hergieburbur
Distinguished
- Dec 19, 2005
- 1,907
- 0
- 19,780
joefriday: first off, let me congratulate you on your measured response without resorting to insult. That serves as a great indication of your maturity level and intellect. I hope you can sense the sarcasm.
If you care to disagree, please make an argument.
Second of all, fad does imply "short lived" and something that eventually "vanishes" So, as the three posters before me said, give a better example. If anything, your example would indicate that FX-57 is a fad, not multi core.
There was no radical technology advancement between those processors.
Try to use logic in your posts, no matter how difficult it seems.
If you care to disagree, please make an argument.
Second of all, fad does imply "short lived" and something that eventually "vanishes" So, as the three posters before me said, give a better example. If anything, your example would indicate that FX-57 is a fad, not multi core.
There was no radical technology advancement between those processors.
Try to use logic in your posts, no matter how difficult it seems.
baseline: I would argue hardware. There was no SSE before Pentiums implemented then, nor were there 3DNow capable pieces of software before Athlons...
Even more basic, no MSDOS before PC in general, although people would argue that DOS was a rip-off of some of Unix and some of [that other OS whose name totally escapes me at the moment]...
That's the problem with 64bit - even though it could be exploited in software, the fact that 64 bit hardware is not widespread enough has prevented 64 bit software from being developed. It was most amazing - Win 64 was announced almost simultaneously with 64 bit Intels, even though AMD had had 64 bit for a while...
Even more basic, no MSDOS before PC in general, although people would argue that DOS was a rip-off of some of Unix and some of [that other OS whose name totally escapes me at the moment]...
That's the problem with 64bit - even though it could be exploited in software, the fact that 64 bit hardware is not widespread enough has prevented 64 bit software from being developed. It was most amazing - Win 64 was announced almost simultaneously with 64 bit Intels, even though AMD had had 64 bit for a while...
recreational_user
Distinguished
- Dec 14, 2005
- 33
- 0
- 18,530
What an interesting discussion.
I think it is too early to tell whether dual cores will be a "fad" for mainstream home desktops. There are some definite performance increases with well written programs, and there are already many programs in the scientific and artistic (including holywood), and increasingly gaming communities which take advantage of the dual cores.
But, money rules the world. If you look around, there are a lot of cheap-o computer's flying off the shelves, which seem to be moving backwards in time: Celeron 2.6 GHz, 60 Gig HD's, 256-512 MB of RAM. And didn't THG have a news blurb recently that laptops accounted for 50% of sales? You can bet that very few of those will be moving dual core for a while as mobility, power savings, and price compete. Also, take a look at these mobile devices that are all the rage. As was mentioned in another post, you can do a lot nowadays with a Treo, or any number of phones. If people can do their email, IM, browsing, music, video, and probably increasingly more word processing with these devices, they'll stop buying desktops. And for games they have the consoles (which have become multi-core already).
My point is, some segments of the market will continue to drive performance and innovatain, as they always have. Business workstations and servers aren't going anywhere soon. However, if the bulk of the market shifts and it becomes unprofitable to make the high end stuff, it will get more expensive and eventually disappear. The real question is are HOME desktops becoming a fad?
I think it is too early to tell whether dual cores will be a "fad" for mainstream home desktops. There are some definite performance increases with well written programs, and there are already many programs in the scientific and artistic (including holywood), and increasingly gaming communities which take advantage of the dual cores.
But, money rules the world. If you look around, there are a lot of cheap-o computer's flying off the shelves, which seem to be moving backwards in time: Celeron 2.6 GHz, 60 Gig HD's, 256-512 MB of RAM. And didn't THG have a news blurb recently that laptops accounted for 50% of sales? You can bet that very few of those will be moving dual core for a while as mobility, power savings, and price compete. Also, take a look at these mobile devices that are all the rage. As was mentioned in another post, you can do a lot nowadays with a Treo, or any number of phones. If people can do their email, IM, browsing, music, video, and probably increasingly more word processing with these devices, they'll stop buying desktops. And for games they have the consoles (which have become multi-core already).
My point is, some segments of the market will continue to drive performance and innovatain, as they always have. Business workstations and servers aren't going anywhere soon. However, if the bulk of the market shifts and it becomes unprofitable to make the high end stuff, it will get more expensive and eventually disappear. The real question is are HOME desktops becoming a fad?
joefriday
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2006
- 2,105
- 0
- 19,810
I will gladly take you to task on your first response. You directly responded to my first post, stating that I did not know the meaning of "high-end". Obviously you did not actually read all of my posts, or you did not care to understand the conveyed meaning.
