-
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.
Is it time for Quad Core?
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Hello Fire Wizard, thanks for your reasonable reply, your a credit to the teenager species!Big.Wayne, I personally think you are taking this power consumption thing a little out of proportion and it isn't quite as bad as you are saying it is.
I think my points are fair in a topic entitled "Is it time for Quad Core?"
I have stated my reasons why I don't think Quad Core is killer tech but it seems a small hate mob has surfaced who are more interested in making personal attacks rather than have a pleasent technical chatter . . .
Most people here have no idea what the running costs of their PC are, I have been looking into it for several months, measuring the wattage draw from several machines and I was amazed how much power certain configurations were pulling from the socket.
I have not yet published my findings as I want to be as thorough as possible.
If people had a pay-as-you-go computer or top-up coin slot meter where they had to shovel pounds coins into the slot I guarantee that PC power effiency would be a much more prolific subject.
As it stands it would seem evident that are large percentage of posters here do not pay for their electricty let alone understand where it comes from, all I am trying to convey is my reasons why quad-core (especially 65nm) is not as good a choice as some people may think, I mean how often do you see a poster talking about running costs, no many atm but 2009 should see the subject discussed a lot more.
I was happy to see Anandtech run an story entitled "The Cost of Running Your PC" (November 14th, 2008) hopefully there will be more of this in the coming future.
Anyway I would just remind anyone else thinking of making a personal attack that OcUK forums are meant to be a friendly place, we are all members of the same club and share a lot of similar interests so please can we behave civilly towards each other . . . thanks in advance!
Debatable, people with machines up to 4 to 5 times the cost of a base 360 cannot play the game due to low frame rate and errors etc, GTA runs perfectly fine on the Xbox 360 okay there are places where it does get slowdowns but the problems experienced on the PC are worlds apart.
That seems rather patronising. I am on a low income and I certainly do pay for every penny of my power consumption. However, even I can see that the difference is negligible. I could have my heating on for ten minutes less a day and save the same as if I switched to a dual core
And for certain tasks a quad, yes even a 65nm quad, is more efficient than a dual (because it finishes it quicker).edit - probably one minute a day, never mind ten.
Last edited:
Hello Fire Wizard, thanks for your reasonable reply, your a credit to the teenager species!
I think my points are fair in a topic entitled "Is it time for Quad Core?"
I have stated my reasons why I don't think Quad Core is killer tech but it seems a small hate mob has surfaced who are more interested in making personal attacks rather than have a pleasent technical chatter . . .
.........
we are all members of the same club and share a lot of similar interests so please can we behave civilly towards each other . . . thanks in advance!
Big.Wayne, pot - kettle - black
response to my post, no doubt posted in the spirit of considered maturity?
There is of course the other thread where there is a post which shows the power consumption of various CPUs and the Q6600 isn't that high.
From a techreport article showing power efficiency - http://techreport.com/articles.x/14424/15
The Q6600 more than holds it's own as an efficient CPU, no one runs Linpack 24/7 365 days a year either. Stop trolling Q6600 threads with the same old crap.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- Herts
I'd take an article showing power efficiency using a Extech 380803 slightly more seriously than one made with a £10 Kill A Watt.
A dual core will be more efficient than the eqv quad if you won't be running anything more demanding than wordpad or multi-task. At all. But so what?
A dual core will be more efficient than the eqv quad if you won't be running anything more demanding than wordpad or multi-task. At all. But so what?
Interesting statement RizlaKing, do you actually think thats true!
I'm not, I'm saying a dual core uses a lot less power than a quad core . . you seem to be turning this into an Anti-Green thread?
Just to sum up (having re-read the thread) my points are simply this:
When choosing your computer Hardware, please also research the power consumption and running costs.
Quad cores have their place but I am certain that a lot of my fellow OcUK forum members are not benefiting from the extra cores. No I can't see into peoples homes and I can't see them using their computers but I read their posts, and slowly but surely over the course of six years have begun to build up a mental picture of a *typical* user.
Anyway RizlaKing, do me a favour, please don't talk to me like I am a militant eco activist lecturer at your college because I'm not, I'm an overclocker just like the rest of you, here to learn and help where I can.
Please don't underestimate how much effect a small change can make in your purchasing habits, on the small scale of things I guaretee that if you look into this subject yourself with an open mind and are prepared to learn then you will save a lot of cash and also make a postive eco statement towards the people that are designing and selling the hardware i.e INTEL, AMD, nVidia etc
Time for the mince pies yet?
How dirtydog?
Have you been doing some power consumption tests? have you been measuring how much power various different hardware uses? overclocked vs stock etc?
I don't think you have because if you did then you wouldn't be disagreeing with me!
ouch!
TBH redballoon I would never even enter a technical dicussion with such Gusto if all I had done was read a single review on a website. I'll think you will find it a better way to learn if you buy the hardware and experiment yourself before having such conviction when you debate.
Even though that blanket statement is wrong. If your case is so strong why do you need to be disingenuous?
How dirtydog?
Have you been doing some power consumption tests? have you been measuring how much power various different hardware uses? overclocked vs stock etc?
I don't think you have because if you did then you wouldn't be disagreeing with me!
No I haven't - I take the word of various well respected hardware websites for that.
Sorry what?
Oh I see!
So did you read many respected web site reviews then? because you seem quite intent on opposing my statements, why is that if you not sure what your talking about?
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 296
- Location
- Herts
Nah, I've got enough experience with the real hardware (and common sense - which you seem to be lacking in).
Gusto? I suggest you read over your posts in this thread (actually don't, unless you like watching paint dry ) and compare them to the few sentences of my own. Cheers.
Last edited:
Interesting statement!
Why am I lacking in common sense mr redballoon, care to get back on topic and make some positive quad statements please
Look it up.Sorry what?
The statement that dual cores use less power than quads, is not correct.
eg. 45nm quads use less power than 65nm duals.
65nm quads use less power than AMD duals.
Any quad uses less power overall in certain tasks than any dual, due to finishing the task significantly faster.
I often read hardware / tech websites, I didn't just do so to check my facts on this occasion.Oh I see!
So did you read many respected web site reviews then? because you seem quite intent on opposing my statements, why is that if you not sure what your talking about?
To be honest, if you list X things that use more power than Y that people use in the world today, the list would be exceedingly long. Live and let live and just go enjoy your fantastic dual, knowing that you're doing your part to society.
Yes thanks I understand the word I just don't see how that applies to me or why you would say that, nm
I actually hope you do get around to it sometime dirtydog. Took me years and years of being interested in PC hardware before I finally stumbled across the power useage aspects, all I looked at when researching hardware in the past was price and performance, now it's power consumption too!
I can certainly understand why a lot of people pay no interest to power consumption with their rigs, I never did before but thats all changed now.
Anyway my lunchbreak is blown past and I am sat here on a forum chatting with a bunch of quad core owners out for blood lol!