| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Comments:
<0> i dont even ****ing game much dudes
<0> so who ****ing cares about games
<0> why on earth i would want to lose a whole frigging 2.4GHz core i dont know
<0> haha
<1> eelmoo: AMD 64's are FAR less then 400$
<2> yea
<0> buying single core today has got to be the dumbest idea i have ever heard
<1> eelmoo: uhm, you really dont understand how processors even work...
<2> not really.
<2> hahaha
<1> getting a second cpu isn't gaining the extra speed
<2> dual core doesnt double youre performance
<0> Idle`: i propose to you you designate one core for all your other processes and tell your game to run on the other core, tada a whole core just for the one game
<2> and if you game, it actually makes you lose performance
<1> eelmoo: your thinking of dual processor, not dual core...
<0> Idle`: its the same with dual cpu and dual core what i just said
<1> dual core has 1 data input to BOTH cores... not 1 input for each
<1> nope
<1> they are distinctly different
<0> Idle`: dual core conroes are not starved in the way you are talking about
<0> they have adequate bandwidth
<0> to other system components
<0> the fastest single core cpu at www.auspcmarket.com.au is the A64 AM2 3800+ and it will still perform slower for games than a E6600 Conroe
<1> eelmoo: perhaps, but they still suffer from sharing the bandwidth
<0> Idle`: Being on the same core does not cause them to perform worse with games than a single core.
<1> sure it does, cause those cores each cant compete with 1 cpu
<0> your such an idiot
<0> if you beleive that
<1> together, theyre semi-competative, but too expensive
<0> then you dont know **** about computers
<0> and i've finished talking to you
<0> go read about the conroe architecture
<1> eelmoo: 2 people are telling you that your wrong, learn to STFU and accept when you are incorrect
<0> Conroe E6600 bests all available single core CPUs
<0> thats true
<0> i am right
<0> and i dont care if u r or not
<0> Conroe E6600 bests all available single core CPUs for games
<3> eelmoo: are you a liberal by chance?
<0> _phire: liberal?
<0> as in...politics?
<1> eelmoo: that is incorrect
<0> Idle`: well we'll just have to agree to disagree then
<1> 'omg, I can have the newest thing out there, must be the best' is all I'm hearing
<0> Idle`: What single core CPU performs better in games than an E6600 ?
<1> a good majority of them
<0> name one
<2> mine
<2> A64 4000+
<1> mine
<2> san diego core
<2> 2.8ghz
<1> oooh la la
<2> :>
<1> I got a lame *** P4C 2.8c... it makes me cry sometimes, but runs DAMNED well with its fancy new graphics card
<0> Fidelity_: so you OCed ?
<2> yep
<0> ok
<2> its under water
<0> well at its stock 2.4GHz speed the E6600 would outperform it for gaming
<1> eelmoo: bottom line, you can waste your money (what are they, 600$?) on a core duo conroe since theyre so new... or you can get an AMD 64, which are on the leading edge of technology, and get it at a good price
<0> now at 2.8GHz it might perform better
<2> errr
<2> its not THAT big of a difference from 2.4
<2> its more really based on processor architechture
<1> exactly
<2> :>
<0> Fidelity_: clock for clock the conroe outperforms all of AMDs offerings hence the 2.4 comparison
<4> man I really really really want to play with the duron 1300 but I am going to wait out the 2 hrs for the memtest86+
<4> [13:57] <flyback> :/
<2> prove it
<0> Fidelity_: prove the conroe outperforms A64s clock for clock ?
<2> yes
<0> Idle`: The E6600 only costs about $500 aud or $381 USD
<0> out of a $4000 aud budget thats pretty good
<0> for the cpu
<0> 1/8th of the budget for teh cpu
<1> yea, thats pretty bad
<0> Fidelity_: since you asked nicely i will find a link for you
<2> yea it is haha
<0> you think $500 for a Conroe 2.4GHz E6600 out of a $4000 upgrade budget is bad?
<1> Fidelity_: youll probably find all the benchmarks all say theyre running a 500+MB excel spreadsheet doing work in the background while gaming.... in that case, the 'Cornrow' is sure to win
<1> eelmoo: for a CPU, it is... has nothing to do with the budget
<0> are you guys like poor or something :P
<0> Idle`: incorrect
<0> "the launch review found Core 2 Duo faster at the same clock speed than the current AM2" http://www.anandtech.com/memory/showdoc.aspx?i=2800
<1> pay me enough and I'll say my P1 120 is faster then your conroe
<0> i see so now anandtech has been payed off
<2> eelmoo seems to have an infinite understanding of all modern processors
<2> I think we should just listen to him Idle`
<0> keep gripping tightly to your ill conceived beliefs Idle`
<0> well say i get a E6600
<1> Fidelity_: yep
<0> i could move all processes of the second core
<0> and put only the game process on the 2.4GHz Conroe core
<0> now,
<0> that 2.4GHz core beats most single core CPUs
<1> why do I only seem memory comparisons...
<0> and on my local shop i havent seen any single core cpus actually still sold that would outperform a 2.4GHz conroe core
<1> haha, oh man, that has nothing to do with processing speeds
<0> "Conroe vs. AM2: Memory & Performance" notice the & Performance
<1> uhm.... last I checked they were identical cores...
<1> you dont have a magical 2.4 conroe and a non...
<1> eelmoo: memory performance
<0> what are you talking about
<1> theyre ALL memory latency
<1> that is a very small part of performance
<1> and is completely dodging the issue we have aroused
<2> hahahaha
<2> eelmoo just stop man
<2> Idle is correct
<0> well
<0> idle is not actually correct
<2> k
<3> hah what they mean by "Memory & Performance" is more like saying "Memory and its performance factors"
<0> if you think a single core athlon64 is going to beat a Conroe you are dumb
<1> I bet the next thing your going to say is that the Core duo is on a 65nm process, which 'makes it faster then AMD's 90nm process'
<0> Conroe > single core A64s
<0> thats very simple
<0> you can find plenty of reviews that say the same
<1> eelmoo: I give up... you are impossible
<2> hahaha
<2> Idle` some people just arent going to understand
<5> here's my problem, Conroe is a stupid ****in codename
<0> well
<1> dump a metric ***load of money, its not mine.. I dont know why I care... I have a server I need to build right now.. where I'm using server grade parts... so I'll go do that
<5> and can we not find a single comparative essay on these processors?
<2> he just doesnt understand that dual core does not automatically make it better preforming
<1> Fidelity_: totally :S
<0> for example theres the E6600 2.4GHz 4MB L2 cache conroe
<5> i mean, the footwork has likely been done
<0> Fidelity_: i never said dual core automatically does that
<6> well when you are in control of a billion dollar company, you can name the chip
<5> and put into a pretty package already
<5> so there's no point arguing about it
<0> http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/ "For industry experts, Core 2 Duo beating the Athlon 64 processor family is no surprise"
<1> Fidelity_: wanna play 'spot the bias' in this article too? or should we just ignore it/
<2> ignore
<1> agreed
<1> haha
<1> I started reading anyway
<3> tomshardware is about the worst place to get reviews from... they used to be pretty good back in the day, though.
<1> they actually do have an entire page dedicated to explaining how its better since its a 65nm process
<1> ooooh, better thermal sensors
<1> kekekeke
<0> yeah i guess a page full of benchmarks, including here http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/14/core2_duo_knocks_out_athlon_64/page17.html#core_2_duo_scaling_vs_fx62_and_pentium_ee that shows a 2.66GHz Conroe outperforming a Athlon FX 60 must be due to bias or someone being paid off too :)
<1> speedstep
<2> KEEK
<1> eelmoo: this is dumb
<1> I've now closed to window
Return to
#computers
or
Go to some related
logs:
#computers
#computers
#windows
#vmware
#beginner
#computers
brka ratio to brkb
Brazos river stingrays
#beginner
#stocks
|
|