Here, let me lay it out for you: I UNDERSTAND PERFORMANCE. I HAVE TWEAKED MORE SYSTEMS THAN MOST. I APPRECIATE HIGH END RIGS AS MUCH AS THE NEXT PERSON. There. Now you can stop with your crappy "try running photoshop on that" response. My previous rigs would eat up and spit out photoshop. Try converting 18 hours of high quality mpeg2 to home-theater quality divx.
Since your previous post lacked any real sign of understanding, I gave you an appropriate response: you are a moron. It was much easier to type that than to post this message where I must re-explain the meaning of a post that most found to be clear, just so you could understand.
Now that you've made some intellignet repsonses, I must say that you are not a moron. See, it would have been much easier for the both of us if you would have just given a decent arguement the first time around, instead of just insulting my level of insight and ability.
Now that we are back to the task at hand, let me once again reiterate my stance. I see some people are thinking that I believe the technology of dual core itself is the fad. Although the author of this thread thought of it that way, I do not. I beileve, as you all, that dual core and multi core processors will be the trend of the future. What I believe is a fad, as I've stated at least twice now, is the consumer response to the technology. The "fad" lies in the bandwagon, group-think mentality that has the message boards in a fervor. People aren't cool ( 8) ) unless they go with an opteron or an x2. Look at most of the recommended system builds in the homebuilt section. In almost every one of the threads, somebody recommends a dual core. Doesn't matter what the hell the author of the thread actually wants to do with the computer, somebody is gonna post a comment to go with a dual core. Sometimes it makes sense, but other times it's just pure bandwagon propaganda being spewed out by someone that's been taken up by the $hit-storm of media publicity.
Reader's Digest condensed version: What I think is "fad" are people buying multicore cpus for the sake of saying "Hey, I own a multicore cpu!". Just like it was back in the days of Pentium, MMX, and HT technology.
Here, let me lay it out for you: I UNDERSTAND PERFORMANCE. I HAVE TWEAKED MORE SYSTEMS THAN MOST. I APPRECIATE HIGH END RIGS AS MUCH AS THE NEXT PERSON. There. Now you can stop with your crappy "try running photoshop on that" response. My previous rigs would eat up and spit out photoshop. Try converting 18 hours of high quality mpeg2 to home-theater quality divx.
Since your previous post lacked any real sign of understanding, I gave you an appropriate response: you are a moron. It was much easier to type that than to post this message where I must re-explain the meaning of a post that most found to be clear, just so you could understand.
Now that you've made some intellignet repsonses, I must say that you are not a moron. See, it would have been much easier for the both of us if you would have just given a decent arguement the first time around, instead of just insulting my level of insight and ability.
Now that we are back to the task at hand, let me once again reiterate my stance. I see some people are thinking that I believe the technology of dual core itself is the fad. Although the author of this thread thought of it that way, I do not. I beileve, as you all, that dual core and multi core processors will be the trend of the future. What I believe is a fad, as I've stated at least twice now, is the consumer response to the technology. The "fad" lies in the bandwagon, group-think mentality that has the message boards in a fervor. People aren't cool ( 8) ) unless they go with an opteron or an x2. Look at most of the recommended system builds in the homebuilt section. In almost every one of the threads, somebody recommends a dual core. Doesn't matter what the hell the author of the thread actually wants to do with the computer, somebody is gonna post a comment to go with a dual core. Sometimes it makes sense, but other times it's just pure bandwagon propaganda being spewed out by someone that's been taken up by the $hit-storm of media publicity.
Reader's Digest condensed version: What I think is "fad" are people buying multicore cpus for the sake of saying "Hey, I own a multicore cpu!". Just like it was back in the days of Pentium, MMX, and HT technology.
Multi core trends are the future of computing, mainly because the marketers at intel and AMD say so. This is unfortunate because single cores have 2 distinct advantages over dual and multi cores.
1) Price
2) Power consumption.
Using current technology (and WELL on into the future) manufacturers build single core processors cheaper than multi cores. At the present time MANY applications run at excellent speeds using current CPU clock speeds. Many of those don't even need current generation CPU clock speeds to function well. (I'm talking here about Word, Excel, Firefox, ect.) There is a host of users that will probably end up paying more for a dual or multi core that will give them minimal gains in system performance.
Intel has the right idea with creating CPU's that use less power and do more per clock cycle. Dual and multicore CPU's all but promise increase power usage... bad news for the laptops already short battery life. A single core is a better pick here.
I'm not saying dual and multi cores don't have their place. As soon as they become more prevalent in gaming, I'll be on the bandwagon. I do hope that single core CPUs will maintain a prevalent product line. At least until multicore CPU's become cheaper and more energy efficient. I guess that is an eventual possiblity, but it's a long time coming.
1) Price
2) Power consumption.
Using current technology (and WELL on into the future) manufacturers build single core processors cheaper than multi cores. At the present time MANY applications run at excellent speeds using current CPU clock speeds. Many of those don't even need current generation CPU clock speeds to function well. (I'm talking here about Word, Excel, Firefox, ect.) There is a host of users that will probably end up paying more for a dual or multi core that will give them minimal gains in system performance.
Intel has the right idea with creating CPU's that use less power and do more per clock cycle. Dual and multicore CPU's all but promise increase power usage... bad news for the laptops already short battery life. A single core is a better pick here.
I'm not saying dual and multi cores don't have their place. As soon as they become more prevalent in gaming, I'll be on the bandwagon. I do hope that single core CPUs will maintain a prevalent product line. At least until multicore CPU's become cheaper and more energy efficient. I guess that is an eventual possiblity, but it's a long time coming.
linux_0
Splendid
- Dec 18, 2005
- 5,314
- 0
- 25,860
Multi-core CPUs are the future simply because for the most part current technology has sort of "hit a brick wall".
We simply cannot push the core clock much higher than we already have using current technology.
So it makes a lot of sense to "build out" i.e. add more cores to improve performance.
The key is getting 2, 4 or more cores into one package with each core having more parallel execution units so it can perform more operations per clock cycle.
Another great way to improve performance would be to speed up access to main memory using a faster BUS or OMC - not necessarily faster frequency wise - making it wider would actually provide better performance.
Virtually all CPUs on the market today are memory starved.
We simply cannot push the core clock much higher than we already have using current technology.
So it makes a lot of sense to "build out" i.e. add more cores to improve performance.
The key is getting 2, 4 or more cores into one package with each core having more parallel execution units so it can perform more operations per clock cycle.
Another great way to improve performance would be to speed up access to main memory using a faster BUS or OMC - not necessarily faster frequency wise - making it wider would actually provide better performance.
Virtually all CPUs on the market today are memory starved.
joefriday: do you ever consider that maybe you misunderstood my post?!
Although, I have to admit, I do sense your distaste of dual core CPUs in your posts (and not just in this thread). And yes, I can appreciate the relativity of "high end," and I was just acknowledging that what you referred to as "high end" would not be considered such from the standpoint of the average reader on these forums, let alone for the purposes of this thread, obviously targeted at the early adopter / enthusiast.
I would also disagree with your assessment of what is going on out there with regard to people purchasing dual core CPUs. I don't think it is just a group-think type reaction of the crowds. I think that, with the advancement in the processor technology, the average life of a PC has increased dramatically from what was common 10 years back, when clock rates were doubling every 6 months and there were plenty of applications that took advantage of the increased horsepower.
So being "future proof" is now an important consideration when buying a system. And with that said, I think we will see better threaded applications in somewhat of a short run. And with Vista, users will need plenty of horsepower to take advantage of all features (and yes, I do know what MS says is min requirements, I just remember the stark contrast between what they said about XP and what every reviewer put as minimum recommended). So I think that is what is driving the decision, and not the desire to be "cool" (especially for those that actually realize that they will get decreased performance for the current applications).
I would totally agree with the poster who said that multiple cores is the trend of the future that resulted directly from inability to raise clock speeds any further based on limitation imposed by the physics involved. Threaded software development is much more complex than single process (now you have to design around it – a total shift in philosophy, and you need to worry about synchronizing the threads, etc.). It is necessary, however, to realize further performance gains.
With that said, multi-core is here to stay, and the answer to whether or not you should buy multi-core now, is probably yes, if you don't want to upgrade in the short run (which is being stretched out).
Although, I have to admit, I do sense your distaste of dual core CPUs in your posts (and not just in this thread). And yes, I can appreciate the relativity of "high end," and I was just acknowledging that what you referred to as "high end" would not be considered such from the standpoint of the average reader on these forums, let alone for the purposes of this thread, obviously targeted at the early adopter / enthusiast.
I would also disagree with your assessment of what is going on out there with regard to people purchasing dual core CPUs. I don't think it is just a group-think type reaction of the crowds. I think that, with the advancement in the processor technology, the average life of a PC has increased dramatically from what was common 10 years back, when clock rates were doubling every 6 months and there were plenty of applications that took advantage of the increased horsepower.
So being "future proof" is now an important consideration when buying a system. And with that said, I think we will see better threaded applications in somewhat of a short run. And with Vista, users will need plenty of horsepower to take advantage of all features (and yes, I do know what MS says is min requirements, I just remember the stark contrast between what they said about XP and what every reviewer put as minimum recommended). So I think that is what is driving the decision, and not the desire to be "cool" (especially for those that actually realize that they will get decreased performance for the current applications).
I would totally agree with the poster who said that multiple cores is the trend of the future that resulted directly from inability to raise clock speeds any further based on limitation imposed by the physics involved. Threaded software development is much more complex than single process (now you have to design around it – a total shift in philosophy, and you need to worry about synchronizing the threads, etc.). It is necessary, however, to realize further performance gains.
With that said, multi-core is here to stay, and the answer to whether or not you should buy multi-core now, is probably yes, if you don't want to upgrade in the short run (which is being stretched out).
In reply to your "look at the suggestions" section, I can't help but chuckle. Most of those people also recommend RAID-0, a stupid idea for a desktop, if you ask me.
But I also think that being future proof is even more a considerations there (which is funny, 'cause the upgrade cycle for enthusiasts is way shorter than for the average joe, so they really should be advising people to wait until next generation platforms with an expected life cycle of longer than 6 months are in place to keep the upgrade path possible).
But I also think that being future proof is even more a considerations there (which is funny, 'cause the upgrade cycle for enthusiasts is way shorter than for the average joe, so they really should be advising people to wait until next generation platforms with an expected life cycle of longer than 6 months are in place to keep the upgrade path possible).
joefriday
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2006
- 2,105
- 0
- 19,810
Honestly Russki, after reading your thread on RAID 0, I don't understand how you can't agree with what I'm saying. The similarities are so obvious. In your arguement you state that RAID 0 works well in server applications, much like dual cpus (and dual cores) also work well for server apps, right? But, in the home user arena, you feel that RAID 0 has little to offer the 'average' consumer, based on the fact that he or she will not be performing the tasks that you believe would require a RAID 0 setup. Now, back to this thread, I stated that the 'average' user would not need a dual core cpu, because I believe he or she would not be using enough of the right applications and programs to really stress such a cpu, and therefore the cost would outweigh the potential benefit. You notice people recommending RAID configurations to all sorts of people, reguardless if it really is necessary or not. I have noticed the same about dual core cpus. Are these not technological fads for the geeks of today? :lol:
As per your feeling that my definition of highend is skewed, perhaps you are right. Maybe a highend system requires a dual core cpu now. In that case I have not owned a high end system. I don't have any grudge against multicore processors. I prefer not to pay $300 for a cpu. Especially when it only offers 15% more performance improvement than a $70 cpu that has been overclocked. You could argue that a dual core cpu can also be overclocked. This is very true, and the performance between the two would be impressive. The dual core would walk all over the cheap single core. But, I did not have to pay $300 for my cpu. The performance per dollar is the main factor in all my builds, and dual core does offer enough performance in porportion to its pricetag.
However, I still think that most people, even those on this forum, would consider a k8 processer running at 2.5 ghz to be pretty damn decent.
As per your feeling that my definition of highend is skewed, perhaps you are right. Maybe a highend system requires a dual core cpu now. In that case I have not owned a high end system. I don't have any grudge against multicore processors. I prefer not to pay $300 for a cpu. Especially when it only offers 15% more performance improvement than a $70 cpu that has been overclocked. You could argue that a dual core cpu can also be overclocked. This is very true, and the performance between the two would be impressive. The dual core would walk all over the cheap single core. But, I did not have to pay $300 for my cpu. The performance per dollar is the main factor in all my builds, and dual core does offer enough performance in porportion to its pricetag.
However, I still think that most people, even those on this forum, would consider a k8 processer running at 2.5 ghz to be pretty damn decent.
I guess I feel differently about multi-core vs. RAID 0 because whereas little will probably change with RAID0 benefit - it is sooo IO specific that only very specific Tasks benefit from it – multi core is more application development philosophy related, which will undoubtedly change. In fact, many workstation oriented applications are already threaded and thus benefit from additional cores.
I think that the software will eventually catch up with the multi-core hardware, it really has got no other way to go. RAID 0 - not so much so. Also, having two cores does not increase your risk to dramatically higher levels (it does, of course, but we're talking different orders of mean time between failures on the two technologies).
Again, to me, dual core (at the present time) is much more about being future proof, whereas using RAID 0 is just believing in phantom theoretical benchmarks for most present and potential future real life scenarios.
Even encoding I would not do on RAID 0 without decent backup (i.e. I can see using it during the process, but not storage).
I think that the software will eventually catch up with the multi-core hardware, it really has got no other way to go. RAID 0 - not so much so. Also, having two cores does not increase your risk to dramatically higher levels (it does, of course, but we're talking different orders of mean time between failures on the two technologies).
Again, to me, dual core (at the present time) is much more about being future proof, whereas using RAID 0 is just believing in phantom theoretical benchmarks for most present and potential future real life scenarios.
Even encoding I would not do on RAID 0 without decent backup (i.e. I can see using it during the process, but not storage).
As a side note, oh yes I think the average joe will need dual core pretty soon [I'm sure you saw my post re: Vista]. I am highly skeptical about the level of frenzy MS marketing machine can achieve - look at gamespot.com's recent coverage - making everybody believe that Vista is the second coming. I think you'll need a heck of a system to run it like "they" will tell you it is meant to be run, and not the people on these forums that only reach the enthusiast, it will be mass media. So everyone will go get it, and get discouraged with their system, and go buy new hardware.
I don't know, perhaps I am too skeptical with all issues Microsoft, but I remember Me (useless bloated POS), and what XP did to the then-current average machine (too slow for many intense uses).
I don't know, perhaps I am too skeptical with all issues Microsoft, but I remember Me (useless bloated POS), and what XP did to the then-current average machine (too slow for many intense uses).
I think you're looking at the wrong issues here. The basic assumption is that we want performance to increase. We all know that current performance is more than adequate for most tasks. If you don't want incresed performance, that's really great, go buy a Pentium M, underclock and undervolt it, and exit the discussion. (No offense meant, just a hypothetical POV).
Now assuming we want to increase performance while trying to achieve the "advantages of single-core CPUs" you pointed out, let's look at the situation. First, a core in a multi-core system can do everything a core in a single-core system can do and vice versa. Now there are two ways to increase performance: kick up the clock rate and increase the number of cores. Now, here is the crux of the multi-core idea:
Increasing the frequency linearly increases power consumption exponentially.
Increasing the number of cores linearly increases power consumption linearly.
Therefore, if you want to save power, single-core is fundamentally flawed. Theoretically, you could construct a multi-core processor that did the same amount of work in the same amount of time but at a lower frequency and thus using less power (down to a certain, useless cutoff) .
And anyway, we've already seen an example of what running up the frequency to try to achieve performance utlimately leads to: Prescott.
As to price, I won't pretend to understand the market, but I think it's probably safe to assume there's probably a negative correlation between performance per watt and the retail price.
It is not so much a fad as it is really exciting. I am a big AMD fanboy, but I am using a Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading, because I have yet to buy my dual core AMD, and I really needed the multitasking abilities. I hate using a computer without HT. I always have multiple apps running. Even when they don't really need to be. I am just used to it.
The problem with Dual-core is that most apps still do not take advantage of it. By the time Vista and Quad-cores reach retail shelves, maybe things will change. So as much as I want to make myself broke buying a dual core AMD, I just don't think that I need it yet.
The problem with Dual-core is that most apps still do not take advantage of it. By the time Vista and Quad-cores reach retail shelves, maybe things will change. So as much as I want to make myself broke buying a dual core AMD, I just don't think that I need it yet.
A Fad is something that goes away in the future. All of these things are here to God-damn stay. All have made computing better.
