On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:24:56 +0100, "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Quote:
Thus spake daytripper:
Quote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:16:36 +0100, "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote:> Thus spake Mark:>> <SamuelF566@gmail.com> wrote in message>> news:1156750021.195207.269930@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
If A is better than B, n.A will always be better than n.B!
If A already saturates the bus with memory access, nA will be bandwidth-starved. If B scales linearly (OK, almost linearly), nB will likely beat nA. A=Core2;B=K8; NNN
That's hilarious almost fell off my chair reading that, reminds me of
all those geeky math jokes!
Does this mean I will get more frags in my favorite first person
shooter! I am still waiting for software to use my Opty 165. Although
playing quake4 on linux comes pretty close, also utk4 also is fun. It's
not like it's going to improve those games much. I would probably gain
more by a good mouse, or more practice.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:24:56 +0100, "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Quote:
Thus spake daytripper:
Quote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:16:36 +0100, "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote:> Thus spake Mark:>> <SamuelF566@gmail.com> wrote in message>> news:1156750021.195207.269930@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...>>> After reading many articles on the new Dual 2 Core, it's obvious>>> that this could be a major reason to uprade now if you really>>> want the greatest/fastest computer on the block. Unfortunately>>> AMD Is announcing a Quad chip too claiming it will be even>>> faster. Personally my Pentium 4 2.4 ghz with DSL Is plenty fast>>> for everything I do and will not upgrade at least till prices>>> drop drastically till prices are around $150.00 for MB And CPU.>>> So who will buy these new chips or systems with this new>>> technology? Gamers ...serious gamers or people into serious video>>> editing needs.>>>>>>> Anyone who needs more processing power than was available before>> the Core 2 duo's were released. This includes gamers, video>> editors, dvd encoding, and scientific or business software that>> needs to process a lot of data. I am getting one mostly for games>> and Matlab.>> And people like me who haven't upgraded for years - I bought an> XP-M2500 & run it reliably @ 200x11.5x to replace an XP1800+ 18> months ago. The extra speed was underwhelming. As for quad cores,> many have suggested that's just AMD's panicked response to having> been left with their pants down rather than a serious technical> solution. My hope is that AMD will never be so complacent again -> though I sure a few pundits were also surprised that Intel actually> managed to produce something so good! As for gaining an extra turn> of speed, newer (read faster) h/ds can often give more than a> incremental CPU u/g does. wrt to your take on AMD and quad-core packages, does the codename "Clovertown" mean anything to you?
If A is better than B, n.A will always be better than n.B!
Where do you get the idea that Intel's A is allowed to make progress vs. previous processors and AMD's B is not?
I don't! AMD has had the upper hand technically for some time & the game of
leaping frogs will surely continue. Had I made such assertions a couple of
months ago, I would have probably been accused of prematurely wishful &
partisan
thinking.
Does AMD need such defending here? My analogy with the equation was
simplistic but was it that far off the mark? Sorry, I just get the
impression that some far more knowledgeable folks on this forum than I'll
ever be, almost resent Intel getting something right for a change.
--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 22:31:22 +0100, "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Quote:
Thus spake George Macdonald:
Quote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 18:24:56 +0100, "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
Quote:
Thus spake daytripper:> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 09:16:36 +0100, "Paul B" <me@privacy.net> wrote:>>> Thus spake Mark:>>> <SamuelF566@gmail.com> wrote in message>>> news:1156750021.195207.269930@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...>>>> After reading many articles on the new Dual 2 Core, it's obvious>>>> that this could be a major reason to uprade now if you really>>>> want the greatest/fastest computer on the block. Unfortunately>>>> AMD Is announcing a Quad chip too claiming it will be even>>>> faster. Personally my Pentium 4 2.4 ghz with DSL Is plenty fast>>>> for everything I do and will not upgrade at least till prices>>>> drop drastically till prices are around $150.00 for MB And CPU.>>>> So who will buy these new chips or systems with this new>>>> technology? Gamers ...serious gamers or people into serious video>>>> editing needs.>>>>>>>>>> Anyone who needs more processing power than was available before>>> the Core 2 duo's were released. This includes gamers, video>>> editors, dvd encoding, and scientific or business software that>>> needs to process a lot of data. I am getting one mostly for games>>> and Matlab.>>>> And people like me who haven't upgraded for years - I bought an>> XP-M2500 & run it reliably @ 200x11.5x to replace an XP1800+ 18>> months ago. The extra speed was underwhelming. As for quad cores,>> many have suggested that's just AMD's panicked response to having>> been left with their pants down rather than a serious technical>> solution. My hope is that AMD will never be so complacent again ->> though I sure a few pundits were also surprised that Intel actually>> managed to produce something so good! As for gaining an extra turn>> of speed, newer (read faster) h/ds can often give more than a>> incremental CPU u/g does.>> wrt to your take on AMD and quad-core packages, does the codename> "Clovertown" mean anything to you? If A is better than B, n.A will always be better than n.B!
