Q6600 isn't real quad?

[pcgamer12]

Good Corsair/Antec/PCP&C PSU will be fine.

E7200 @ 2.53GHz or Q6600 or E8400 (Your choice, I'd go with Q6600, quads are the future).

8800GT 512mb/4850 512mb

GA-(E)P35-DS3L or GA-P45-DS3L will be great.

If no OC, stock Intel with AS-5 is good.

 

[vochtige]

quad is today! what will quad be in the future? is it safe to say it would serve me 5 years? would a quad stay strong enough for future games? all questions we don't know. i guess hoping that a system will hold 5 years is to much asked. i know 4 cores will make it more safely.

i really want a new system. pc is just a hobby, after school, when not seeing my girlfriend when she is in her studiehome. i just hate it that my p4 has problems with new games. and that c2d e 4300 we have here, isn't much better for future games. (1.8 c2d minimum for the most)

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

The future is multithreaded, so to be future-proof I would go with a quad. 5-years? Hell no. Nothing lasts that long. I would recommend buying a quad in the $200 range, so both AMD and Intel will have offerings for you. I never buy top of the line, because you just don't get a big return on your money.

quad is today! what will quad be in the future? is it safe to say it would serve me 5 years? would a quad stay strong enough for future games? all questions we don't know. i guess hoping that a system will hold 5 years is to much asked. i know 4 cores will make it more safely.

i really want a new system. pc is just a hobby, after school, when not seeing my girlfriend when she is in her studiehome. i just hate it that my p4 has problems with new games. and that c2d e 4300 we have here, isn't much better for future games. (1.8 c2d minimum for the most)

 

[vochtige]

what you said technology is great! i just want new stuff, but if i want a Q9300 i have to spend more money than at a Q6600. i don't overclock. and to keep cheap, so i will be save for, lets say 3 years. what should you get? 3 years! my p4 is serving me for 2.5 years (march 2006). i just want to game the newest games. i'm bored with the games i play. you can see my xfire profile if you want. http://www.xfire.com/profile/vochtige/

as you can see i need something new! something with awsome multiplayer. and for that i need new components (the most expensive one to upgrade) i've milked my current build to the maximum i guess, now i oc'd it to 3.3 but i don't get extra fps 😛 only 0.70 in css-stresstest 😛 not so much he!

oke

mmhh i already want the new build.

the reason why i want to keep the case is because my parents wont argue with me for buying new one. i had a q6600 in my possestion, but it sucked (packerd bell). that was the reason to stay with homebuildsystems

 

[thunderman]

no, what is Sharikou?

Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together

 

[Wisecracker]

^^^^
Bow down to your Intel masters and mercy may be given to you

 

[uguv]

no, what is Sharikou?

Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together

This may be the most comical thing I've ever read on these forums.

 

[Wisecracker]

Some of us old SMP guys have been told (for 10 years at least) that ""Multithreading is coming to the desktop!"" ""Multithreading is coming to the desktop!"" ""Multithreading is coming to the desktop!""

It ain't here yet. Don't count on it anytime soon. Software will be optimized for SSE4 long before programs are completely rewritten to run parallel threads across multiple cores.

 

[Wisecracker]

This may be the most comical thing I've ever read on these forums.

Bow down to your AMD masters and you will not be 'Left Behind'.

:lol:

 

[bobwya]

no, what is Sharikou?

Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together

Thats a very amusing 'spoof' blog... I've added to my Steve Balmer fake blog bookmark!!

Wonder what the kickback is from AMD??

Bob

 

[rfatcheric]

I think thunderman is Sharikou

 

[BadTrip]

I think they are Theo Valich, no wait they are more coherent

 

[Wisecracker]

I think thunderman is Sharikou

or maybe Baron Matrix

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

no, what is Sharikou?

Sharikou runs this Blog:
http://sharikou.blogspot.com/

It's a great source of AMD news and Information. Sharikou is very knowledgeable in this field and his Blog has grown in popularity.

Sharikou says it how it is basically...that's why he's respected by many. His Blog is well worth a read.


BTW... Phenom is a true Quad Core..while the Intel Quad is two Dual cores sandwiched together

 

[kassler]

What quad is depends on what someone defines it to be.
There are some differences in Intel and AMD design today.
Intel doesn’t scale well but runs single threaded applications fast.
AMD scales well but doesn’t run single threaded applications as fast as Intel.

