I don't really care what it is tbh as i know it'll be fast! This is proboly a ****e thread as it could proberly not even being thought about at intel or just no ones heard anything for all i know! Thats basically why i started this thread as i don;t know anything about whats gonna happen and i want to learn. I have also decided to skip i7 and get whats coming after that in a few years time as my E7400 and 4890 will last me till then! Any desscussion welcome!
Any rumours of whats to come after i7?
- Thread starter geowal19
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,774
- Location
- Planet Earth
Next year both the new Intel and AMD architectures will be released AFAIK. The new Intel architecture is called Sandy Bridge and the new AMD one is called Bulldozer.
rant
Pfft...
The whole thing is daft. Whats the point in making a 6 core cpu when there are very few things around that utilize all 4 cores? And whts the point in charging stupid amounts of money for it, when you can buy something nearly as good for half the price?!?!
/rant
Pfft...
The whole thing is daft. Whats the point in making a 6 core cpu when there are very few things around that utilize all 4 cores? And whts the point in charging stupid amounts of money for it, when you can buy something nearly as good for half the price?!?!
/rant
they arent marketed at home users the same as xeons arent
The people looking to use, and pay for 6 cores are likely to be using software that can fully utilise all of them.
If they're not, they're just tools
True, it is a bit of BS! I can edit and render full HD vids and play games like MW2 maxed out at 80FPS+ on a kinda outdated PC that cost me £450 about 6 months ago (see sig). OK, it does it slowly, but still manages it. You would have to be pretty hardcore to require a lot of the current i7s. And as for FPS in games, I believe the threshold the human eye can notice is 70FPS, so if it was 89669FPS you wouldn't be able to tell the difference!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,774
- Location
- Planet Earth
Steam has 25 million users and according to their latest survey 75% of their users have a single core or dual core processor and 80% of the processors were under 3GHZ:
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
The people looking to use, and pay for 6 cores are likely to be using software that can fully utilise all of them.
If they're not, they're just tools
These tools... Are you talking about the systems or the users? LOL
to be fair tho most steam users never upgrade because they play a game from the last millenium
counter strike
Every time a processor get`s released with more cores, the same thing is said over and over again (Whats the point in making a x core cpu when there are very few things around that utilize them)
I think people should start getting used to the idea that the future is for multi core processors don`t you think?
I think people should start getting used to the idea that the future is for multi core processors don`t you think?
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,774
- Location
- Planet Earth
Of course they could be also playing games such as HL2,COD,Portal,L4D,Bioshock and quite a few others.
A lot of games still run fine with a dual core at between 2.5GHZ and 3GHZ and a modern graphics card above £50 like an HD4670.
OTH,if you want to run these games at 2560X1600 then perhaps you need a better graphics card!!
Perhaps for a new build which has to last for two to three years going for a triple,quad or even a dual core with HT makes sense.
However if the games you are playing are not that CPU dependent many people will stick with their dual cores and only actually upgrade when their CPU is the limiting factor or if they just want a new PC after a few years.
Even a fast dual core is still fine for many modern games:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-ii-x2-555,2540-8.html
Both the relatively cheap Intel and AMD dual cores at stock speeds with an HD5850 1GB are producing playable framerates even at 1920X1200.
Only RTS games like Supreme Commander and World in Conflict are very CPU limited and hence run better on triple and quad cores.
Last edited:
funny that an a white and black card has to spin much faster than 70 times a second before it apears as a grey static object then.
next you will be telling us our eyes are only 10 megapixels
funny that an a white and black card has to spin much faster than 70 times a second before it apears as a grey static object then.
next you will be telling us our eyes are only 10 megapixels
It does not work like that
If you have a Black & White cad spinning right in front of you, you would need it to spin very very fast indeed.
Yet, if you had the very same card on a screen displaying at the same size and distance away from you as the other card then it would need a lot less spinning than the one thats right there in front of you.
The screen refresh rate will come into play and will affect what you are seeing while the one in front of you will have no such thing.
Ok, so 70FPS is clearly far too low for a spinning disc, but thats not even close to what we see on the screen is it?
I mean... TV Screen is only showing at 50FPS, so how badly is that flickering eh?
tv screens use motion blur and if your on a crt monitor which dont have blur tricks you need over 100hz to be flicker free which is a good starting point.
the faster the object your looking at moves the higher the fps it needs to apear smooth.
Last edited: