AMD - Intel - Dual Core - Quad Core Chaos!

[The Source]

I am saying sorry ahead of time, for this might be a little winded.

-----------------------------------------------------------

AMD - Intel - Dual Core - Quad Core Chaos!

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

'Next-Gen' Console Rant

Why X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii will not be 'next-gen':

For the past week, I have been traveling to every computer store in my area. I wanted to buy an updated computer, which I can install Windows Vista and CS3. What I found was a confussing mess. I have also noted that the 'next-gen' games systems will be obsolete in about six months. Why? Dual and Quad Core Processors. These new processors will be faster and more efficient than consoles. There is another issue, which I read up on: Games currently do not support the Dual and Quad Processors. Since the 'next-gen' of computers is going to be based upon multiple processors, the current game systems 'X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii will truely not be 'next-gen' systems. At the end of next year, the PC game industry will be the dominate winner in game design.

 

A few months ago, Intel and Mac released a Quad Processor. These are an enormous leap from what the X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii was built upon. AMD is in the process of creating a Quad Processor of their own. Multi-Threading is going to be the future of computing and gamming. The current consoles are incapable of reaching the efficientcy and speed that will come from multi-threading.

 

PC will win the gamming industry, for there is another advancement. Dual-Core Graphics Cards.

 

Dual-Core CPUs with Dual-Core Graphics Cards will dominate the game industry. The current 'next-gen' consoles are not dual-core based. Therefore, they are not 'next-gen' consoles.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here comes my confussion: Since I am looking for a new computer, I noticed the latest Dual Processors have low processor (GHz) rates than two years ago. What I was told is that AMD's processors are 1.3 times faster than Intel's CPUs. Another thing I am told is that an AMD 3200+ (2.2 GHz) is slower than a AMD 64x2 (2.0 GHz).

 

Could someone explain how this is possible. Why are dual threading computers faster than single thread computers even though their processor speeds are slower?

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

Single CPU - Dual Core

-2 Processes at one time, but depends on 1 CPU.

-1 CPU on 1 board, but has a dual-core.

-This is most likely the future of home computers.

 

Single CPU - Single Core

-1 Process at one time, and depends on 1 CPU.

-1 CPU on 1 board, but it has a single-core.

-This is the old home computer.

-'Next-Gen' consoles were made with this premise in mind.

 

Two CPUs - Quad-Core

-4 Processes at one time, but depends on 2 CPUs.

-2 CPUs on 1 board, but each has a dual-core.

-Software for this type of computer would be sever-end.

 

Two CPUs - Single-Core

-2 Processes at one time, but depends on 2 CPUs.

-2 CPUs on 1 board, but each has a single-core.

-This has been clocked at the same speed as: Single CPU - Dual-Core.

-This is the old server computer.

 

Which cpu and core set is efficient and faster at a processor speed of 2.0 GHz?

A Single CPU with Single-Core?

A Single CPU with Dual-Core?

[Q]

Hey, Mac:

 

First off, I'd like to clarify to all you AMD heads out there that I'm not an Intel fanboy; I'm a best-bang-for-the-buck fanboy.

 

That being said, the information you were given has been obsolete for a couple of months now. Forget about single-core CPU's. You can get a good dual-core on the cheap now. Also, you can forget about quad-core CPU's unless you want to spend about $1000.00US for one. There's hardly any software out there that takes advantage of dual-core, let alone quad-core CPU's. This will change, of course, but excepting very high-end users, I doubt that there will be any real need for quad-core in the near future.

 

AMD64 X2's & FX's no longer hold the CPU speed title since Intel released Core 2 Duo a little over 2 months ago. If you're giong to buy now, get one of those because AMD's true answer to these powerhouses, called K8L, is 9-10 months away. IMO, these Core 2 Duo's are a great value because you can buy the cheap 1.8GHz E6300 model for $180.00US and a good motherboard and overclock it to >3GHz, where it outperforms even the $1000.00US X6800 when the X6800 is running at it's stock speed. This is a stable overclock of >50%-more than 1GHz, and can be done with a decent aftermarket air-cooled heatsink. If you don't know anything about overclocking, now's the time to learn (I just did!). From what I've read, AMD CPU's can be overclocked only a fraction as much. The only real choice comes down to which company's CPU you want, along with a compatible motherboard.

 

Whatever you get, BUILD YOUR OWN SYSTEM. I can't stress this one enough. Manufacturers like Dell make their systems almost impossible to overclock. There's lot's of techies here who can give you good advice on what components to buy (though most of them will tell you to buy AMD for no good reason ).

 

BTW: If one processor is "faster" at a lower clock speed than another, then one way or another it's executing more intructions per clock cycle.

 

Happy hunting!