Intel has a slow FSB that you need to overclock in order to get get better performance, now with speedier memory and faster GPU’s the FSB may be to slow anyway. Intel quad can’t synchronize cache data for small threads, it needs to go through the slow FSB and that takes time. But you won’t notice this if the application doesn’t use memory or isn’t developed using small threads.
AMD hasn’t got these bottlenecks and scales very well. AMD doesn’t degrade as much if you throw more demanding applications at it or if you run more applications at the same time. AMD also runs smother compared to Intel.
Here are some links:
The need for an IMC and why the FSB is dead

Video: http://www.intel.com/technology/quickpath/demo/demo.htm

 

[vochtige]

nice post!

interesting that Amd is accually better in technologie and 'would last longer with more demanding applications.

so, if you would buy quad. should i go for amd? they have lower ghz and lower cache....

 

[kassler]

so, if you would buy quad. should i go for amd? they have lower ghz and lower cache....

Yes, you will have most "problems" today. But these problems if you could call it problems will go away because the future is not demanding more Hz but more cores.
A quad used properly has tremendous amount of power, but most applications isn’t developed in order to use that. There hasn’t been any market on the PC because computers can’t take advantage of that type of code. It is only AMD Phenom that likes it. Intel will go away from the old structure using higher and higher frequencies with Nehalem.
Buying a AMD Phenom 9550 will probably last for a long time without clocking. The need to clock AMD isn’t as important because it just slows a bit working 100%.
On Intel it runs into the wall when threads need to wait for memory if the FSB is used by another operation. This is much more noticeable.

 

[spud]

Yes, you will have most "problems" today. But these problems if you could call it problems will go away because the future is not demanding more Hz but more cores.
A quad used properly has tremendous amount of power, but most applications isn’t developed in order to use that. There hasn’t been any market on the PC because computers can’t take advantage of that type of code. It is only AMD Phenom that likes it. Intel will go away from the old structure using higher and higher frequencies with Nehalem.
Buying a AMD Phenom 9550 will probably last for a long time without clocking. The need to clock AMD isn’t as important because it just slows a bit working 100%.
On Intel it runs into the wall when threads need to wait for memory if the FSB is used by another operation. This is much more noticeable.

No it's not.

Word, Playa.

 

[TechnologyCoordinator]

Benchmarks don't lie.

Fanboys do.


(Desktop Market-->) Any Intel quad is superior in most benchmarks to any AMD quad.

nice post!

interesting that Amd is accually better in technologie and 'would last longer with more demanding applications.

so, if you would buy quad. should i go for amd? they have lower ghz and lower cache....

Yes, you will have most "problems" today. But these problems if you could call it problems will go away because the future is not demanding more Hz but more cores.
A quad used properly has tremendous amount of power, but most applications isn’t developed in order to use that. There hasn’t been any market on the PC because computers can’t take advantage of that type of code. It is only AMD Phenom that likes it. Intel will go away from the old structure using higher and higher frequencies with Nehalem.
Buying a AMD Phenom 9550 will probably last for a long time without clocking. The need to clock AMD isn’t as important because it just slows a bit working 100%.
On Intel it runs into the wall when threads need to wait for memory if the FSB is used by another operation. This is much more noticeable.

 

[kassler]

Benchmarks don't lie.

Fanboys do.


(Desktop Market-->) Any Intel quad is superior in most benchmarks to any AMD quad.

Yes when you run singlethreaded applications or applications that don't use a lot of memory and can take advantage of the speedy LARGE L2 cache.
If Intel are so good, why have they totally changed the design for Nehalem?
In fact, Nehalem is even more designed to run small threads than phenom.
L2 cache on Nehalem is 256 KB – L2 cache on phenom is 512 KB
L3 cache (yes, Nehalem has copied phenom design) is 8MB – L3 cache on phenom (65nm) is 2MB and on the next 45nm will be 6MB.
Nehalem has a memory controller as AMD Phenom. The old FSB solution is gone.

 

[spud]

Yes when you run singlethreaded applications or applications that don't use a lot of memory and can take advantage of the speedy LARGE L2 cache.
If Intel are so good, why have they totally changed the design for Nehalem?
In fact, Nehalem is even more designed to run small threads than phenom.
L2 cache on Nehalem is 256 KB – L2 cache on phenom is 512 KB
L3 cache (yes, Nehalem has copied phenom design) is 8MB – L3 cache on phenom (65nm) is 2MB and on the next 45nm will be 6MB.
Nehalem has a memory controller as AMD Phenom. The old FSB solution is gone.

