-
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.
Anyone who went Quad wished they had stayed with Duo?
- Thread starter Tom|Nbk
- Start date
Vanilla said:Mac OSX serverhahhaha
Fantastic OS, works really well as a server, in the design studio at work we have 2 xserver raids and 4 xserve (2 dual g5 and 2 dual xeon) and they are still running on the first working boot up and haven't crashed, needed to reboot or anything.
XS just seems to fiddle about with the hardware and database all the damm time, its REALLY annoying.
ergonomics said:
Not necessarily. If you have a single threaded game, and give it sole access to one core, with all the other processes running on a the second core, then I can't see how a quadcore would make things any faster. Unless all your background processes can max out a core, which isn't going to happen unless you are running apps.
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 1,628
- Location
- East London
HangTime said:
im talking about pretty recent games, which i can confidently say make use of dual core fairly well.
so you have the game running on 2 cores, and the rest of the systems crap on the other 2. still, im not saying its like 1000% improvement, but its still a small amount none the less
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
Its not just the TDP, they've increased the Tcmax and TCC throttling offset at the same point on the curve. Now maybe later B3s are similar silicon, I'm not about pointless speculating without proof. Just what I can see, the changes give way more headroom and it's factory set. So far they are running cooler and clock better. These values are taken from the latest specs. If they had just tweaked the process and dropped the TDP, the thermal profile would be a little different for the G0.xsnv said:
There is also 35 errata bugs fixed with G0, a laser etched IHS is not a big deal to change the step code.
http://www.intel.com/design/processor/specupdt/315593.htm
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 29 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,922
- Location
- fife, Scotland
The readon i chose a high end core2 over a quad, is because there is NOTHING i use that needs the other 2 cores yet. I have much more use for 2 faster cores than 4 slower cores that are just generating more heat tbh.
from that graph, it seems the latest G0's will run hotter. thus not as good for overclocking?fornowagain said:Its not just the TDP, they've increased the Tcmax and TCC throttling offset at the same point on the curve. Now maybe later B3s are similar silicon, I'm not about pointless speculating without proof. Just what I can see, the changes give way more headroom and it's factory set. So far they are running cooler and clock better. These values are taken from the latest specs. If they had just tweaked the process and dropped the TDP, the thermal profile would be a little different for the G0.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,871
- Location
- UK
That's not what this thermal graph shows, it indicates the maximum case (IHS) temperature against power (heat) dissipation. What it means is there is a greater temperature headroom. It doesn't tell you much about the running temperature (apart from TDP), just that it can run hotter without throttling.
Last edited:
Rizz said:After reading the thermal issues and everything else, I just bought the 6850 and it runs sweet in my P5b Deluxe so no regrets here as I didnt buy oneand im idle at 30/31 and its hot here I bet I couldnt say that for a quad.
Its not the idle temps that matter.
Idle temps mean nothing.
Rizz said:After reading the thermal issues and everything else, I just bought the 6850 and it runs sweet in my P5b Deluxe so no regrets here as I didnt buy one
What did you upgrade from mate? Have you noticed much difference? Have you clocked the 6850?
I'm tempted buy the Quad, but got a thing for the 6850
I upgraded from a E6300 that done 3 gig but the strap meant 2.8 was realistic, add the fact it only had 2 meg cache, worth it hmm well more worth it over a 4 meg cache chip like say e6600 then probably not, and most people are getting 3.4 1.1 with the 6400 ram I thought it was the way forward. I only installed it today so havent got any clocking done yet but 3.6 should be easy on stock volts (im not one for increasing voltage on a chip to gain a few more mhz) thats what i am clocking straight too.
Last edited:
If you follow the "Games actually only need one core" argument, so shouldn't gamers be flocking to buy Celeron 440's? Clocks to 4.5GHz, single core so it runs very cool.
No? Why? Because it's 'only' a Celeron. And most people can't stomach their e-penis being lopped off in public by saying "I run a Celeron".
If your requirement is for games that only use one core, buy a very fast single core CPU. If the use you need is truly multi-threaded then Quad is the way every time.
No? Why? Because it's 'only' a Celeron. And most people can't stomach their e-penis being lopped off in public by saying "I run a Celeron".
If your requirement is for games that only use one core, buy a very fast single core CPU. If the use you need is truly multi-threaded then Quad is the way every time.
There is nothing wrong with a quad apart from a lot of people might need to invest in watercooling, a route I dont want to go down, the titles that will use quad dont interest me at all, I Play Forgoten battles and counter strike, I dont fold anymore, so the quad seem pointless for me, I want 3.6 which can be achieved with Air. I doubt anyone will regret the quad but cooling may be an issue for higher clocks.
