Nvidia Taking Over - Page 6 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-23-2006, 11:51 PM   #51 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Bah, my apologies. I'm sick on Thanksgiving and feeling a bit moody.
__________________

__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 12:52 AM   #52 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
alexsabree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1,845
Default

Im still very confused about the whole "more cores" idea.

Its like eating a regular peanut butter sandwhich whole, then eating another split in half... whats the benefit from that? :/
__________________

alexsabree is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 01:32 AM   #53 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
KingAustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Iowa
Posts: 673
Send a message via AIM to KingAustin
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by alexsabree
Im still very confused about the whole "more cores" idea.

Its like eating a regular peanut butter sandwhich whole, then eating another split in half... whats the benefit from that? :/
Well once more programs are written to properly utilize 2 or more cores, it'll increase the speed of that program exponentially (especially with the quad cores). This will be especially handy for people who work with audio/video/graphics. Or if you're just a really big multitasker you could be rendering an image/scene in a 3d creation program, encoding a video, [insert a CPU heavy program here], and playing a video game all at the same time with little to no performance loss on either of the programs.

Or you can look at it in terms of an engine, if you have a 4 cylinder and a V8 engine, the performance possibility is much greater with the V8 because you have more to work with.

Also to clear up any confusion you still might have, if you were to look at a dual core chip, each of the cores themselves are fast, so you're putting 2 fast chips together. The performance isnt cut in half for each core when made into a dual core. Not sure if this is what you thought, but just decided to throw that out there in case it was.
__________________
E6300 w/ AF7 Pro 3.11ghz
Gigabyte DS3
2GB G.Skill DDR2 800
7900GT w/ Zalman vf900 650/800
Z-5500 Digital Speakers
22" Chimei + 19" BENQ
XClio 3060
KingAustin is offline  
Old 11-25-2006, 02:33 AM   #54 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by alexsabree
Im still very confused about the whole "more cores" idea.

Its like eating a regular peanut butter sandwhich whole, then eating another split in half... whats the benefit from that? :/
Are you referring to 4x4 vs. a true Quad Core?

In the end, there's no difference. But there is such a think as a company not making itself look absolutely retarded. Yeah, 4x4 and a QX6700 both give you 4 cores in a system, but AMD making you spend twice the money on processors, and suffer twice the power consumption, and just taking the easy way out by putting two sockets on the motherboard is considered REALLY bad form. Even AMD fanboys criticize AMD for making that move, it just makes them look really bad in the actually informed techies' minds.

And when you consider that each FX-7x processor eats 125W, so the two needed in a 4x4 system take in 250W, compared to the QX6700 which consumes 85W for all 4 cores, and the 4x4 system STILL doesn't beat the QX6700, who wouldn't make fun of that?!
__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 04:36 AM   #55 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
alexsabree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1,845
Default

I still dont see the advantege... all i see are disadvantedges

More heat
More money

Is it easyer to manufacture them when they have more cores, err something?
alexsabree is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 04:40 AM   #56 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
KingAustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Iowa
Posts: 673
Send a message via AIM to KingAustin
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by alexsabree
I still dont see the advantege... all i see are disadvantedges

More heat
More money

Is it easyer to manufacture them when they have more cores, err something?
How do you not see the advantages? I have them listed up there in my previous post. MORE CORES EQUALS MORE PERFORMANCE.
__________________
E6300 w/ AF7 Pro 3.11ghz
Gigabyte DS3
2GB G.Skill DDR2 800
7900GT w/ Zalman vf900 650/800
Z-5500 Digital Speakers
22" Chimei + 19" BENQ
XClio 3060
KingAustin is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 11:07 AM   #57 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Alexsabree, I thought you were talking about the difference between 4x4 and Kentsfield. But it seems that you're confused on just the advantages of a Quad Core. For that, read KingAustin's post above, he did a good job of explaining that.

The purpose of a Quad Core is the same as that of a Dual Core, just on a larger scale. Think about why you buy a Dual Core, and if that's not enough power for you, then buy a Quad Core.
__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 01:18 PM   #58 (permalink)

Triforcer
 
Baez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 6,987
Default

This post is supposed to be about video cards guys...

One quick thought about the peanut butter . It's not like having a sandwich cut in half, it's like having 2 or 4 full sandwiches. Each core in the Kentsfield is a full grown processor and would be able to run the computer by itself if you took the other 3 cores out! Assuming that we went back to the days of single cores.

Now back to the nVidia vs. ATI fanboy post. NOTHING is absolutely confirmed for the R600s as I don't see ANYONE with one in their hands as I speak. Until someone has a fully developed card in their hand we don't know anything. So don't give me any of this it WILL have this and WON'T have this bull$h*t. The only one with some common sense on here right now is TriEclipse as he isn't giving any definite answers. And that's the way it should be as there is nothing DEFINITE!

ok now go on fighting...
__________________


Baez is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 02:01 PM   #59 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 869
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by cvb724
Now back to the nVidia vs. ATI fanboy post. NOTHING is absolutely confirmed for the R600s as I don't see ANYONE with one in their hands as I speak. Until someone has a fully developed card in their hand we don't know anything. So don't give me any of this it WILL have this and WON'T have this bull$h*t.
Word...

I forgot we were talking about videocards.
__________________
TriEclipse is offline  
Old 11-26-2006, 06:41 PM   #60 (permalink)
Camera junky
 
Poizen22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: ottawa ontario canada.
Posts: 6,280
Default

its true look at the g80 they were suposed to have samsung gddr4 but like 2 weeks before release they took them off i think it was becauseof heat issues and not wanting to have a heatsink that required qater coooling on a stock card
__________________

__________________

https://www.flickr.com/photos/poizen22/
intel Core I7 8700k@ 5.0ghz-Nvidia GTX1080 ti ftw3-Aorus 5 z370 mobo-16gb ddr4 G-Skill trident Z rgb 3000mhz - 1tb samsung 960 pro, 2tb wd blue- thermaltake rgb 750w gold-Phanteks pro M TG- Samsung CHG70 1440p 144hz 32 inch QLED.
Poizen22 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:50 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.