performance at first than the system overall performance. You have to account for the fact that the i7 or LGA1366 platform is a great leap in the entire Core architecture. I was excited to get a onboard memory controller (something AMD had first), I was excited to get triple channel ram in the cutting edge DDR3 variety, and I was ecstatic that my board plays nice with both SLI and Crossfire. When the system was finished however I was unprepared for the more than impressive performance of the chip itself performing tasks that were previously painful to watch. MediaCoder for example is a up and coming transcoding platform that is one of the few that truly supports multithreading (no it doesn't use multiple cores to process several videos, it parallels) this is pertinent to all of us PMP fanatics (iPod, Zen, Archos, etc.) it can takes hours for us to get our precious shows in these restrictive formats on a single or dual core CPU and that just won't work when we are in a hurry. I have seen iPod touch transcodes at the top of the hardware limits encode at over 150FPS, that is a complete format change and it is utterly sick. So you decide, is it worth it to have quad core performance?
Well the i3,i5,i7,etc cores kind of just confused me. When are they due out anyway? And what is the presumed time till quads are outdated?
Good point.....I finally got onto my schedule of about 2-3 years for a major upgrade. I'm a mid gamer.....not really die hard pc gamer. So i'll do a board, cpu, and ram upgrade every 2-3 years, vid card every 3-4, and anything else that needs to be replaced in between. I try to plan ahead for upgrade paths. My last system I had had the only non-server board I've ever seen to have BOTH an AGP 8x slot AND an PCI-16x slot for video. I had the best of both worlds with that thing, but the cpu socket wasn't helping with anything else so I finally updated a few months ago.
Any way i am using AMD Phenom X4 940 black edition 3.01ghz
when all programs support Quad core go for it but now it would be better to stick with a fast dual core

RSS

© 2012   Created by Chris Pirillo.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service