True. Most computer users have more hardware than they need. Yes, the marketing machine that is Intel will make most of those folks believe they need dual core when they don't. That being said. There are tons of apps, right now that could really benefit from Dual core. Also, the same person that only uses there computer for emailing, and web-browsing, may also find themselves buying a Home Theater PC. I can see it. Everyone is pimping the hell out of these things. A HTPC is something that would utilize not only 2 cores, but 4, or 6, or 8. Therefore, they are not going to stop making multi-cores procs, and it is not a FAD.
Almost all of the people on these boards are computer enthusiasts, so of course we are all excited about new technology. All of us, except for those who are using Dinosaur PCs to post here, that is.
Russki,
I completely agree that hardware must come before the software. Take for example USB, anyone remember how long PC's had USB ports on the MB's before you could even use them? It was quite sometime, a few years until Microsoft supported USB in their OS and until USB devices became available widespread.
If you own a multi-core already then you are an early adopter, someone who gets in before the market has shook things out. Being an early adopter is risky, think Rambus, were you one of the early adopters of that technology? An even older example would be the famous Beta vs VHS battle.
Now that both Intel and AMD will be bringing multicore designs to market you can feel safe jumping in now. Your next big decision that will help to shape the market will be in the HD DVD standard choice. There are two players and the fight is just shaping up, which format will you choose? If you get on board early you better choose wisely or end up with a BetaMax when everyone else has decided on VHS.
Love them or hate them Microsoft has been good for one thing over the years, standardization. Microsoft has been able to force the industry to standardize their hardware which has been a good thing for consumers. Anyone remember the old days of XT and 286 when hardware compatibility was very sketchy at best?
Vista will if nothing else usher in 64bit and multi-threaded computing as soon as the Dells and Gateways of the world begin pre-loading it on their $400.00 rigs they offer on TV all the time.
I completely agree that hardware must come before the software. Take for example USB, anyone remember how long PC's had USB ports on the MB's before you could even use them? It was quite sometime, a few years until Microsoft supported USB in their OS and until USB devices became available widespread.
If you own a multi-core already then you are an early adopter, someone who gets in before the market has shook things out. Being an early adopter is risky, think Rambus, were you one of the early adopters of that technology? An even older example would be the famous Beta vs VHS battle.
Now that both Intel and AMD will be bringing multicore designs to market you can feel safe jumping in now. Your next big decision that will help to shape the market will be in the HD DVD standard choice. There are two players and the fight is just shaping up, which format will you choose? If you get on board early you better choose wisely or end up with a BetaMax when everyone else has decided on VHS.
Love them or hate them Microsoft has been good for one thing over the years, standardization. Microsoft has been able to force the industry to standardize their hardware which has been a good thing for consumers. Anyone remember the old days of XT and 286 when hardware compatibility was very sketchy at best?
Vista will if nothing else usher in 64bit and multi-threaded computing as soon as the Dells and Gateways of the world begin pre-loading it on their $400.00 rigs they offer on TV all the time.
psyno: I don't pretend to be a physicist, but I was speaking to one some time ago regarding processor technology; more specifically, speeds and frequencies, and he expressed an opinion that not only do you increase your power consumption with frequency, you also increase power loss, which is much worse. And then you have to deal with induced current. Not to mention at high frequencies the limitations of physical speed come into play, which is why we are seeing huge cache sizes to avoid long bus traces (and it benefits us, even though predicting is not perfect). His opinion was that we are very near the theoretical frequency limit given current technology. Optics are a little faster, but more difficult (at the present time) to design.
Thus, we are exploring alternative methods of increasing performance, which is parallelism.
[Disclaimer: sorry if I sound like total ass talking about something I have no even reasonably basic knowledge of]
Thus, we are exploring alternative methods of increasing performance, which is parallelism.
[Disclaimer: sorry if I sound like total ass talking about something I have no even reasonably basic knowledge of]
joefriday
Distinguished
- Feb 24, 2006
- 2,105
- 0
- 19,810
The 2.5 ghz on the tforce refers to the cpu (I think you know what i meant, just making sure you weren't thinking I was talking about the HTT or the gpu). The Sempy ran at 313 "fsb" x8 multi, = 2,504 MHz @1.55 vcore.
