cnet.com— Intel posted price cuts on Sunday that included reductions of 50 percent on select quad-core processors. The chipmaker also introduced new Celeron and Core 2 Duo processor models.
Apr 21, 2008View in Crawl 4
Some lame-ass boards don't overclock very well. I guess it all depends on whether you want to spend the extra money on a board, or the extra money on a CPU. :p
It makes me laugh when people criticize new technology.. It reminds me of.. "640k is enough for any body" (even if Bill Gates never did say it)The fact is, it is only going to get easier programming for multiple cores.Its not like they are going to have to code each game to utilize mutliple cores, they will just need to develop a library that will help.Multicore is going to have to be the future, as we will eventually reach the limit of what a single core can do... Until quantum computing comes along...
1) E6600? Don't you mean Q6600?2) Q6600 @ 3.6 = E9800 @ standard?I used to do all my overclocking with AMD chips and there never seemed to be a 4x price break by boosting the clock 50%. Intel, due to its greedy pricing margins, might make those kinds of savings achievable. I did get increased processing comparable to a more expensive chip, but over the long run, it never really seemed to matter. 6 months would go by, and the prices on the top line would collapse, and you can only drop the cheaper chip so far. Back in the K6 days, overclocking could be the difference between what kind of app you could run, or save significant processing time, but today, meh. Whatever improved sense of performance in games or processing seems to risk bugs and crashes every week, if not premature death of parts.Why C2D/C2Q and not Geode (variants)? Because I'm talking efficiency, not power savings. I want processing power, just not P4 style "power". Also, I'm fascinated with multiple cores. I vaguely recall hearing something about multi-cored CPUs not powering parts of its cores via mode settings, but I don't know if that actually got implemented. It would be sweet. Single core for most processing, and then the mobo/CPU turns on the juice when you want to do video processing, or virtualization.
I love my quad core. maybe games havent taken advantage of the extra cores, but I notice the performance boost in everything i do. like running stuff in the background while im playing a game ;-)
"It makes me laugh when people criticize new technology.. It reminds me of.. "640k is enough for any body" (even if Bill Gates never did say it)"I think you misunderstand the comments. I don't think there are many who would say quad cores are useless and will never be worthwhile for anybody. There's definitely some who can make use of quad cores, and a lot of future potential. That doesn't change the fact that quad cores offer very little benefit to most users over dual core processors currently. That being said I just ordered four quad core Q6600 computers on Friday for work. I had a quote for dual core machines I was going to place, but with the price drop and some deals Dell is running I had no reason NOT to go with quad core. If anybody's interested I got:C2Q Q6600, 500GB 7200RPM HD, 3GB 800MHz RAM, dual optical drives, media card reader, GeForce 8600GT, and Firewire for $668 each. <a class="user" href="http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=794975&highlight=inspiron+530+q6600">http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid= ...</a>
tenoqApr 22, 2008
Some lame-ass boards don't overclock very well. I guess it all depends on whether you want to spend the extra money on a board, or the extra money on a CPU. :p
eganjApr 22, 2008
die.
rompom7Apr 22, 2008
It makes me laugh when people criticize new technology.. It reminds me of.. "640k is enough for any body" (even if Bill Gates never did say it)The fact is, it is only going to get easier programming for multiple cores.Its not like they are going to have to code each game to utilize mutliple cores, they will just need to develop a library that will help.Multicore is going to have to be the future, as we will eventually reach the limit of what a single core can do... Until quantum computing comes along...
netantApr 22, 2008
1) E6600? Don't you mean Q6600?2) Q6600 @ 3.6 = E9800 @ standard?I used to do all my overclocking with AMD chips and there never seemed to be a 4x price break by boosting the clock 50%. Intel, due to its greedy pricing margins, might make those kinds of savings achievable. I did get increased processing comparable to a more expensive chip, but over the long run, it never really seemed to matter. 6 months would go by, and the prices on the top line would collapse, and you can only drop the cheaper chip so far. Back in the K6 days, overclocking could be the difference between what kind of app you could run, or save significant processing time, but today, meh. Whatever improved sense of performance in games or processing seems to risk bugs and crashes every week, if not premature death of parts.Why C2D/C2Q and not Geode (variants)? Because I'm talking efficiency, not power savings. I want processing power, just not P4 style "power". Also, I'm fascinated with multiple cores. I vaguely recall hearing something about multi-cored CPUs not powering parts of its cores via mode settings, but I don't know if that actually got implemented. It would be sweet. Single core for most processing, and then the mobo/CPU turns on the juice when you want to do video processing, or virtualization.
Closed AccountApr 22, 2008
I love my quad core. maybe games havent taken advantage of the extra cores, but I notice the performance boost in everything i do. like running stuff in the background while im playing a game ;-)
Closed AccountApr 22, 2008
and guns.
Closed AccountApr 22, 2008
im running my Q6600 @ 3.6 ghz with a xigmatek 1283 cooler. 9x 400, 1.42 volts. idle 31 degrees, 45 under load.
digdug2008Apr 23, 2008
there must be a reason apple is buying a P.A semiconductors. I was dug down for making a true statement. Here is the link <a class="user" href="http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/04/21/daily45.html?ana=yfcpc">http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/200 ...</a>
ethergnatApr 27, 2008
"It makes me laugh when people criticize new technology.. It reminds me of.. "640k is enough for any body" (even if Bill Gates never did say it)"I think you misunderstand the comments. I don't think there are many who would say quad cores are useless and will never be worthwhile for anybody. There's definitely some who can make use of quad cores, and a lot of future potential. That doesn't change the fact that quad cores offer very little benefit to most users over dual core processors currently. That being said I just ordered four quad core Q6600 computers on Friday for work. I had a quote for dual core machines I was going to place, but with the price drop and some deals Dell is running I had no reason NOT to go with quad core. If anybody's interested I got:C2Q Q6600, 500GB 7200RPM HD, 3GB 800MHz RAM, dual optical drives, media card reader, GeForce 8600GT, and Firewire for $668 each. <a class="user" href="http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=794975&highlight=inspiron+530+q6600">http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid= ...</a>