AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > AnimeSuki & Technology > Tech Support

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2009-05-16, 02:07   Link #21
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animeruko View Post
btw, if his mobo is 3 years old there is a good chance that not even a Phenom 1 would work in it.
Depends on the manufacturer. My Asus M2n-E only supports the original Phenom, but I hear that many older Gigabyte AM2 boards support Phenom II.

That means that a $190 CPU upgrade could defer the need for a full replacement to 2011/2012 area. Pretty sure the CPUs available then will be a lot better than an i7 920, particularly as Intel has been talking six core, 32nm i7s for early 2010 IIRC.

Also, I don't know where you're getting $440 for a Phenom II CPU/mobo/RAM combo considering you can get a 4GB dual channel DDR2 kit for $38 and a Gigabyte 780G board for $90 - $75 if you're willing to go micro ATX rather than full. Sounds to me like it would be pretty easy to hit $305-$320.

That's means the Core i7 plaform cost is 70% higher, which is a pretty step price for an extra year or two of service. Hell, that $230 is just a few dollars short of a GPU upgrade (GTX 275 or HD4890) to go along with the new CPU/mobo/ram.
0utf0xZer0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 03:53   Link #22
Animeruko
BECAUSE its moe moe!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0 View Post
Also, I don't know where you're getting $440 for a Phenom II CPU/mobo/RAM combo considering you can get a 4GB dual channel DDR2 kit for $38 and a Gigabyte 780G board for $90 - $75 if you're willing to go micro ATX rather than full. Sounds to me like it would be pretty easy to hit $305-$320.
My prices are AM3 based Phenom II and DDR3, Not AM2+ and DDR2.

Saving $230 wouldn't make me want to buy a slower system, for my "new" computer, Its all good though I realize that not everyone shares the same philosophy in building systems.
Animeruko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 09:47   Link #23
chikorita157
ひきこもりアイドル
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey, United States
Age: 24
Send a message via Skype™ to chikorita157
It would be pointless to use a multi-core processor because there little benefit at the moment since most games do not support more than 2 cores let alone one. This is because older games aren't optimized to use multi-core/multi-threads. Also, Windows don't have full support for multi-core processors until Windows 7 comes out, which will have better support for multi-core processors like the i7.

Unless the OP is going to play newer games which support multi-cores/intensive games like Crysis or encoding a dozen video files, a faster dual core processor will help more than a quad core at the moment and it will be cheaper until the OP decides to get a new computer which the new and improved i7 and Phoenoms will be out.
__________________
chikorita157 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 10:17   Link #24
Tri-ring
The Censor Bat
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land of the rising sun
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikorita157 View Post
It would be pointless to use a multi-core processor because there little benefit at the moment since most games do not support more than 2 cores let alone one. This is because older games aren't optimized to use multi-core/multi-threads. Also, Windows don't have full support for multi-core processors until Windows 7 comes out, which will have better support for multi-core processors like the i7.

Unless the OP is going to play newer games which support multi-cores/intensive games like Crysis or encoding a dozen video files, a faster dual core processor will help more than a quad core at the moment and it will be cheaper until the OP decides to get a new computer which the new and improved i7 and Phoenoms will be out.
That maybe true but doesn't present PCs run various mundane application in the background besides games such as virus check and so on?
If so do they not benefit from multi core, multi threading even if each are not optimized for multi core utilization?
__________________
Tri-ring is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 12:04   Link #25
Animeruko
BECAUSE its moe moe!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
That maybe true but doesn't present PCs run various mundane application in the background besides games such as virus check and so on?
If so do they not benefit from multi core, multi threading even if each are not optimized for multi core utilization?
That is Indeed the case.
Animeruko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 14:07   Link #26
chikorita157
ひきこもりアイドル
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey, United States
Age: 24
Send a message via Skype™ to chikorita157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tri-ring View Post
That maybe true but doesn't present PCs run various mundane application in the background besides games such as virus check and so on?
If so do they not benefit from multi core, multi threading even if each are not optimized for multi core utilization?
Quad-core works better with multi-tasking, like encoding a video while having 8 tabs in Firefox open and running a virtual machine... Beyond that, it's not going to be faster than a dual core processor at the same price because the quad core raw clock speed is lower than the dual core clock speed at the same price. Most programs are single core and don't do multi-threading so you won't get much gain if you use a quad core since the clock speed is lower and higher clock quad cores cost more...

Multi-CPU does not equal Multi-core.. they are two completely different things so don't think a quad core will run faster than a dual core because the difference in clock speeds. Also, Windows don't support multi-core processors yet (other operating systems like Linux already support multi-core processors and can fully use them.) This may change once Windows 7 comes out since it have multi-core support and more applications support multi-core and threading...

If you have the money, go for it... but if not... just wait until the improved and faster i7 comes out and by then, Windows 7 should be out.
__________________
chikorita157 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 15:15   Link #27
Animeruko
BECAUSE its moe moe!
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikorita157 View Post
Quad-core works better with multi-tasking, like encoding a video while having 8 tabs in Firefox open and running a virtual machine... Beyond that, it's not going to be faster than a dual core processor at the same price because the quad core raw clock speed is lower than the dual core clock speed at the same price. Most programs are single core and don't do multi-threading so you won't get much gain if you use a quad core since the clock speed is lower and higher clock quad cores cost more...
Core i 7 IS faster than Core 2. You are assuming that Core 2 and Core i 7 have the same architecture however, They do not. clock for clock CI7 is faster, there is no question about that. I wouldn't be too surprised if a Ci7 based dual core(would never happen as quad is mainstream now) rated at 2.66ghz would perform close to if not faster than a 3ghz Core 2 Duo.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chikorita157 View Post
Multi-CPU does not equal Multi-core.. they are two completely different things so don't think a quad core will run faster than a dual core because the difference in clock speeds. Also, Windows don't support multi-core processors yet (other operating systems like Linux already support multi-core processors and can fully use them.) This may change once Windows 7 comes out since it have multi-core support and more applications support multi-core and threading...
What You should be saying is that windows(XP) doesn't distribute threads across all cores properly it does however support multi-core cpu's.

Don't forget that you can manually assign programs to cores to make up for windows(XP) lack of proper load balancing.
Animeruko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 17:47   Link #28
chikorita157
ひきこもりアイドル
*IT Support
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: New Jersey, United States
Age: 24
Send a message via Skype™ to chikorita157
I was referring to Core 2 Quad to Core 2 Duo, I guess Core i7 is a beefed up version of Core2 Quad with higher clock speeds with hyperthreading support. I wouldn't know because I don't use or build desktop computers anymore.

Also, Vista and Windows 7 have multi-core support (not realizing it), even though XP is faster, in this article.
__________________
chikorita157 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-16, 19:26   Link #29
martino
makes no files now
 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by chikorita157 View Post
I guess Core i7 is a beefed up version of Core2 Quad with higher clock speeds with hyperthreading support.
Not really, the architecture is different. So it's not the clock speed. Anyway, not a good idea to compare clock speeds between different families of CPUs.
__________________
"Light and shadow don't battle each other, because they're two sides of the same coin"
martino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2009-05-17, 05:44   Link #30
aeriolewinters
Gin-Sama no Tameni!
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Balanga City, Bataan, Philippines
Send a message via Yahoo to aeriolewinters
Quote:
I guess Core i7 is a beefed up version of Core2 Quad with higher clock speeds with hyperthreading support.
Different Architecture as i7's don't have a FSB, they have QPI which is almost like AMD's Hypertransport which means that DDR3 will play a role on how fast your computer can get. also mind that although XP is faster than NT 6.x , NT 6.x has better stability especially 7(even at RC).
__________________
Mercury Lampe
aeriolewinters is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:03.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.