The way I see it

[objecterror]

This is insane, I'm still running on a great system from a year ago and quad cores are becoming the new 'thing'. Help me here, if there was a real demand for quad core processors, wouldn't we have the programs to run them on? I mean, I know my system is probably obsolete by now, but wow.

I was telling my friend that we should start stock piling motherboards and dual core processors, because around 2008 it looks like AMD will have there full line of high performance Quads out,
Agena FX is there Extreme brand with clock speeds of 2.2 to 2.6 is this good or bad on a quad core ?
The brands or code names beneath it include Rana, Kuma, toliman and agena. So i take it these 'core' names will replace things like, 'san diego' 'barton'(i think thats intel) etc?

and finally, there are no prices anywhere for the Phenom series, is my assumption right? Should i stock pile dual cores now and work on a multi functional super computer or computer network of dual cores?

I think that'd be an awesome idea, what can you all teach me about quad cores?

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

woah, I so got lost in that confusion of words

What are your system's specs? And I don't think quad-cores will show great benefit atm, particularly in games, but the reason that people are getting them is because of the price point. The difference in price between an E6600 and a Q6600 is not that large. They also offer future-proofing and great multi-tasking abilities and overclockability. Just so you know, the Q6600 is really THE only quad-core that's in the main picture of things for the moment, and as far as the mainstream market's concerned, they probably don't even know about quad-core systems.

 

[Kisskerven]

also i read somewhere that the new AMDs after (after this first batch) will require a AM3 socket is that right? (or a new socket at least) which I don't think is available at this time.. so Iam rather confused where you were going with all this.. I mean yea.. theres no "need' for quad cores... just Gaming hype really- I don't know a single game that uses even 3/4 of the second core in a dual core proccessor let alone dish into that 3 and 4th core in a quad.

Most games are more Video intensive anyway and don't use that much of the CPU- benchmarks show that not even crysis hits the CPU that much- some 40% i think - with dual cores- so again.. quad cores seem way before there time.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

Most games are more Video intensive anyway and don't use that much of the CPU- benchmarks show that not even crysis hits the CPU that much- some 40% i think - with dual cores- so again.. quad cores seem way before there time.

When I overclock my E2160 from 1.8GHz to 3.0GHz, there is no increase in framerate at all in the Crysis demo.

However, in the UT3 Beta, I get like almost a 20-30 fps increase.

Different games, different dependencies on the cpu. However, I'd also like to add that a weak cpu WILL in fact limit the gpus 3d rendering capacity, because the data eventually has to be processed by the cpu. I used to think otherwise, but I was proven wrong.

I think powerful quad-cores are necessary and a Q6600 or Phenom X4 will ensure that there is limited bottlenecking when running high end graphics solutions.

 

[Kisskerven]

it is true that it does go to the CPU eventually but a e6800 has had some wonderful results as is- without OC, not to mention the Motherboard is more likely to bottleneck newer game graphics, if it doesn't have enough threshold on the Pci express (assuming that's what everyone will be using) most beta testers are only on dual core 64 bits and they've been doing just fine.. I mean sure you couldnt like run all your games at once but yea..

 

[objecterror]

woah, I so got lost in that confusion of words

What are your system's specs? And I don't think quad-cores will show great benefit atm, particularly in games, but the reason that people are getting them is because of the price point. The difference in price between an E6600 and a Q6600 is not that large. They also offer future-proofing and great multi-tasking abilities and overclockability. Just so you know, the Q6600 is really THE only quad-core that's in the main picture of things for the moment, and as far as the mainstream market's concerned, they probably don't even know about quad-core systems.

Sorry, it was a kind of rant that these quad cores and eventually the next technology to come out in the next few years will eventually render the newest and improved procs without anyone having any time to really 'use' them. If what your both saying is true, then this means most high performance single cores(how bout the Athlon FX series for example?) can run around the same frame rate and rendering of the dual cores. 40%?! Wow, I never knew that, so what will be happening is when the line of phenom quad cores come out, everyone with a dual core system will just pick up another graphics card?

Current Specs:
AMD Athlon 4000+ @ 2.3
1GHz XMS Ram
250 GB HDD
320 GB HDD
7600 GT

I have the 8800GS and I want a AM2 Socket motherboard with a dual core processor(AMD again, I'm not one for intel, maybe my third pc

 

[Invisible]

i would buy another gig of RAM..

 

[Andyf]

If what your both saying is true, then this means most high performance single cores(how bout the Athlon FX series for example?) can run around the same frame rate and rendering of the dual cores. 40%?!

not quite. For instance, (if you are talking about gaming) the CPU resources needed to run the OS and background systems can be split onto a separate core, leaving one core for the programme that you are running (as already stated, some games are more CPU intensive than others). You also aren't considering the fact that in the future (be it soon or in years to come) it is likely that programmes will run multi-threaded, of course allowing parallel computations. For this reason, people are buying Q6600s in an effort to future proof their systems better.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you say about stockpiling dual cores. Is this is expectation of dual core value/demand to go up?

 

[Drewser]

I thought some of the next-gen games are going to be quad threaded and utilize all four cores to a certain extent?

 

[objecterror]

not quite. For instance, (if you are talking about gaming) the CPU resources needed to run the OS and background systems can be split onto a separate core, leaving one core for the programme that you are running (as already stated, some games are more CPU intensive than others). You also aren't considering the fact that in the future (be it soon or in years to come) it is likely that programmes will run multi-threaded, of course allowing parallel computations. For this reason, people are buying Q6600s in an effort to future proof their systems better.

I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you say about stockpiling dual cores. Is this is expectation of dual core value/demand to go up?

Thanks for this information, I'm learning alot of things that I guess you would say I've been misinformed about. Dual core CPUs seem the best effecient. I'm a bit old in my thinking, the most I'm running in the background are probably a few messengers and a torrent.

As for the percentrage demand of each game, can i rate this by going into my task manager and viewing the CPU usage?

And Invisible, my 'next' system will employ 2Ghz of ram, I want to use my current build for my parents machine, it seems to be the best balance of high clock speed and the reliability needed for their buiesness.

Secondly, multi-threaded. I'm guessing this has nothing to do with my knowledge on single core processors(I'm only getting my A+ so I only know how to 'repair' most hardware and software issues, not the science of them), is that the actual name for the programming ? multi threading or just threaded