-
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.
new 6 core amd
- Thread starter Dazboots
- Start date
thx for that. im using the rampage 2 extreme @ the moment was going to buy the rampage 3 mobo.
but when i seen how cheap the x6 amd was was thinking of buying a the 3.2 ghz x6 cpu and the new asus board.
based on benchmarks of games and programs that dont use more than 4 cores?
intel couldnt have hand picked better benchmarks for the reviewers to use even if they tried
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,768
- Location
- Planet Earth
It is funny that there are no Supreme Commander,World in Conflict and BFBC2 benchmarks I can see in these reviews! If there are can someone please point me to them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 14,583
The fact is there will be minimal number of games that would make use of more than 4 cores now and in the near future...based on benchmarks of games and programs that dont use more than 4 cores?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,768
- Location
- Planet Earth
So basically there is no point in getting a socket 1366 processor then?? If extra cores don't count the same can be said for HT. Even the Crossfire and SLI bandwidth advantage the socket 1366 platform has over socket 1156 does not seem to much use in most instances.
Hence a Core i5 quad core or a cheaper Phenom quad core is what people should be looking at TBH for a gaming build or am I wrong here?
Hence a Core i5 quad core or a cheaper Phenom quad core is what people should be looking at TBH for a gaming build or am I wrong here?
Last edited:
but once they hit an x6 should be more than powerful enough to handle it which to me is about as futureproof as you will get with cpus
2-3 years is a very long times in computing if a cpu can last that long and still keep up then surely its futureproof? people have kept worse cpus for longer and still had no trouble
Obviously haven't been reading the reviews then, which all clearly state that whilst not as fast as the i7 930 in most things, the 6-cores put up a good fight in highly threaded applications.
AnandTech said:
You're right in saying there's no point if you already have a high end quad core, but these CPUs are an option for users who don't.
Actually there is, but the problem is the term is used from the wrong perspective like there will always be a better product around the corner which is true, which you can not proof against.
But future proofing on individual need has nothing to do with better being available later because you can buy something now that is powerful enough for your needs now & for years to come as you are not forced to buy the new stuff every time they pop up because what you have still does the job fine.
But if you buy low end products they can run out of grunt much sooner & you will have to buy the next new low end just to keep acceptable performance depending on the individual.
But there are always the few who cant help themselves on particular products no matter what they had before.
I have had my 30" for many years now (2006). I could have went up in baby steps in monitor size which would have cost me allot more in total over the years than just going from the 21" CRT to the 30" like i did.
Also my 8 GB ram that i bought just when most were seeing 4GBs as the target & have not had to worry about running out of ram from the day i bought it as i have gone past the 4 GB limit many times when tho at the time of buying the 8GB i didn't think that i would have gone over 4GB usage so soon.
Last edited: