Soldato
But i want a hex core not a quad.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Bulldozer Finally!
- Thread starter AceTK
- Start date
But i want a hex core not a quad.
Associate
What's the point in having a slower six-core when you can have a (faster) quad core? What are the benefits?
Soldato
I don't come here to justify what i want i also don't have to justify what i buy when i go into a shop i also don't have to fill out a form of reasons why when i buy from on-line stores.
I have listed in the past many reason why i buy what i have & im tired of having to repeat them every other month.
Look through my forum history & find out for your self if its so important to you.
Last edited:
Associate
You have no good reason to want a six core when there's a quad core available to you that is faster in every way... especially in single or dual threaded programs.
Therefore I'm putting it down to ignore and/or fanboyism.
Therefore I'm putting it down to ignore and/or fanboyism.
Soldato
1) Your facts are wrong & its been proven time & time again so its you who are ignoring the facts & is the very thing that you call me because you can say that about any AMD user & like you have any idea of what program's i'm running & how many im running simultaneously which would stall a quad core & again at a cost cheaper than Intel that you ignored again.
2)The best you could do find was a more expensive Intel quad CPU to beat the AMD 6 core in single & dual threaded programs, if it cost more than it damn well should which is a total contradiction of finding me the equivalent for price & the accompanied motherboard would make the price gap even more so .
3)If you bothered to check my post history you will see that have been ready to pull the trigger Intel set-ups which the last an I7 setup but for many reasons that i laid out at the time i had to scrap it which was not helped by possible Crossfire issues that Anandtech ran into.
The total cost of Unlocked multi CPU, Ram, & Motherboard in my configuration that will take everything that i needed is simply not worth the % of performance to price.
The fact is that AMD offer good performance at cheaper prices which means i can spend more in other areas which make a more noticeable difference like on the gfx which many on-line articles have pointed out.
SD is out of the question as its far to fragile, i would kill it in under a week.
I upgraded from a Quad to a hex core because i needed to & not because of an upgrade bug, & i need true cores because i have allot going on at the same time & i don't like having to close things if i don't need to.
If AMD start to cost more than Intel in price performance ratio which tailored to many needs which are many things going on at the same time then i will be switching over to Intel.
But of course from now until then there will be numerous other narrow mined users questioning me who have not read my history which i will then have to repeat it all over again.
Last edited:
I don't know your post history and i am not that into virtualisation but i understand why a hex core even a slower one is beneficial over a quad and for that one reason alone you justified your choice to those of us that have some understanding. Seriously on this forum it is so easy to get labelled a fanboy and the worse thing is it is usually a term used by those on others who are more set in their ways then the person they are accusing.
No one loses anything waiting for BD no matter how it performs you gain more time to save more money for an even better setup and no matter how it performs it will lower SB prices as Intel will want to compete. This argument of "no news is bad news" is just not the case there are many practical reasons to keep stum on how BD may perform and the only arguments against it really are people wanting to know.
My money will keep growing until BD release and at that time i will see whats out what my needs are and purchase accordingly no loyalty to anyone brand because they sure as hell have no loyalty to me
.
No one loses anything waiting for BD no matter how it performs you gain more time to save more money for an even better setup and no matter how it performs it will lower SB prices as Intel will want to compete. This argument of "no news is bad news" is just not the case there are many practical reasons to keep stum on how BD may perform and the only arguments against it really are people wanting to know.
My money will keep growing until BD release and at that time i will see whats out what my needs are and purchase accordingly no loyalty to anyone brand because they sure as hell have no loyalty to me
.
Soldato
RizlaKing I expected benefits in specific areas, but i didn't expect the over all responsiveness to increase by so much or at all, the dual to quad had less of a responsiveness impact even though it was there & most likely because there are very few individual programs or processes that are going to hog all of the 6 cores resources for themselves so a little spare capacity gives me more responsiveness, i was maxing out the quad too often.
Sadly the OS could not be added to the 10TB Raid-5 array 8TB effective which would have increased the responsiveness more.
Going to take a hard look at SSD Raided for the OS but life cycles right or wrongly put me off ATM.
Sadly the OS could not be added to the 10TB Raid-5 array 8TB effective which would have increased the responsiveness more.
Going to take a hard look at SSD Raided for the OS but life cycles right or wrongly put me off ATM.
Last edited:
Is there a particular reason that you'd want RAIDed SSDs for your OS? Why not just have a single SSD with your OS (backed up regularly to your 10 TB RAID5 array)?
Seriously, write cycles aren't worth worrying about at this stage - average lifetime for current SSDs should be longer than that of HDDs.
Seriously, write cycles aren't worth worrying about at this stage - average lifetime for current SSDs should be longer than that of HDDs.
Soldato
I already said that it will be quicker with raid & more responsive.
Last edited:
In theory yes, in practice it'd probably be hard to notice a difference. Maybe with lots of VMs it might be obvious though.
Regardless, a single SSD will spank a RAID 0 HDD setup. Personally, I'd discount using HDDs for OS drives for such a system.
Regardless, a single SSD will spank a RAID 0 HDD setup. Personally, I'd discount using HDDs for OS drives for such a system.
Soldato
Well i will have to check up on that when the time comes but benches on XS say otherwise.
And yes SSD would be faster for an OS drive.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2006
- Posts
- 3,708
8th June is the new word on the street, computex launch.
Associate
My facts have been proven wrong? Show me.
Actually, I said "especially in single and dual threaded programs", I did not say "only in single and dual threaded programs". The SB still beats it even when all six cores of the Phenom are being used. It beats it at stock, and it beats it even more when overclocked.
Riiiiiight.
A Thuban made sense before Sandybridge came. Right now?.... it doesn't, unless *maybe* if you're going with a 1055T with a run of the mill Motherboard.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 63
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Firstly its worth pointing out that a run of the mill motherboard performs identically to a £300 mobo, the chip and chipset are the same, the daft shape of heatsinks changes to one that looks like a M1 magazine, thats about the best you can expect increase wise.
Sandybridge doesn't beat a hexcore in everything, most things yes, it depends ENTIRELY on what programs you run as to if that extra speed will matter in the slightest. Likewise, you're nitpicking, he didn't say the £50 extra chip would only be faster in single/dual threaded, he said IT COST £50 MORE. That was the his main point, you can usually tell someone who is unwilling to discuss something properly, purposefully ignoring the main point to be pedantic and try to win the point.
I'm 99% sure he meant in single and MULTI threaded programs, not just dual threaded, which nullifies what you're saying entirely.
The simple fact is, if a £140 chip gets you the performance you want, with a £80 mobo, why would you pay £263 for a chip thats faster, but not always, and you don't need, with the general idea you'll pay a lot more for a similarly specced mobo on top of that.
For some people yes you do need the very fastest CPU available, other times you don't, you need to hit a minimum requirement and beyond that every single penny is a waste of money.
Is a 2600k Sandy bridge at £263 retail really worth 50% more than a £140 hexcore P2, is it 50% faster average, across the board....... if not they how on earth can you argue with his other point, the extra money doesn't give you the same performance percentage increase, as the cost increase, therefore its less good value.
Maybe you can get away with 4 cores, maybe the apps he plays with all day will be faster on a hexcore P2 than a 4 core 2500k without HT, yet would be quite a bit faster on the 2600k with HT, who knows, but even then the answer to what you should get is, best value while doing what you need.
Sandybridge is good, great infact, but personally I can't stomach the idea(before Z68 at the very least) of buying a £170 chip(I don't need HT, others DO) for which I can't use quicksync, can't use the gpu in any capacity(we need optimus style tech on future Bulldozer APU's and Z68 chipset) on the chipset they've released that you can overclock on.
Its silly and doesn't really make a difference but personally I'm a touch irked that Intel are still pushing quad cores for mainstream, Q6600's at WELL below £200 we're talking what, 4 years ago or so. AMD are stuck behind on processes yet will be brining octo cores to the mainstream on 32nm, Intel have SMALLER cores(well that might change with Bulldozer) but still aren't planning that till the end of next year on 22nm. Theres something in my mind about knowing Intel could basically be charging us the same prices for double the cores without really any issue. Quad channel for Sandybridge E, utter overkill and entirely no reason they couldn't make octo/hex cores on the same midrange platform and fairly cheap aswell.
I don't like the artificial segregation with features you just don't need. Intel absolutely can make a 8/6 core current dual channel sandybridge but they just don't want to.
Sandybridge doesn't beat a hexcore in everything, most things yes, it depends ENTIRELY on what programs you run as to if that extra speed will matter in the slightest. Likewise, you're nitpicking, he didn't say the £50 extra chip would only be faster in single/dual threaded, he said IT COST £50 MORE. That was the his main point, you can usually tell someone who is unwilling to discuss something properly, purposefully ignoring the main point to be pedantic and try to win the point.
I'm 99% sure he meant in single and MULTI threaded programs, not just dual threaded, which nullifies what you're saying entirely.
The simple fact is, if a £140 chip gets you the performance you want, with a £80 mobo, why would you pay £263 for a chip thats faster, but not always, and you don't need, with the general idea you'll pay a lot more for a similarly specced mobo on top of that.
For some people yes you do need the very fastest CPU available, other times you don't, you need to hit a minimum requirement and beyond that every single penny is a waste of money.
Is a 2600k Sandy bridge at £263 retail really worth 50% more than a £140 hexcore P2, is it 50% faster average, across the board....... if not they how on earth can you argue with his other point, the extra money doesn't give you the same performance percentage increase, as the cost increase, therefore its less good value.
Maybe you can get away with 4 cores, maybe the apps he plays with all day will be faster on a hexcore P2 than a 4 core 2500k without HT, yet would be quite a bit faster on the 2600k with HT, who knows, but even then the answer to what you should get is, best value while doing what you need.
Sandybridge is good, great infact, but personally I can't stomach the idea(before Z68 at the very least) of buying a £170 chip(I don't need HT, others DO) for which I can't use quicksync, can't use the gpu in any capacity(we need optimus style tech on future Bulldozer APU's and Z68 chipset) on the chipset they've released that you can overclock on.
Its silly and doesn't really make a difference but personally I'm a touch irked that Intel are still pushing quad cores for mainstream, Q6600's at WELL below £200 we're talking what, 4 years ago or so. AMD are stuck behind on processes yet will be brining octo cores to the mainstream on 32nm, Intel have SMALLER cores(well that might change with Bulldozer) but still aren't planning that till the end of next year on 22nm. Theres something in my mind about knowing Intel could basically be charging us the same prices for double the cores without really any issue. Quad channel for Sandybridge E, utter overkill and entirely no reason they couldn't make octo/hex cores on the same midrange platform and fairly cheap aswell.
I don't like the artificial segregation with features you just don't need. Intel absolutely can make a 8/6 core current dual channel sandybridge but they just don't want to.
I has been said many times by AMD that Bulldozer will not be supported in AM3 sockets.
Associate
Most sub £100 Motherboards have a 4+1 power phase with no heatsinks. That will limit your overclock.
Examples?
That's true, which is why I mentioned AMD would probably make sense if you need a cheap six core (i.e, the 1055T).
This quote leads me to believe he is referring the to 1100T.
If we're talking pure averages then the 2600K OR 2500K is certainly worth the extra.