• 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.

E8700

rypt said:
If you stop releasing new Duals, then the next upgrade step for all these people will be Quad, thus they'll by-pass the duals.
And a Quad is a much better upgrade than a dual, the total processing power is almost double.
Click to expand...

You are way out there!

If you stop releasing dual cores now, the next upgrade path for most people would not be a quad but nothing, they would not upgrade, thus wasting a lot of the investments in new dual cores completely, and not giving the companies new R&D cash to get working on new architectures. Quad Cores will get cheaper over time, stopping dualcore production now would leave a bankrupt Intel/AMD (whoever was crazy enough to do it) and get this industry nowhere.
 
Why would people not upgrade? If an upgrade is needed, people will go to the new machines that use Quad.
Problem is, if dual continues for a while, the next upgrade for the people who only get systems every 5 years will be a dual, rather than a quad. This will put less pressure on companies to get their support for 4+ cores right, as majority of people will only have 2 cores.

This is one of the first times where the PC is behind the top-end consoles as far as technology goes - PC CPUs might be faster clock for clock, but the consoles are multi-core (360 came out in 05, same year as the Athlon 64 X2)
 
Last edited:
rypt said:
Applications will follow once we have everyone on multiple cores, at the moment 50% of the gaming world is still single core (as per Valve survey).
Click to expand...

It is a sad fact that software is always about 10-15 years behind hardware at all times so far, and it doesn't look to change for any near conceivable future. But that's just the nature of things, and true everywhere else we look at.

I tend to disagree somewhat on the fact that some people argue that 4+GHz duals are much better than 3.2+GHz quads for gaming purposes. Aside from a very selective list of games (ahem, Crysis) there doesn't look to be any more of a perceivable difference between the two CPUs when it comes to gaming, in my opinion. I am one of those that turn on VSync at all times, because I just cannot stand tearing, and I don't care if any system can give me 200fps on Crysis -- well I lied, it would be nice to have a system that runs Crysis at 200fps, but you get my point. I believe, and this is purely speculation at this point, that a 3.2GHz quad will do as much as a 4.0GHz dual in gaming at 60fps, and something I will be finding out very soon as I will be jumping to a quad.

As for E8700, it would be nice to see it hit 5GHz on air, don't get me wrong, but as far as gaming is concerned, I do not see much benefit at a constant 60fps.
 
kppanic said:
It is a sad fact that software is always about 10-15 years behind hardware at all times so far, and it doesn't look to change for any near conceivable future. But that's just the nature of things, and true everywhere else we look at.
Click to expand...

As I pointed out, the console games happily support 3 cores (and double that in threads).
 
rypt said:
As I pointed out, the console games happily support 3 cores (and double that in threads).
Click to expand...

How MUCH of the cores and threads they take up, in other words, efficiency, is another question though. :D

And you're talking exclusively about XBox360, ignoring all other consoles.
 
kppanic said:
How MUCH of the cores and threads they take up, in other words, efficiency, is another question though. :D

And you're talking exclusively about XBox360, ignoring all other consoles.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the 360 (2nd largest market share, largest 3rd party support) and the PS3 (remember CELL is still multi-threaded, even if it is different).

The Wii might sell the most, but the 360 has a lot more 3rd party games.
 
rypt said:
I'm talking about the 360 (2nd largest market share, largest 3rd party support) and the PS3 (remember CELL is still multi-threaded, even if it is different).

The Wii might sell the most, but the 360 has a lot more 3rd party games.
Click to expand...

Well obviously I KNOW which console you were talking about, it's just that you were saying console games happily support 3 cores, giving a false impression that all consoles out there have 3 cores.

But the question still stands: how efficiently are we able to program in multi-core environment? The answer is not well at all. Just because games use all 'three cores' don't mean they're very good at using it. I'd rather have a game use two cores more efficiently.

And I don't think Cell is multi-threaded. It's just retardedly good at doing SPFP.
 
The top TWO 3rd party consoles have 6 threads (or what one could equate to 6 threads - read some of IBM's info about CELL they refer to it as an evolution of the threading system, so the idea while different is still the same)

By 3rd party I mean systems that have a lot of games developed by a company other than the console manufacturer.
 
E8700 looks good to me. aimed well at gamers, extreme overclockers or overclockers that want an easy overclock. i myself am tempted if the price is right as my mobo is not the easiest to oc on. lot of peeps aren't upgrading to i7 yet cos its not worth it, they already have pretty decent performance or they simply don't need a big rebuild right now.

i would like to see a price for this :)
 
demon8991 said:
There is no point getting a quad core now what so ever!!!

By the time quad core applications are utilised there will be CPU's that dwarf the performance of what is on the market now.

Dual core are leagues better, my CPU will out perform an overclocked Q6600 in most applications and games.
Click to expand...

Whilst that statement is somewhat true, I don't think they would be a massive difference if the Q6600 was at 3.6Ghz/3.8Ghz. However it's a different ball game against a Q9450 or Q9550 when clocked to 3.6/3.8/4.0Ghz which is what most seem to be. Also if someone is buying a quad now then they shouldn't really be buying a Q6600, they would be going i7 or Q9550.
 
Last edited:
I'd guess it's cancelled from the fact the page is missing and all news of it seems to have vanished since January, next duals we see from intel will probably be i3/i5 based.

I can't see a 3.5gHz dual being popular anyway, home uses don't need the power, power users would get a triple or quad and overclockers would get the 3gHz one and bump the speed up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom