Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Mmmmmmm... This looks quite interesting, a dual-core FX-series CPU. It has a clock of 2.6 Ghz though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Yes, it does look very interesting and veeerrryyy nice. Considering that I just built a new system last October I think I'll wait a while longer before I upgrade again. Besides I would like to see the dual-core processors mature a little more and see games released that can take advantage of multiple processors before I go dual-core myself. Yeah, I know. Not very "bleeding edge" of me, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 well, considering all the technology inside of the FX-60, i think most of us would be set until the quad-cores come out for the desktop (right now, quads are due in 2007 for server chips). and considering that most gaming applications are becoming more and more graphics dependant, you'd at least be set as long as you get a SLI/Crossfire compatible board. and if you already have a 939 socket motherboard, this would be the last CPU upgrade you need for quite some time to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 ^^^ Blast you and your devilish temptations, stingerhs!!! j/k Do you intend for me to live on the street after forking out the arm and a leg of US$1100+ dollars for this processor? Oh so tempting that it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 The only use for dual-core at this point is so you can watch porn while playing games. And while a very enticing prospect, not worth it, yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 well, considering all the technology inside of the FX-60, i think most of us would be set until the quad-cores come out for the desktop (right now, quads are due in 2007 for server chips). and considering that most gaming applications are becoming more and more graphics dependant, you'd at least be set as long as you get a SLI/Crossfire compatible board. and if you already have a 939 socket motherboard, this would be the last CPU upgrade you need for quite some time to come. blast now I wanna upgrade my pc >_> damn you I'm broke like completely broke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I agree with IS, if you don't intend to watch porn and play games at the same time and if your work does not require you to have a multicore processor, I think it's a bit early to buy this kind of processor. The use of dual-cores in gaming is still pretty limited. Why not wait until the number of games taking real advantage of it increases...prices will have dropped by then and newer and better CPU's will come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 well, a couple of games have patches that enable the game to somewhat utilize a duel-core processor, with Quake 4 being a prominant example. the performance numbers i've seen with Quake 4 using two cores aren't the most impressive (about 10-15 fps gain), but that's mostly due to the game dumping some of the AI and scripting processing onto the second core while keeping the majority of the processes on the main core. it does help to relieve the bottleneck a bit, though. personally, i'd like to see the Monolith team release a duel-core patch for F.E.A.R. so they could put the AI and physics processing on one core and keep the rest on the other. that would have to give the game a good performance increase (and map makers could put in a lot more physics-related objects). hehe, i always like to dream.... anyways, i'll be the first to admit that spending over $750 is probably way too much just to get a CPU. sure you wouldn't have to buy another one in a year or more, but right now, its just not worth it, IMHO. *shrugs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 12, 2006 Author Share Posted January 12, 2006 Just invest a few hundred and get a high end cooling system then OC your CPU. For graphics you can unlock your pixel pipelines. I did that and got a 10-25 FPS gain in F.E.A.R. Although with F.E.A.R, you'd have to underclock your CPU to avoid 'graphical anomalies', as VUGames puts it. I call it a flickering screen and a crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 anyways, i'll be the first to admit that spending over $750 is probably way too much just to get a CPU. sure you wouldn't have to buy another one in a year or more, but right now, its just not worth it, IMHO. *shrugs* WHHEEW! Now I don't have to figure out how to live out of my Jeep with my blazing FX-60 system, war driving around looking for unsecured 802.11b/g networks with Internet connectivity so that I can keep posting on Lucasforums all while filming Supersize Me Too!. this is all very much tongue-in-cheek of course. I hope you don't mind me busting your chops a bit, stinger. After all, you were the one who provided the sage advice on the parts for my new system. Luv ya man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Just invest a few hundred and get a high end cooling system then OC your CPU. For graphics you can unlock your pixel pipelines. I did that and got a 10-25 FPS gain in F.E.A.R. Although with F.E.A.R, you'd have to underclock your CPU to avoid 'graphical anomalies', as VUGames puts it. I call it a flickering screen and a crash.unfortunately, i can't do a lot to my compy other than what i've already done. considering i'm on a tight budget, my rig performs more than adequate for every game i play, including F.E.A.R. my computer started life as an eMachine system. and that means no CPU overclocking since i still have yet to find new BIOS that enables CPU clock changing. and the graphics slot is an AGP 8x, so i'm very limited when it comes to video cards. that also means i can't just go in and 'unlock' pixel pipes since i can get a max of 8. i can overclock the card i bought (a R9700 overclocked to 390/380), but not much more than that. and with an Athlon 3200 (Barton), its still pretty darn quick. just not 'blazing'. if i had the money, i'd upgrade (straight to the FX-60), but for now, dreaming and drooling works just fine for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Fraid I'm not too knowledgable, With a dual core could you use two monitors (if video supported it) and two key/mouse and play two different games on the same machine? P.S. I wonder if sith had considered the cost/benefit of watching twice the.......never mind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth333 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Fraid I'm not too knowledgable, With a dual core could you use two monitors (if video supported it) and two key/mouse and play two different games on the same machine? Well I guess this question just earned you the ultimate geek prize: the taped eyeglasses! http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-dual-core-processor.