Why is dual core getting a beat down? - Page 3

a 486 owns dual core. until memrom, then its a close one.

Intel® Itanium® 2 processor
Server/Workstation (PAC-611)

1.66 GHz w/ 9M cache 667 MHz FSB (.13)

Jan '06 (01/02) Price
$4,655

Adrenolin... buy me one of these?!?!? =)


By the way... Intel's pricing for 1000unit Trays of the top Yonah is 706$ each. Dell has already expected to order 18-20 MILLION laptop chassis for 2007. Imagine what price break they get for ordering that many CPU's. I'm sure they get somewhere in the area of 400-450$ per CPU with a bulk order like that.

Btw, each CPU comes with the chipset and wireless card. So Intel gets to dictate internal peripheral socket designs now... which I'm not sure how I feel about that right now.

Ok so stupid me played COD2 for about 6 hours straight last night on my 9300 its too bad I only have a single core 2.26ghz processor I could have done so much more with a $3000 9400 <sigh>

I have always been of the belief that it costs way to much to keep buying cutting edge tech hence the reason I spend $900 for a I9300 and upgrade it.

I make a pretty good living but I just don't have that kind of money to throw away on somthing that will be worth 1/3 of the asking price the minute Merom hits the market

But you don't get it, they are showing the CPU improvement and the best way to do that is at lower resolutions since the GPU isn't the biggest factor.

Lets say you play CSS. Let's say you play dust, a very non-taxing level on the GPU. Let's say during firefights you are constantly seeing 30-35fps at any resolution, this is not becuase of your GPU, but your CPU (hence CPU limited). That's something we can all agree on. Add in a dual core CPU and your 30-35fps is now 45-50 in firefights, just an example.

Not necessarly true.

Now once you get into higher resolutions where your GPU becomes the bottleneck look at the benches.

Does that make your computer any slower? No, that just means you need to either overclock your GPU or get a better video card. That bench shows the difference between dual and single core average FPS at 1600x1200

here is the link http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ce/default.asp
Note the scores are pretty much the same with a dual core 2.0GHz and a single core 2.4GHz.

i know how i feel about it, GO AMD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but thats assuming that your cpu can only hadnle 35fps. ive never tried, but im pretty sure that i can get well over 75fps in a cpu limited map in CSS, so it really isnt an issue. if you had a ver weak cpu then it would matter, but it will be years until we start seeing game s that tax pinmodded 2ghz+ cpus.

My 2.0 Pentium M was CPU limited in Source. I'm not saying that you will only see 35fps during the whole game, i'm saying that when you are in big firefights your fps will drop because of your CPU not GPU, having the extra core (granted the game is coded for dual core) will help a lot.

Why do you think AMDs new FX CPU is dual core

Let me clarify what CPU limited means, No matter what resolution or graphic settings your average frames per second stay the same. Generally lowering resolutions and video quality should increase your frames per second, if it doesn't your CPU is a bottleneck and isn't allowing you to gain the performance.

I think it's a time thing and at this time as a gamer being there are a verry small amount of games & software out there that acually show benifit from the dual core processors. It cost Intel no more money to produce a dualcore processor then a single core from what I have read so why pay big bucks for just the steping stone of the real deal so lets talk about Memron which feel will be long lived and we will have the 64 Bit Os also. So I think if you can wait then wait.If you can't then pay the price for which I consider a stepping stone of what is yet to come. If I can limp by with my machine until Memrom and the 64 Bit OS hits the laptop's I will oh yeah had to throw in the fact that by this time they will have some more wiked video cards too. I honestly feel I will be able too limp by if so then cool if not then I think the other option will be me purchaseing 2 laptop not too far apart LOL hey what am I doing thats not funny thats costly. Just my 2 cents

I think people hit the nail on the head when they said this is all about sour grapes. People get pissed off when something better than what they have comes out. I'm personally psyched about Yonah. Am I going to get one? No, I dont need it and my Pentium M does everything I need. I'm very much a gamer and I dont really multitask to the extent that I need a dual core CPU. What is great about Yonah is that Intel has created an awesome chip and totally has gotten its act together. For some reason, people like to make an indoor sport out of bashing intel, I have no idea why. When socket 754 athlon64s came out, people creamed their pants and no one bitched that it was going to be replaced by 939 within a year. Intel has taken a dual core chip, kept almost all the performance of its single core model, and has even improved on it in some respects (power consumption, etc.). People need to face the facts that AMD cannot touch intel in the laptop department. I think both manufacturers have some great CPUs, but face the facts. Now I know alot of people are complaining that there's no 64-bit support, I personally dont use 64-bit. Also, I've seen maybe 5 games at the most that support it after they are patched to their newest versions. In the same sense, there aren't many multi-threaded apps/games to fully use dual core, well neither are there apps/games available to support 64-bit, but I dont see anyone trying to hammer home this point. Also remember that Merom is going to be out in 6 months and evidently it will support 64-bit. Yonah is a stepping stone for Merom, and while it wont be the super chip the merom will hopefully be, it still offers alot, especially by setting the precedence for merom to follow. The X2's and opty dual cores are great desktop chips from AMD, in notebooks, they dont cut it. They're heavy because the cooling solutions are ridiculously huge (TDP for X2's is what, about 100w?) and battery life is horrible, even with 12-Cells. With luck, AMD will pull something dual core out of Turion to keep the market competitive. Anyway, I guess my main point here is to embrace the technology and the improvements and dont worry about petty brand differences.

People bash Intel simply because you get less and pay more. Intel's new gaming chip, the 3.73GHz EE dual core costs some $1,100 and performs much slower then an AMD Athlon X2 4800+ 2.4GHz costing $750 even when the P4 EE is sitting at 4.2GHz. If you were a gamer would you honestly go Intel? Maybe I could see it happening with Yonah.

The Pentium M is a fantastic chip, and If I could get a mobo that supported my hardware with a PM i'd get one and overclock it. It's sad that Intels best chip for gaming is in a mobile platform.

I defintiely agree, Intel should have dumped the P4 years ago, at least now they finally are. AMD definitely has the desktop gaming department in their pockets, and I think the X4's and other improvements that they're putting out soon will allow them to keep it.

What's even more sad is that Intels best chip for gaming is a slightly modified Pentium 3. Hence no Hyperthreading, high clock speeds, and high power consumption like the Netburst (Pentium 4) architecture.

We need multithreaded applications.

I think you should wait for Merom if you are not in a hurry for labtop. I remember when I bought my p2 233mhz desktop only to find out the chip was actually a 200mhz that was OC. Damn the man... Anyway from personal experience I would feel bad getting a chip knowing that a new/better one will be out shortly there after. I too embrace new technology but patience is also a virtue.

i dont think anyone will argue that yonah is worse than dothan. However, it is not 700 dollars better, its not even 300 dollars better.

as for amd, i think youre wrong about them. yonah has some new stuff, but it isnt very much more than a couple dothans glued together. compared to the current turions, taylor will be quite a big step forward. the two major advantages it has are the on-die memory controller and the 64bit.

the only advanget yonah has is being pin compatible with merom, but we really dont know how usefull that will be at this point.

Who's wrong about AMD?

R&D costs come to mind....

Actually AMD beats intel in pretty much everything including price... what exactley do you think intel does better in?

Dude, you couldn't be more wrong, most every desktop part AMD puts out puts Intels counter part to shame (don't know much about AMD mobile parts). Intel doest have a single gaming CPU that can beat and AMD gaming CPU ( EE vs. FX). Hell even their lower end parts whoop on the extreme editions. Just because Intel is a bigger company doesn't make them better.

Man! Why are even bothering to post here, if you've already made up your mind..

And if you'd read the constructive comments on this thread (and I admit, there was a mire of abuse to get through), you would read that people are actually recommending an INTEL chip. People were recommending either A: Buy a P-M now (i9300) for cheaper and hardly any (if any) sacrifice in performance over a higher-priced Yonah; or B: Wait till the Merom comes out at the end of the year.

If you want my $0.02, then go for option A. The i9300's (and others) will likely be further discounted when the Yonah models come out (v. soon). Mind you, I can't talk about new technologies - I still use my Dell Latitude C810 (1.3 Ghz, 256 Ram, Geforce 2 GO, 20GB HDD)

Furay.