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

A few months ago, Intel and Mac released a Quad Processor. These are an enormous leap from what the X-Box 360, PS3, and Wii was built upon. AMD is in the process of creating a Quad Processor of their own. Multi-Threading is going to be the future of computing and gamming. The current consoles are incapable of reaching the efficientcy and speed that will come from multi-threading.

Actually, the MacPro systems you're referring to just have two dual-core processors (twin Intel Xeons).

Two 2.66GHz Dual-Core Intel Xeon "Woodcrest" processors

Could someone explain how this is possible. Why are dual threading computers faster than single thread computers even though their processor speeds are slower?

The data flowing into the processor is divided between the two threads or cores, thus reducing the load to the processor and allowing it to process more data per clock cycle.

 

Which cpu and core set is efficient and faster at a processor speed of 2.0 GHz?

A Single CPU with Single-Core?

A Single CPU with Dual-Core?

It depends on what you're doing, some programs aren't written for dual-core processors and it may even reduce performance on some systems.

[Astrotoy7]

Hey I wouldnt get super stressed about this.

 

You'll be able to run all the new pc games for at least the next 2-3 years with a decent dual core cpu you can get cheap now, be it from intel or AMD.

 

Im an AMD fan, because I've encountered heat problems with clients who've insisted *on a particular type* of Intel chip when having me build their gaming or media center pc. My AMD 64 x2 4800+ never gets over 29 degrees celsius and thats with conventional cooling. I have an intel core duo in my current media center pc and it still runs hotter than my sli pc with the amd chip.

 

Some will argue that the larger and more versatile use of cache in the new conroes will 'make things go faster' for you. This only really applies if you are multitasking super high memory intensive apps. For most of us, we run a game, listen to some music, fiddle with photoshop etc. We are unlikely to really notice this.

 

I think waiting for a quad core is a good idea BUT only after theyve been out for a while and have dropped in price. You can get dual core chips now which do the job great, will last you a few years and are cheap.

 

You're much better off getting a great power supply, an appopriate motherboard and go for a sli/crossfire setup. If you are the patient type, you can wait for the directX 10 cards due not too far away. But again, be prepared to pay $$$ whereas with the non dx10 cards, you'd still be able to achieve most things quite handsomely(just not the 1337 dx10 tweaks)

 

some other points mentioned above:

*Build your own = absolutely. Im a health professional, not an IT/tech person. I learnt from scratch over the course of 8-10 months of solid reading and hassling on tech forums. Seriously its like lego ! Once you know where everything is meant to go and why and what it does...its easy. Alot of the new cases now are awesome, screwless, removable motherbaord trays etc. Screw people like alienware who are going to charge you through the nose for something you could build much cheaper. Dont be worried about warranty. All parts you buy have their own warranty, so once youve indentified it as faulty, you can get it replaced.

 

Having looked at 'next gen pc' vs 'next gen console' specs. Consoles will indeed be less better off in 6 months. In the case of the 360, Id argue now, because if youve seen oblivion on a high specd pc, you'd see how much better it looks than on a 360. Not sure what the deal will be with Wii and Ps3, though a reliable source tells me that wii will not be outputting at HD rez, whereas many newer pc games can run at true HD(1900x1200) and above - plus with SLI/Xfire setups you can still get am impressive(100+ framerate)

 

these faux next gen of consoles will get by on their cheaper price(exc the ps3!),exclusive titles and novelties/innovations/gimmicks like the wiimote controller.

 

Sony/MS/Nintendo will really need to think seriously about post next gen.... Im really interested to see what they will come up with

 

mtfbwya

[T7nowhere]

I just got a AMD 64 X2 3800(2.0GHz) and it was almost $100 cheaper than the intel E6300 model, But that not the main reason I bought the AMD, a friend upgraded to a PCI-e mobo so he gave me his spare.

 

To answer your question though, go with a dual-core cpu over a single with a higher clock speed. My old PC was a Intel is a P4 2.533GHz and my new AMD is much much faster. Granted though my intel P4 is over 3 years old so the tech that built it is very outdated. lol sorry, I know thats not very technical but its friday and my mind is still fried from the week.

 

I agree with Qliveur, you should absolutely assemble your own PC if your capable(If you've ever upgraded your RAM, PCI Expansion card or agp card you can assemble a pc from scratch) That way you can research and pick the components that will work the best together.

 

If you plan a substantial overclock though make sure that you also buy a mobo with advanced overclocking options and not one with just the lame auto-overclocking feature, those things don't work to well and you will always be able to get a faster stable overclock by adjusting the settings yourself, it just takes a little time and patients. You will also need suitable RAM and PSU. Without quality RAM and PSU it doesn't matter how fast others have been able to overclock a cpu, because if your system is running with generic ram you won't be able to maintain a stable overclock and I personally wouldn't trust a generic PSU(those that come with most PC cases)

 

The only downside to building your own is the hours of reasearch it takes to match components that will work well for your PC needs and budget. However it sounds as though your do that anyway . Take your time though, and find what you'll be happiest with.

 

PS: If you have to buy a prebult system, what ever you do don't buy an HP, those things are all junk.

 

EDIT: Check out this site http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/ for tons of usefull info about how PC's work.

[The Source]

I own a AMD 3200+ (2.2 GHz). When I made the switch to AMD a few years ago, I was reluctant to make the jump. Now, I am completely happy that I did make the switch. I was looking at AMD 64 x2 the other day. Its around $600, and I can upgrade it to 4GB. I am also watching for the 'Compatible with Vista' label. I am definately going with the dual-core processor.

 

I built several of my previous computers. This time around, I wanted to buy one from Best Buy or Cuircit City. I wish I had enough time to build one, but school work is way too heavy this year.

 

I was pushing towards an AMD dual-core processor, but you guys have completely pushed me over. Lol...

[Q]

I just got a AMD 64 X2 3800(2.0GHz) and it was almost $100 cheaper than the intel E6300 model.

Must have been when C2D prices were hyper-inflated after Intel introduced them. Prices have since fallen and stabilized and the E6300 is now only $20.00US more than the AM2 X2 3800+.

 

@Astro: I haven't heard or read about any temp problems with C2D; it's supposed to be a pretty cool-running chip. You and Mac are both right about the current consoles being "faux next-gen"; true next-gen will come with the arrival of DX10 and compatible video cards (along with the obligatory 800-1000W PSU!). I wonder how long AFTER Vista comes out that we'll see the first games that actually support DX10? My guess is at least 6 months and maybe longer, making the current DX9 cards fine for the next year, perhaps.

 

@Mac: PLEASE don't buy an OEM computer. If you've built your own before, then building a new one should be a snap; it'll be overclockable and far more upgradeable in the future. I had a Dell before, and it's almost total lack of upgradeabilty+no overclockability made me swear that I'd never go down that road again. Once you have a decent case, a good PSU, good drives, and a good monitor you'll only have to replace the M/B, CPU and maybe the RAM and video card to get a new PC! That's a pretty broad generalization, I know, but I'd far rather replace components one by one than buy a whole new PC every 3-4 years.

[Samnmax221]

Whatever you get, BUILD YOUR OWN SYSTEM. I can't stress this one enough. Manufacturers like Dell make their systems almost impossible to overclock. There's lot's of techies here who can give you good advice on what components to buy (though most of them will tell you to buy AMD for no good reason ).

Our main desktop "was" a Dell, about a month ago the motherboard shorted and took the CPU and the graphics card with it. Don't buy Dell just because they undersell everybody, you get what you pay for.

[Q]

^^^

Actually, nothing screwed up on the Dell I had (still have) until just recently, and that was after 4 years of constant use. Since it was just the optical drives, it was a pretty quick, easy, and cheap fix. It's the planned obsolescence that I'm bitching about. I think their quality is usually pretty good.

[T7nowhere]

Must have been when C2D prices were hyper-inflated after Intel introduced them. Prices have since fallen and stabilized and the E6300 is now only $20.00US more than the AM2 X2 3800+.

 

lol, I just bought it last saterday and just checked the intel cpu price. If what your saying is true then it must be low supply of them here in Canada, great demand and low supply always keeps prices up, but it's great when it shift in the opposite direction.

 

Once you have a decent case, a good PSU, good drives, and a good monitor you'll only have to replace the M/B, CPU and maybe the RAM and video card to get a new PC! That's a pretty broad generalization, I know, but I'd far rather replace components one by one than buy a whole new PC every 3-4 years.

 

This is very true and exactly what I did, For my new system I only upgraded the mobo,cpu,ram and video card, wanted to get a new PSU also, but ran out of money. lol The only other thing I've upgrade in my system is my CD-RW to a DVD-RW. WIth my old pc It just needs a case and hdd and it will be usable again. It really doesn't take that long to assemble the parts maybe an hour. It's installing the OS and all your favorite apps that take time. However its worth it in the long run. I'd rather have a PC that I assembled and hand picked than something an OEM put together that looks good on paper.

[Q]

^^^

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103733

 

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819115005

 

Yup, it's true, but since you got a free M/B I guess it's a moot point.

[T7nowhere]

Yup

[Astrotoy7]

...@Astro: I haven't heard or read about any temp problems with C2D; it's supposed to be a pretty cool-running chip. You and Mac are both right about the current consoles being "faux next-gen"; true next-gen will come with the arrival of DX10 and compatible video cards (along with the obligatory 800-1000W PSU!). I wonder how long AFTER Vista comes out that we'll see the first games that actually support DX10? My guess is at least 6 months and maybe longer, making the current DX9 cards fine for the next year, perhaps.

