"your argument reminds me much more of a teenager typing away in his mother's basement."
"Before you continue to spew your crap on there here forum-goers, why don't you chew on this?"
"Why you're so obtuse about it is beyond me"
"Your sweeping, profoundly retarded pronouncements"
"You need to grow up, shut up, or possibly a combination of both."
"And beware "computer experts" like Track, who has truly shown his true colors today."
Alright, first I wanted to point out the insults, because thats what u did to me.
First, Supreme Commander.
Multiple, independent reviews have clearly shown its use of at least 4 threads with an increase in performance
Among the propogandas HardOCP review(s), there are a few that tell u the truth.
Here is one of them.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2107342,00.asp
N ow, explain how exactly HardOCP is lying? That's hardly a convincing argument, it is very difficult to tell a lie to this community without it being revealed quite quickly.
Apparently u haven't been following the Bush administration. They can lie to ur face and get away with it.
And HardOCP does get away with it. Did u know that they are the only site that claims that the 8800 GTS 320 is more powerful than the 2900XT?
How do they get away with it? Well, ppl tend to agree with review sites. They are like the scientists of the hardware industry. People dont often challenge what they say and there arent many ppl who have Quad-Cores to challenge that anyway.
Most people just go to another site and see if what the first site claims, is also claimed by another site. In the case of HardOCP, thats not the case.
You'd be a fool to trust only a single review site, but again, its not because we think that they are lying to us, because we respect them. We check other sites because we want to be sure that they arent wrong.
As for future multi-threading, it is abundantly clear that this is the direction the developer community is taking.
Yes, but ONLY for programs such as 3D modeling and Video Editing. Almost all programs use only a single thread, and so its better to have a Dual-Core at 3.8Ghz, rather than a Quad-Core at 3.2Ghz.
And as I've said, the only programs to actually NEED performance are games. It could be nice to have ur video encoded in 10 minutes instead of 20 minutes, but its not a neccesity. A game has to get above 30 FPS.. u cant get 10 FPS and still play it.
As for your claims about overclocking, they may be true for many people who have insufficient air cooling. But plenty are willing to spend up to 50 bucks or more on a cooling solution
No, thats what I've been saying.
With a 50-100$ high-end air cooler, u will only be able to hit 3.0-3.2Ghz. While with said cooling, u would be able to overclock a Dual-Core CPU to 3.8Ghz.
If u want to get to high clock speeds with a Quad-Core, u need high-end watercooling, which costs more than the CPU itself!
Then, heat is no longer the problem, but rather a bottleneck that many 680 and P965 boards seem to have when overclocking quads. Luckily, this is straightened out with the new P35 chipset, as you can see:
A bottleneck? Of what?
Quad-Core CPUs cannot overclock as high because of the heat they produce, its got nothing to do with the northbridge chipset.
But please, go on.
Of course, future games likely won't need more than a single core, they sure as hell will benefit from multiples.
How exactly will they benefit from multiple cores? If u say that games wont need more than a single core, u arent leaving urself much room to argue.
If it doesnt need more thana single core, then that means that the geometry can be easily done on a single core, as well as passing on the information to the GPU.
So whats left? Physics? The single core can obviously render physics as well, otherwise the game wouldnt work. Maybe we're talking about more realistic physics, but thats where the extra GPU comes in and does a much better job.
Anyone who is buying a PC in the next few months and has an expectation that it will last for a few years and game well should absolutely, positively, undeniably purchase a 266 dollar quad core.
If it wasnt for the lower overclock and somewhat higher price compared to the E6420 which gives the exact same performance in games, I would agree.
But emulators such as PCXS2 only support 2 threads and they need those to be as powerful as they can be.