The Dell has an intel 845 chipset supporting the 533 bus. I simply pin modded a 2.0 GHz Northwood celeron so that it would be recognized by the motherboard as a 533 bus cpu, thus explaining why it runs at 2.66 GHz vs the normal 2.0. I used a northwood celeron for 3 reasons: 1) I had it lying around 2) They run very cool and 3) The L2 cache doesn't matter for video encoding. The same concept can be applied to the current Dell Deal, the 2.53 GHz Celeron D Dimension b110. The motherboard has the intel 865 chipset and thus supports the 800 fsb. pin mod the Deleron to the 800 fsb and you'll get a 3.8 Ghz wonder $330 shipped w/tax, including 17" crt.
btw Pimp, I prefer not to think of my decision to use an old "dinosaur" pc to be a handicap. Its more of a low power consumption pc. I didn't need my electrical bill to be any highter. It's all the power that I need for tasks other than video encoding. I do not game anymore. I gave that up when I was 14 or so. Thats been a decade ago.
I still think multcores are a fad right now. Most people don't need 'em, but will buy em b/c its the latest fad. When the next latest and greastest chip platform comes out, those same people will trade in their x2's to be part of the next latest fad. That's when I'll pick up an X2, when it's second hand and cheap. I don't beleive one sentence of future proofing that Russki says. People who buy a dual core that attend these boards don't keep their same hardware for more than 1 to 2 years.
The Dell has an intel 845 chipset supporting the 533 bus. I simply pin modded a 2.0 GHz Northwood celeron so that it would be recognized by the motherboard as a 533 bus cpu, thus explaining why it runs at 2.66 GHz vs the normal 2.0. I used a northwood celeron for 3 reasons: 1) I had it lying around 2) They run very cool and 3) The L2 cache doesn't matter for video encoding. The same concept can be applied to the current Dell Deal, the 2.53 GHz Celeron D Dimension b110. The motherboard has the intel 865 chipset and thus supports the 800 fsb. pin mod the Deleron to the 800 fsb and you'll get a 3.8 Ghz wonder $330 shipped w/tax, including 17" crt.
btw Pimp, I prefer not to think of my decision to use an old "dinosaur" pc to be a handicap. Its more of a low power consumption pc. I didn't need my electrical bill to be any highter. It's all the power that I need for tasks other than video encoding. I do not game anymore. I gave that up when I was 14 or so. Thats been a decade ago.
I still think multcores are a fad right now.
Most people don't need 'em, but will buy em b/c its the latest fad. When the next latest and greastest chip platform comes out, those same people will trade in their x2's to be part of the next latest fad. That's when I'll pick up an X2, when it's second hand and cheap. I don't beleive one sentence of future proofing that Russki says. People who buy a dual core that attend these boards don't keep their same hardware for more than 1 to 2 years.I disagree.
In fact, we could rename this thread IBM vs Intel+AMD. Go ahead, google IBM's power6 chip. over 2 times the processing speed of the current generation, no extra cores required, no exponential power increase. Now I know this is not a PC chip, but it does go to show there are ways to increase the speed of a processor greatly without simply adding more cores. There are several technologies in the works out there that have the potential to further increase CPU speed (think clockless CPU's and quantum CPU's). All in all, CPU top-out-speed is a long way off.
I'd also like to point out the multithread/multitasking irony: One of the main virtues of multiple cores is being able to multitask efficiently. At the same time, if 2 or 4 multiple cores becomes the standard, then all software will start to be written with 2 or 4 active threads. Now you're about as incapable of multitasking as the guy running a single core that's 2X as fast as one of your duals.
But wait! You say, "maybe they won't write all software with multiple threads" Then congradulations, you now have now paid for an extra core that you don't even use all of the time. What a waste.
I want my high speed single core dream back. If I really need another core, I'll wait till they come as an add in card.
Hey JoeFriday, I initially did think that you were refferring to the gpu. Nice modding the Celeron. I always just make my own computer, so I use the bios. I really don't understand the whole power consumption, electric bill savings thing though. I know that you are not the only one concerned with this. Have you ever used a PC with HT? I feel the difference between a comp with HT and without is Night and Day. Dual-core, to me, would seem to be much better than HT. I have not built an Athlon System for myself in quite some time because of the lack of HT or the cash to build a dual-proc Opteron based system. My next system will certainly be a dual-core Athlon based.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Question should i put the new 3050 lp in a sff hp g3?- Started by jordanbuilds1
- Replies: 14
-
Question Case has 2x front USB 3.0 plugs but the board only has one USB 3.0 connector.
- Started by knowledge2121
- Replies: 6
-
Question What Cat6 Ethernet Cable Should I Get? I'm From The UK
- Started by legendairyjoe
- Replies: 4
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram