[Sniped Ur Azz]

Ok, I know most here are AMD Fanboys....but, I was wondering your thoughts and ideas on this subject.

With the Intel® 955XE Chipset out, I was wondering how much is this really worth the cost. I mean, how much will one really notice a difference. Is this really worth it for the Hardcore Gamer? Is this something that one should/will need to have in the near future, I mean what? The way I see it now, its really not worth the money RIGHT NOW...but soon as new apps and games come out that will actually take advantage of the Dual Core Technology. I was wondering, does anyone here know if you can run say a P4 3.60GHz 800 FSB Processor on the Intel® 955XE Chipset? At this current point in time, one cannot buy the Dual Core 3.2GHz Processor by itself, you can only buy through Alienware, Dell, Falcon Northwest, etc. I dunno, I guess what I am trying to ask here is,(I know I am gonna get flammed for this) go with the Dell XPS Gen-5, or go with the Custom Built one with the 1066FSB? Thanks and for gods sake, please just keep this thread on track and dont just talk trash. Please.

[Akuma]

What are you using it for?

Have you ever thought you needed a SMP system (multiple CPUs)?


You'll see big improvements in multithreaded tasks such as video and audio encoding. Also in Photoshop and 3D Rendering.

If you don't do anything of that all the time, then it is a huge waste of money for you. There will be little to no improvement in games until developers start coding games to take advantage for the extra CPU.




Not to sound like a broken record fanboy but Intel's dual core implementation is already seen to be mediocre. It doesn't give near the performance increases as AMD's X2 dual cores. Plus it runs super hot since it has 2 Prescotts running on it. Just getting that out in the open. I know you won't take it to heart since your a huge intel fanboy.

[Sniped Ur Azz]

Originally Posted by Akuma

What are you using it for?

Have you ever thought you needed a SMP system (multiple CPUs)?


You'll see big improvements in multithreaded tasks such as video and audio encoding. Also in Photoshop and 3D Rendering.

If you don't do anything of that all the time, then it is a huge waste of money for you. There will be little to no improvement in games until developers start coding games to take advantage for the extra CPU.




Not to sound like a broken record fanboy but Intel's dual core implementation is already seen to be mediocre. It doesn't give near the performance increases as AMD's X2 dual cores. Plus it runs super hot since it has 2 Prescotts running on it. Just getting that out in the open. I know you won't take it to heart since your a huge intel fanboy.

Oh no not at all, I appreciate the input and as far as the AMD's X2 Dual Cores, I never looked into them. TBH, I did not know it was really existant. I will glady check up on it, I like to be informed whether or not I like the product or brand. And I do recognize quality and performance even if its not what I want to be on top. Thanks for the advice on the processors. One more thing, any idea how long it will take till game dev's start making games that take advantage of the Dual Core technology? I mean, I have heard talks about new games coming out that will (for example) run the Physics engine on one thread, sound on another, graphics on the other..etc. Thanks!

[Akuma]

No one really knows when game devs will start coding multithreaded games... Hopefully once dual core CPUs are released and they become mainstream. No devs will do it before there is a large want for it, since it would be a huge waste of money to code the entire for a few people. But if the dual cores have a decent impact on the market, then devs will probably start coding for it. There are rumors that the Unreal Engine 3 allows for fairly easy multi threaded coding. So maybe we'll start seeing them in the next few years.


PS: Sorry for calling you a fanboy, I just assume because of the other thread we had.

[Sniped Ur Azz]

Originally Posted by Akuma

No one really knows when game devs will start coding multithreaded games... Hopefully once dual core CPUs are released and they become mainstream. No devs will do it before there is a large want for it, since it would be a huge waste of money to code the entire for a few people. But if the dual cores have a decent impact on the market, then devs will probably start coding for it. There are rumors that the Unreal Engine 3 allows for fairly easy multi threaded coding. So maybe we'll start seeing them in the next few years.


PS: Sorry for calling you a fanboy, I just assume because of the other thread we had.

Cool, was similar to what I heard as well about Unreal 3 engine. Yeah, I see what you mean now about it being a waste of time and code to code such a in depth change. So basically, best thing for someone getting a Dual Core, or Multi-Processor PC is one that either does ALOT of Multitasking, and Rendering. As far as gaming is concerned, there is allready suffice hardware out there to support us for a while right? That is, untill the new games come out with Multithreaded Use. But even still, Intel has its Hyperthreading, and AMD has HyperTransport, so we are set for a good while right? Thanks again man.

P.S. And hey no problem, I can see how I come across as such, I am open to all forms. Just not as knowledgeable about AMD and ATI as I am about Intel and Nvidia.

[Miscguy]

It actually seems as if AMD will yet again trump Intel in proformance on these dual chips. Intel cut fairly deep into there clock speeds on there dual offerings which will hurt single thread proformance. While AMD has given up considerably less clock speed. The down side to this is of course that price for the AMD's is a fair bit higher than the Intel versions. The first entry level AMD dual offering coming in at $537 (4200+ 64 x2, 2.2ghz). Compaired to Intels entry level offering at $241 (Pentium D 2.8ghz no HT) Even the fastest intel (3.2ghz) is cheaper than the lowest priced AMD. The AMD does outproform the intel offerings even the EE, (ht enable pentium d's) but the price is fairly high.

Also the benefits from dual cores is not just for "when programmers use it". It does have an effect on every day computing. Most decernably in encoding, and MULTITASKING. Proformance advantages can be seen by simply leaving your Mp3 player run while running a game, and still having virus software running in the background. All those background processes no longer have to be turned off to play a game without proformance loss. Heavy multitasking also benfits, such as decompressing .RARS while still surfing the web, or watching a DVD/windows media. I know my AMD 3200+ 64 doesnt like doing that since WMP is a freaking resource hog.

The key to this all is that AMD plans to switch all CPU production to dual core EVENTUALLY. So price drops will come as they continue to go on with the buisness plan. Intels outlook still has single core options up through 2007.

I would really sit and wait on this, AMD hasnt released any x2's for review and the stats ive seen are from a "rigged" workstation version of the 4400+, the Opteron x75 which is dual core at 2.2ghz and is a decent referance. The date im hearing is June for AMD releases of PC dual cores.

I would put off upgrading until the next set of vid cards come out. I say this for a few reasons. AMD's dual solution has bandwitdh issues since its backwards compatible with 939/940. That will be fixed with DDR2 and a new socket later on. Also, by the time of the next vid cards price drops will have likly come for the x2's making them a better option. I do feel AMD will be the better option in dual cores though, once the price comes down a bit.

[Miscguy]

Ps: i hear the 955 is a rock solid board.