Where do you get the idea that Intel's A is allowed to make progress vs. previous processors and AMD's B is not?
I don't! AMD has had the upper hand technically for some time & the game ofleaping frogs will surely continue. Had I made such assertions a couple ofmonths ago, I would have probably been accused of prematurely wishful &partisanthinking.
You presume too much. A couple of months ago, was well after the much
publicised IDF/Anand umm, scoop.
Quote:
Does AMD need such defending here? My analogy with the equation wassimplistic but was it that far off the mark? Sorry, I just get theimpression that some far more knowledgeable folks on this forum than I'llever be, almost resent Intel getting something right for a change.
It was not a defense but a statement based on some known facts and
reasonable speculation, which you seem to have missed based on your n.A vs.
n.B canard... and which I mentioned briefly in another post in this thread:
with 65nm the transistor budget allowed Intel to add some extra paths and
features to their CPU design; they also had to add 64-bit.
The AMD quad-core will also be 65nm and will also have new features based
on the the same increased die real estate for the basic core; your
statement seems to presume that the AMD's B will not gain over their
current offerings and therefore will still lag on the fundamental
microarchitecture. I'd also note that AMD will be enhancing, rather than
adding, what has been a native 64-bit implementation for >3 years now; AMD
has also had a better handle on thermal management and a highly successful
true dual-core die at the current 90nm. While it's always possible that
they could stub their toe, AMD is starting from a better position on the
65nm transition.
As for resentment against Intel, there are enough Intel shills around in
other fora to cancel that one out. Between them, the Web site benchmarking
ingenues/idiots and Intel's unscupulous marketing practices there's bound
to be some insistence on reality from people who "know". The fact is that
AMD has had a better product for nearly 3 years and in that time, with
Microsoft's help has dragged Intel out of their Itanium fantasy dream. I
believe that, on the record, they deserve a better return for their
efforts.
After reading many articles on the new Dual 2 Core, it's obvious thatthis could be a major reason to uprade now if you really want thegreatest/fastest computer on the block. Unfortunately AMD Is announcinga Quad chip too claiming it will be even faster. Personally myPentium 4 2.4 ghz with DSL Is plenty fast for everything I do and willnot upgrade at least till prices drop drastically till prices arearound $150.00 for MB And CPU. So who will buy these new chips or systems with this new technology?Gamers ...serious gamers or people into serious video editing needs.
We upgrade... "because it's there" 8) Seriously, I upgrade about every 2.5 years, for a variety of reasons. That seems to be about how long it takes for (affordably-priced) new hardware to advance significantly over what I'd built before (with the exception of video cards, which move along somewhat faster). This rate of upgrading has worked pretty well in my household, where my daughter gets the hand-me-down PC whenever I upgrade. Her computer is then 5 years old at worst, which means she always has a "modern" computer, if never a "state of the art" computer".
I would upgrade every 2.5 years if it did not mean to get new memory,
video card and MB. upgrading to dual core means everything goes, even
the AGP Video card.
If you could just drop in a new CPU ...That would be great.
I would upgrade every 2.5 years if it did not mean to get new memory,video card and MB. upgrading to dual core means everything goes, eventhe AGP Video card. If you could just drop in a new CPU ...That would be great.
Well, if you could just "drop in a new CPU" it's very likely that you
would be disappointed with the result. In my experience, unless the
upgrade gives an honest-to-gosh doubling of computing power, it's
difficult to even notice, much less a significant improvement to your
life.
Do dual-core CPU's have double the computing power of single-core
CPU's? It must be so, but I'm still not sure how well it pays-off in
the real world...
Do dual-core CPU's have double the computing power of single-core CPU's? It must be so, but I'm still not sure how well it pays-off in the real world...
Depends entirely on your workload. For some things (certain video encoding
tasks, some software development tasks) the speedup can be pretty well
linear; for other things, there's zero speedup.
They (or pre-dual core, dual-socket systems as well) also tend to be more
responsive subjectively - they *seem* faster, and "freeze" (or slow down in
noticeable UI latency) less often even if the actual process completion time
is not much shorter.
For general office tasks (where a P3 1.2ghz/P4 1.8ghz is probably just fine
in terms of absolute speed) moving to dual core is a no brainer as a result;
a bottom of the line P-D 805 or A64 X2 3600+ is going to FEEL much faster to
most users than a top-of-the-line 3.8ghz Xeon or 2.8ghz single core Opteron.
The MyLounge.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not
be relied upon and is not a substitute for any advice. The information contained
on MyLounge.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation
of the opinions of MyLounge.com. MyLounge.com does not warrant or vouch for
the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications
of any person responding. Please consult a expert or seek the services of an
attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation. Please note
that our forums also serve as mirrors to Usenet newsgroups. Many posts you see
on our forums are made by newsgroup users who may not be members of MyLounge.com
Term of Service
New Dual 2 Core CPU
Linear Mode