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 WOW THANXXX!!!! In an effort to earn an aluminum foil hat:lol:.... If you had say three cpu's each with multiple cores, and enough non cpu resources to handle it, could you make a one PC LAN party with multiple monitors and interfaces but only one PC handling everything? (P.S. Never actually LANd ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 The only use for dual-core at this point is so you can watch porn while playing games. And while a very enticing prospect.... lolz...youd need more hands than a Hindu god to do these two tasks simultaneously....or so someone tells me mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 lolz...youd need more hands than a Hindu god to do these two tasks simultaneously....or so someone tells me mtfbwya You learn to move quickly, you'd be surprised how much the human body can adapt to multi-tasking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 WOW THANXXX!!!! In an effort to earn an aluminum foil hat:lol:.... If you had say three cpu's each with multiple cores, and enough non cpu resources to handle it, could you make a one PC LAN party with multiple monitors and interfaces but only one PC handling everything? (P.S. Never actually LANd ) well, technically its possible, but thats something to dream about as that kind of system would probably cost more than a supercomputer. so, its theoretical, anyway. just don't count on a single computer to run a LAN party anytime soon unless somebody has way too much money on their hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Char Ell Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 If you had say three cpu's each with multiple cores, and enough non cpu resources to handle it, could you make a one PC LAN party with multiple monitors and interfaces but only one PC handling everything? (P.S. Never actually LANd ) Like stingherhs says, this is possible. The technology already exists if you used a terminal services environment for a game. I think it would be interesting to try. But like stinger also says the finances involved would also make this highly impractical. (following list ordered by biggest to smallest obstacle IMO) 1) The game would need to be designed to support a terminal services setup. Terminal services performs most of the heavy-duty processing on the server as opposed to existing game servers that act more like a coordinator between the game clients. I think this also means the game would need to support multiple threads because running 4 users on one processor for a game like Counterstrike probably wouldn't work all that well. 2) You would still need to have "desktop" side hardware in the form of a thin client, costing US$200-600 per client new but perhaps cheaper if you bought used on eBay, heh-heh. 3) The game server hardware would need to be scaled based on (a) the number of users, (b) the hardware demands of the specific game, and © how the game distributes load between the server and the thin clients. The thin clients I'm thinking of have a CPU and RAM on them that the game could take advantage of if it was designed to do so. For a game like Counterstrike I would guess that for the small number of 4 users a server would require a minimum of 2 processors, 2 GB RAM, possibly a RAID 0 array. But... if you wanted to have a game of 8-way PONG you should be able to get by with just a regular run-of-the-mill desktop system as the game server. 4) Windows Terminal Server with enough client access licenses to support the max number of users you want to have. 5) Hi-speed data network for games like Unreal Tournament or Counterstrike, 100 Mb from client to network switch and 1 Gb from server to switch. What I'm not sure of is how the graphics would work in a terminal services game. The thin clients I'm thinking of use video cards with 16 MB RAM or less. If all the graphical rendering was done server-side and piped down to the clients then the server would need to have some heavy duty graphics, like nVidia SLI or ATI Crossfire, to support 4 users for a current FPS game. Thus I'm thinking you would need a mainboard that supported two dual-core CPU's and two hi-end graphics cards. And of course h/w reqs go up substantially the more users you want to have. So RJM, does this info give you an idea of what you would need? Even if you solved the application design issues this is really only for those who have time and money to burn. But hey, maybe you can talk the THG peeps into trying this. After all they're the ones who tested running a PC in a case filled with 8 gallons of cooking oil. They obviously have the time. Maybe they'll have the $$$ too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 You learn to move quickly, you'd be surprised how much the human body can adapt to multi-tasking. lolz....LAN parties would become messy affairs mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 lolz....LAN parties would become messy affairs mtfbwya Aye, but you never know. It may be someones thing. But uh... yeah, dual core at this time is pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 So it sounds like we need to come up with some incredibly resource hungry graphical editing program (maybe windows 2025) so Chainz would have a reason to charge a "new" system to what he claims as a generous company budget;) Hey, why not get Billy-G himself to work on it? ...xbox720??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevanA4 Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 WOW THANXXX!!!! In an effort to earn an aluminum foil hat:lol:.... If you had say three cpu's each with multiple cores, and enough non cpu resources to handle it, could you make a one PC LAN party with multiple monitors and interfaces but only one PC handling everything? (P.S. Never actually LANd ) O.o possible: yes practial: no and to even atempt to do that would cost you a lot $$$ not to mention a server board doesn't typically have that many slots >_> even though technically if you ran windows 2000 data center you could have 32 processors on one board O.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 So, there isn't a difference between servers and the systems previously discussed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 servers are for connecting a number of different computers together, especially to share resources. if a lot of users are trying to access different things, a server will have to run through a lot of tasks as quickly as possible. if you have a lot of processors, the tasks can be split over all the processors instead of just one. servers are specifically designed for this task where desktop computers are designed for just one program or perhaps two (outside the OS) that need access to the processor. technically, you're quite close. if you've heard of the term 'dedicated server' in the gaming world, then you're on the right track. its a server computer connected to the internet with the sole purpose of running one program: a video game. the dedicated server acts as the central point that all the gamers are connected to and keeps track of all of them for a variety of game-related reasons. if you had the equipment, you could set up a password protected dedicated server specifically for a LAN party, but that's realistically as close as you'll get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDJOHNNYMIKE Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 But you still have to have your own PC to use that system, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.