ye, its been "talked about" for a while, ever since the HT bug.

my 5yr old intel chip will like this.

bad luck all you with single core amd.

my guess is they are moving towards intel friendly (high performance? ) code as intel now ship the most powerfull chips going.

edit:
and dare i say nvidia & intel combo's prawn up AMD now?
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4812

Post edited by: [KM] + FROG +, at: 04/11/2006 11:28

Bout time they started making proper use of multi core chips, and giving them proper support.

Also the core2 duo is only the most powerfull chip after you overclock the crap outa it, Im sure Amd will come back with more powerfull chips. After watching a core2 duo run games I still think Amd make the better gamers chip, (core2 seemed to not like the game).

That link with the 8800gtx, can anyone explain how with the same settings I get better frame rates than what the testers did in their benchmarks? I get a good 20-30 fps more than they did. (In hl2 and quake4 at 1600x1200 with everything @ max).

Post edited by: Jackal, at: 04/11/2006 15:32

Also the core2 duo is only the most powerfull chip after you overclock the crap outa it

? lol..

lets just have a look at the stock cpu speed charts and think about that...



i thought you had duel GPU?
they only tested a single unit

Thought the stock speed of the core2 was something like 2.4ghz, or am I looking at the cheap ones?

Anyways, played bf with core2, juddered for a bit at round start which my 2.2ghz doesnt do with just one core running. Suposed to be more powerfull than the top end amd's, maybe on paper it is but it didnt seem to like games that much. Im sticking with amd on my next build.

Most of the chips that we run now will be rubbish bin fodder in a year anyway, and that 8800gtx is pointless unless its a dx10 card, which it doesnt say it is. And yeah Ive got duel gpu, but my bench's with just one of my cards ane not very far behind that one just without the 16x AA. So for the price that one is going for I'd expect a lot more. My cards are a year old now.

Intel chips are for solitaire/sage and AMD chips are for gaming imho. (Ur gunna blow ur lid at me now aint ya froggy )

Post edited by: Jackal, at: 04/11/2006 18:09

or he will blow his load all over your face.

[KM]simon piemon wrote:
or he will blow his load all over your face.

Oh god, dont want frog's spawn on my face

Thing with that 88gtx is, dx10 is not very far off so I would be saving my money and getting a decent dx10 card in a few months rather than spend a fortune on one card that is really just a stop-gap release.

My work comp upstairs has a core2 duo in it, and its only used for autocad type progs it just doesnt perform as well as an amd for games. I might be an amd fanboy but its only taken intel how many years to make a chip that looks good on paper?

Intel smells tbh.

the top end intel chip is worth £700+, maybe if you spent the £££ you would get the performance

i could show you graph upon graph of intel vrs amd, and if you get the top end intel chips, they blow away the top end amd chips...

intel are bringing out more chips soon, sooner than amd.
quad core..... now that is ftw.

what amd are working on atm is cpu + gpu in one unit...
dodgy imo.. not much room for upgrade :/

[KM] + FROG + wrote:
the top end intel chip is worth £700+, maybe if you spent the £££ you would get the performance

I would expect mega performance at that price Also complete overkill for games and just makes other parts of the comp bottleneck the speed.


i could show you graph upon graph of intel vrs amd, and if you get the top end intel chips, they blow away the top end amd chips...

I always find that intel chips dont balance very well with other hardware when building a gaming rig, my uncle (who builds very very good gaming rigs) has had a few problems with intel chips and generally wont touch them unless a customer specificaly requests one.


intel are bringing out more chips soon, sooner than amd.
quad core..... now that is ftw.

They arnt gunna be that good though. No programmes support it yet and they will have to redesign the software for dx10 as soon as its out which will leave people with useless extra cores. When I got my dual core nothing supported it's use so for about 6months I wa only running one core. I would rather wait until Amd strip the new intel chips down and improve on them, there might be programmes that use the multi core's properly by then. Even a lot of programmes released in the last month still dont support 2 cores.


what amd are working on atm is cpu + gpu in one unit...
dodgy imo.. not much room for upgrade :/

I do agree with that though, gpu + cpu doesnt seem very sensible to me either. I do also know about another project that Amd are working on, but Im not supposed to know about it. I got a 'snoop' on the inside (sometimes is not what ya know, but who ya know) an when it arrives Im buying it.

programs dont have to support quad core - as long as they are multi-threaded (as 99% of apps are, its pretty much only games and servers that are single threaded) then the OS can offload threads onto a diferent core, and start crunching the numbers big time.

this will give you super-responcive applications, as they will be able to do more work at once.

edit:
this is why valve are turning source multi-threaded - to allow it to offload work to other cores.

Post edited by: [KM] + FROG +, at: 05/11/2006 16:48

Meh, all these multi core'd cpu's with all these bells and whistles. Seems to me that cpu's are leaping ahead tech wise whereas the majority of parts in a pc are not much different to how they were 10 years ago.

If multi cores are the future then they had better start making the rest of the comp better too, hard drives already get bottlenecked with info from fast processors and ram hasnt changed much either. Too much attention going on the most expensive component without looking at the other parts says to me that this whole cpu war is just a way of getting peeps to part with money for "the next big thing" in cpu technology. How many people actually need the processing power being offered? And will anyone even notice that their game loads 2 milliseconds faster than with a chip that costs less.

Also why would valve decide that multi-cores are the way to go when the majority of people who use source dont have multicore processors? Looking at the valve survey results a great deal of people hardly meet the recommended specs for using the source engine, wouldnt it be better if they worked on making the engine more friendly to the lower spec'd machines since they form the majority of the market.

Im not questioning your exitement about the latest chips froggy, but the question is does anyone actually have a need for such powerfull chips yet other than keeping up with the Jones's?

other components have come on very far, you just need to look in the right places, then you will get your performance (if you have the right system for the applications your running, ie, ram hungry apps = lots of ram to prevent swapping).

eg hardware:

ram = Corsair DDR2 XMS2 Dominator (1111MHz)
hdd = WD Raptor, 10,000rpm (1.5 Gb/s)

youll need that £700 cpu to keep up with the £450 sticks of ram. (2x1gb)

my cpu is coming up to being 5 years old (P4 ?prescot? shit cant remember, its old tho), and it supports multi-threading very well with its HT technology. it basicly splits the cpu into 2 virtual cores (i can see each cpu in task manager), and allows better threadded performance, even though it is a single core.

when source goes multi-threaded, i should see some more performance my way (not that i use all my cpu, due to my pwn £20 128mb fx5200 - which i can still get 50/100fps out of ).

single core amd chips do not have HT, and there for stay as a single core. this means all the threads go down the same route of processing.

i think amd has some kind of "thread managment" shit to try and deal with it, but . . intel wins with HT.

at the end of the day, the only people who wont see anything much good from this, are the people with single core amd chips, so its hardly a bad idea on valve's part

Post edited by: [KM] + FROG +, at: 06/11/2006 00:09

The future of hard disks is just round the corner...

clicky