First Intel Quad Core Benchmarks

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 29, 2006, 2:37 pm

Since some people on this board seem to think dual core is just a gimmick, lets see how quad core performs...wow, blows dual core away...smoke and mirrors! back to your single cores people...nothing to see here.

"Im just find with my single core...I'm old school bitch! hand me my cane sonny!"

http://enthusiast.hardocp.com/article.h ... VzaWFzdA==

Amazing how the Xbox 360 has 3 cores, PS3 has 7 cores...but it's just a gimmick. These engineers are just fucking around and adding cores for shits and giggles.

Sargeras · Post by **Sargeras** » September 29, 2006, 2:50 pm

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/ ... e_rampage/

Go to page 8 for the games

This was noted on the conclusion page:

Gaming fans, however, can confidently stick with the Core 2 Duo/Extreme or the legendary Pentium D 805. That's due to a lack of adaptations for four CPUs - in practice, only a maximum of two processors are used in games.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » September 29, 2006, 2:51 pm

I think you are totally missing the point and taking what people are saying the wrong way, but thats just me.

I am fine with the pc I am building now, but should I build a new one, you explain to me any advantage I am going to have by using a dual or especially quad core.

I check my email, look at the forums, download torrents (maybe 2 at a time at the most) burn cd's and dvd's, and thats about all. I do not do more than one of the above things at a time, not because my computer can't handle it, but because it is not necessary.

Winnow, in 15 years you are gonna be arguing a similar point.. Why not use 182 cores instead of 178??? I mean, you can play Call of Duty 15 at 1275FPS instead of 1250!!!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 29, 2006, 4:23 pm

My point is that multi core cpu's are worthwhile, not how many extra cores.

From this point on, and a few current games, developers are programming games to take advantage of at least two cores.

I'm not saying someone that upgraded recently to a fast single core CPU needs to upgrade again, I'm saying you should upgrade to a dual core if upgrading.

I'm not going to run out and buy a quad core, but I will acknowledge they're faster at most things and applications where they aren't will improve over time, not get worse. Pending price/performance, I'll give them full consideration next go around. IT's not all about multitasking, it's about processing threads available as well.

Leonaerd · Post by **Leonaerd** » September 29, 2006, 4:44 pm

I'm not saying someone that upgraded recently to a fast single core CPU needs to upgrade again, I'm saying you should upgrade to a dual core if upgrading.

Ahhhh, the light is shed.

I agree.

noel · Post by **noel** » September 29, 2006, 5:30 pm

The only problem with your argument Funk, and by the way I agree with it on principal, is that while you're doing all of those things at once, your operating system is doing several other things at the same time. The ability for the OS to have a second core to do it's bullshit on while you do whatever your primary task is on the first core (or whatever) is actually pretty useful.

Bear in mind that this is only the case if the OS and Application written in such a way that they're able to take advantage of both cores.