 

yeah. Ive been monitoring the scuttlebut on the Intel chips, not to mention my own c2duo in my ''always on'' media centre unit(my own gaming sli pc is generally always on too) The c2d is a little warmer but still acceptable 30-33C. The chips I were referring to were those infernal prescotts, and I mean infernal in the literal sense of the word. My clients insisted on them so I convinced them to install some heavy duty cooling in there with them Theyve now upgraded to c2d so its no longer a worry for any of us!

 

yeah, I think games like Crysis with its ambient and soft lighting will need the dx10 to get the full flavour. It needs to be noted to people w dx9 cards that theyll still work with the newer games, at least for the next 2-3 years. So if you have a 256, 512 or 1gb(dual GPU) card dont fret !!

 

I wonder if there is a tech support area in LFN(apart from in house issues). It would be a good resource for people getting stuck, as there are alot of knowledgable types around.

 

mtfbwya

[Q]

^^^

You're quite right, Astro; those Prescott cores were space heaters, as were the Smithfield dual-core Prescotts. The Cedar Mill single-cores and Presler dual-cores ran cooler, but were really a case of "too little, too late," IMO.

 

Intel really screwed up by sticking with Netburst (P4) for so long after it became clear that it's growth potential was so limited. They wasted a lot of time trying to improve the P4, time that would have been better spent in developing a new architecture. They had to go back to the drawing-board (to the Pentium 3, in fact) to beat the Athlon64 K8 architecture, and they did IMO, but I have a feeling that when AMD launches the K8L in 9-10 months it will at least be competitive with C2D, if not better.

 

AMD's reportedly having trouble with their latest die shrink (down to 65nm), but that's normal, and has happened to both companies in the past. Their on-chip memory controller, their use of the HT bus, their implementation of 64-bit architecture (which Intel brazenly copied) and their floating-point unit (developed by ex-DEC techs, I think) are design points which are all superior to their Intel counterparts, so it would be unwise to write off AMD. I just think that C2D caught them a little flat-footed, given the fact that it'll be a while (about a year behind C2D's release) until they come up with an answer. I have no doubt that it will be a worthy answer, though, and this kind of competition can only benefit us, the consumers.

[Negative Sun]

Computers pwn consoles all the way, cause you can do way more than play games on them, they're the most versatile home entertainment/workstation ever made...I use my PC to listen to music, play games, watch movies, download stuff, check the internet, make video/phone calls, write out CVs and letters and loads more...How many other things can do that?

 

A computer is practically a necessity these days, like a phone or TV, every household has or will have one in the near future...

 

I have an Athlon XP 2600+, which runs good at stock level and even better overclocked I've been told, apparently all I need is a good heatsink, but I've no idea what I'm looking for or how to install it lol

 

I'm pretty happy with what I've got, though my Graphics card could use an update (GeForce 4 MX 4000, 128MB), I can still run KotOR and TSL on the highest settings, so I'm quite happy

[Astrotoy7]

^^^

....so it would be unwise to write off AMD...I have no doubt that it will be a worthy answer, though, and this kind of competition can only benefit us, the consumers.

 

great post Qliveur

 

With ATI being absorbed into AMD the potential for their graphics hardware to deliver increasingly efficient high end performance has skyrocketed. Wouldnt it be funny if nvidia jumped into bed firmly with intel, it'd be like a tennis match lolz

 

but indeed, as long as AMD are around, the benefit is to consumers. Competition is good.

 

btw. Ive checked. There seem to be no tech help forums about non-LFN stuff. Im querying one of the friendlier admins about the idea of a tech forum.

 

mtfbwya

[Q]

great post Qliveur :)With ATI being absorbed into AMD the potential for their graphics hardware to deliver increasingly efficient high end performance has skyrocketed. Wouldnt it be funny if nvidia jumped into bed firmly with intel, it'd be like a tennis match lolz

I've been wondering about this one myself, Astro. I've read somewhere that ATI will no longer be making Intel-compatible Xfire chipsets(?), though. If this is true, I wouldn't want Intel to aquire Nvidia because it would take away the freedom of choice that buyers are currently enjoying. It would mean that Crossfire-compatible M/B's will only support AMD CPU's, and that Nforce M/B's would only support Intel CPU's. That would really suck , and I hope that Nvidia stays independent for this very reason. I do agree that ATI's design and production quality is in for a HUGE boost. I bet we'll be seeing cooler, more energy-efficient (thank God! ) 65nm GPU's from them in the near future.

 

Lastly, I totally agree: a tech forum would be a terrific addition to LFN. I can think of several members off the top of my head who would frequent a forum like that. Great Idea!