Because they are aggressively moveing towards SMT (Hyper Threading), there is no possiblity that such a feature could be used on the dual dual core that intel currently uses. By their own development map its clear to do this they much goto the superior memory subsystem of a ondie controller. Larabee is also a sign on the same development mantra that follows core 2 superior resource usage via smart prefecting, low latency internal memory, wide execution window, and dinamic power management. At this point it's become a nessecity.

Cache size can be reduced because of much lower memory latency honestly I thought they would go with 128k due to transistor budgets.

Maybe because they know it helps, they have been useing L3 for a long time abeit off die in the beginning but it was still present.

Word, Playa.

 

[kassler]

Because they are aggressively moveing towards SMT (Hyper Threading), there is no possiblity that such a feature could be used on the dual dual core that intel currently uses.

Do you know what Hyperthreading is?
It is a Little strange that they have added hyperthreading in Nehalem because it is questionable if it does any good (it will not do any bad either).
Hyperthreading is a technology that is used when one core is waiting for memory to arrive, then it could switch to another thread and execute some instructions there until the memory arrives. That was a nice feature on Pentium 4 because that processor had a long instruction pipe and it took some time to switch data when there was jumps etc. I think that they didn’t put it on the core processor because that processor doesn’t like cache trashed. Nehalem have done a lot to speed up the process when threads are getting memory so it doesn’t need to wait as long as core processors or Pentium 4.
There are some differences on other type of operations but those have little effect on performance, some are better on Intel and some are better on AMD.

Hyperthreading explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

 

[spud]

Do you know what Hyperthreading is?
It is a Little strange that they have added hyperthreading in Nehalem because it is questionable if it does any good (it will not do any bad either).
Hyperthreading is a technology that is used when one core is waiting for memory to arrive, then it could switch to another thread and execute some instructions there until the memory arrives. That was a nice feature on Pentium 4 because that processor had a long instruction pipe and it took some time to switch data when there was jumps etc. I think that they didn’t put it on the core processor because that processor doesn’t like cache trashed. Nehalem have done a lot to speed up the process when threads are getting memory so it doesn’t need to wait as long as core processors or Pentium 4.
There are some differences on other type of operations but those have little effect on performance, some are better on Intel and some are better on AMD.

Hyperthreading explained: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-threading

Ya... ya I do know quite a bit about hyper threading but thanks for the wiki link :/ .

You didn't just say cache thrashing and the Core 2 in the same sentence did you? Wow dude the mechanics behind HT are to keep execution units busy, each virtual thread is tagged and the associated memory blocks are tagged as well. AMD has no technology remotely similar including the fabled reverse hyper threading. The fact of the matter is they hit the wall on execution utilization with the core 2 line it's time to bring some new technologies in to get that performance higher, not because of potential cache thrashing has been resolved.

Word, Playa.

 

[kassler]

Ya... ya I do know quite a bit about hyper threading but thanks for the wiki link :/ .

You didn't just say cache thrashing and the Core 2 in the same sentence did you? Wow dude the mechanics behind HT are to keep execution units busy, each virtual thread is tagged and the associated memory blocks are tagged as well. AMD has no technology remotely similar including the fabled reverse hyper threading. The fact of the matter is they hit the wall on execution utilization with the core 2 line it's time to bring some new technologies in to get that performance higher, not because of potential cache thrashing has been resolved.

Word, Playa.

Could you give some references? Everything isn’t 100% effective as you might know. Switching threads isn’t just a snap, there needs to be memory in the cache for that thread etc.
The L3 cache on Nehalem has a latency of 39 cycles, squeezing in another thread there will not be easy.

 

[joefriday]

^ Q6600 = monolithic quad (2x2) 65nm
Qx9650 = monolithic quad (2x2) 45nm
Phenom = native quad (4x1) 65nm

Sure it may not be 'real' quad-core but it does perform well...

To say monolithic quad, sounds like you're implying all of the 4 cores on current Intel quads are on the same piece of silicone die. While Itel's current dual cores are certainly monolithic, the quads are an MCM (multi-chip module) utilizing two separate dual core dice, much like the 900 series Pentium D used two separate P4s an in MCM fashion.