I've been doing some research on whats being developed and coming to market soon, and as most know it's toward the 4 and even 8 processor chips. There are huge price cuts for AMD coming on April 9th, and Intel on I think the 22nd?

My question is, as far as motherboards go, are there any motherboards out now that will support this future of chips? AKA if I bought a new mobo/cpu that was say a Core 2 duo, will that mobo then support the quad core chips to come out?

I know it depends on the socket, which Intel seems set on 775, but I'm not sure how it all works with the front side bus, etc. If this is a retarded question please forgive my lack of knowledge about this confusing technology.

4/3/2007 11:14:24 PM

if 20 years of computing has taught me anything, it's that there is no such thing as backwards compatibility when it comes to processors and motherboard chipsets.

plan on upgrading everything at once.

4/3/2007 11:31:20 PM

so basically for anyone buying a mobo/processor at the moment, you can either buy the current but soon outdated stuff for cheaper in a few weeks, then have to completely upgrade later,

OR

wait for some time for the new stuff to come out and pay a fortune.


That being said, if you were deciding between the Intel E6400 vs. AMD 6000+, or maybe the E6600 vs AMD 6000+ which would you choose and why?

[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 11:42 PM. Reason : ps thanks Noen, you're usually pretty helpful about tech stuff]

4/3/2007 11:42:31 PM

Yep, that is ALWAYS the classic decision.

My advice? Get the best you can for under a grand. If the next gen is less than 3 months away from being afforable and available, wait it out, otherwise go ahead and get what you need now.

The other thing to consider is market timing though. You generally will see computer deals come June, again in August, around thanksgiving and then right after the new year. At this point, it might be worth the wait to hold out until the fall.

as for the specific question, I have absolutely no clue. I run on a laptop with a 1.5ghz P-M, a desktop with a first gen AMD 64 3500+ and another laptop with a 1.4ghz Celeron.

I think the whole processor race has become almost silly. All of these multi-core processors are already on the market and there's not much use for them. If you are a gamer though, of course ignore all of that and drop a fat wad for some more FPS.

4/4/2007 1:06:13 AM

I would go with the E6400. It's not much worse than the E6600, but it's a lot less money. The AMD processor is ok, but you would prolly get a Nvidia chipset which I must say I have had less than desirable experiences with. Intel chipset seem to be more stable to me, so I would advise you to go to the Intel processor with an Intel chipset. If you want the speed of the E6600 you could easily overclock the processor to that performance w/o hurting the processor much and without any cooling modifications.

4/4/2007 9:27:40 AM

3d rendering also benefits from these speed increases. just saying

[Edited on April 4, 2007 at 10:32 AM. Reason : ]

4/4/2007 10:32:17 AM

Quote :

"All of these multi-core processors are already on the market and there's not much use for them. "

The envelope pushing has to come from one end of the spectrum or the other.

Since time immemorial, people have been able to come up with applications that can always use more horsepower.

So this time around, the chip makers are leading the edge. Surely, some software company gets their shit in gear and actually utilizes it. You would think the great MS or Apple's OS would be more tailored to scaling and using up every ounce of the processors they are given, but it doesn't seem like that is the case just yet. It's quite a shame that the only programs that can really use them up, are stuff like F@H, and not things like Excel, Word, etc.

4/4/2007 11:19:41 AM

uhhhhhhhhhh... wtf does Word need to use multi-processors for??!

I can see the argument for Excel, but MS Word would run just fine on a single-core 1.5GHz processor

4/4/2007 11:32:30 AM

I'd rather see BETTER optimization for photoshop, matlab, maple, autocad, sigmaplot, solidworks, etc. As long as most of the work for programs like Excel, Word, etc. can be assigned efficiently to single cores then I'm not to concerned. It's the software that still gets my 2.33ghz dual core CPU up to 99% utilization that I'd like to see written to really take advantage of the parallel processing.

[Edited on April 4, 2007 at 11:36 AM. Reason : ]

4/4/2007 11:33:58 AM

Quote :

"uhhhhhhhhhh... wtf does Word need to use multi-processors for??! I can see the argument for Excel, but MS Word would run just fine on a single-core 1.5GHz processor"

You show an extreme ignorance on what word can really do. It's heavily linked into the entire office suite. Many years ago when I was a noob intern I worked on massive word documents that were linked to many excel sheets, many databases, and would do a host of other shit you would never think of Word being the front end to do.

It wasn't uncommon for me to press a button and go chat with a coworker for a few minutes while Word would do it's thing. Granted, some of this delay was connecting to databases that others were also connecting to, but it was still in Word.

Feel free to make your next post about how something like that shouldn't be done in word, but something like SAS, etc.

4/4/2007 11:38:24 AM

Quote :

"It's heavily linked into the entire office suite."

Ah yeah, the 2007 integration is espescially intense. Load word and depending on what you've got pasted into your word document, you might have visio, exel, groove, etc. needing to run as well. I could definately see the office suite as a whole being optimized for multiple cores.

4/4/2007 11:40:11 AM

^^is right on the money.

And you hit the nail on the head, the current hardware is SO far ahead of the software curve, I just can't justify buying anything. I have a 3 year old laptop and a 3 year old desktop that BOTH run everything I use at lightning quick speeds.

Even doing software development, 3d modeling, DV video editing/compositing, multimedia and the occasional game all my stuff runs like a dream.

I mean, if you are buying a new computer, why not go with something over the top, since it's all so damn cheap now, but there's just not much justification to spend 1000+ bucks on a system, except for a hardcore gamer.

Check out the Dell deals right now, there are a couple of good desktops with monitors for under 500 bucks.

4/4/2007 12:19:13 PM

I tend to run a system that is about 2 generations back from bleeding edge. It's always much cheaper and you can still get a ton of performance out of the components if you pick them right. I'm running an XP 64 3200+ with 2GB of PC3200 and a GF 7600GS. 250GB SATA drive and a fairly basic ASUS mobo with a DVD burner. Simple system but I can play nearly any game out there (FEAR anyone?) as long as I tune back the eye candy some.

I figure once the quad core CPUs have been out about 4-6 months I'll jump up to a dual core AM2 rig. I might wait even longer since I don't even play that many PC games anymore and my system runs Photoshop and all the other apps I need perfectly fine.

All I can say is, I love hardware wars...the consumer always wins

4/4/2007 2:17:10 PM

Quote :

"You show an extreme ignorance on what word can really do. It's heavily linked into the entire office suite. Many years ago when I was a noob intern I worked on massive word documents that were linked to many excel sheets, many databases, and would do a host of other shit you would never think of Word being the front end to do.... Feel free to make your next post about how something like that shouldn't be done in word, but something like SAS, etc."

You're right - my first instinct is that Word is the wrong tool for these tasks.

4/5/2007 4:49:56 PM

how come apple is out with octo-core PCs, whereas quad-core windows-based PCs are just hitting the market?

check this out for USD 18,371

Quote :

"Specifications Two 3.0GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon 16GB (8 x 2GB) 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s 750GB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 512MB, Stereo 3D (2 x dual-link DVI) Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel) Apple Cinema HD Display (30" flat panel) Two 16x SuperDrives Both Bluetooth 2.0+EDR and AirPort Extreme Quad-channel 4Gb Fibre Channel PCI Express card Apple USB Modem Apple Wireless Keyboard and Apple wireless Mighty Mouse - U.S. English Mac OS X - U.S. English Mac OS X Server (Unlimited-Client) Final Cut Express HD preinstalled AppleCare Protection Plan for Mac Pro/Power Mac (w/or w/o Display) - Auto-enroll"

4/6/2007 8:39:51 AM

Intel has the edge on the chips right now. AMD always has provided a great value if you want to get slightly older technology...and by that I mean 3-6 months old.


That said...you need to figure out what you want your PC to do. Building a decent PC for less than 750 is very easy to do if you don't do a lot of hard core gaming.

Motherboards or at least the higher end ones will support the chips that come out in the next 6 months given there isn't something "TOTALLY REVOLUTIONARY" about them. I have always been in the mindset like Neon...get a new mobo, and chip if I was going to upgrade. The ram can be used in your new system usually...again it depends.

4/6/2007 8:51:41 AM

Quote :

"how come apple is out with octo-core PCs, whereas quad-core windows-based PCs are just hitting the market? "

Did you even READ your own post? They are dual quad core's. You can get the same thing on pc's with a dual proc motherboard.

4/6/2007 9:39:23 AM

oh wait, i never realized that dual core is the same thing as dual processor. DOH!!!

4/6/2007 9:44:19 AM

yeah i read that, but apple's website also calls them:

8-core

so is that false advertisement?

Quote :

"8-core or quad-core Mac Pro workstation Meet the latest addition to the Mac Pro family: The world’s first 3.0GHz, 8-core Intel Xeon-based Mac Pro. Consider the bar officially raised. Eight cores or four Opt for the 8-core Mac Pro and you get the power of two Quad-Core Intel Xeon “Clovertown” processors running at 3.0GHz. Or choose a quad-core Mac Pro featuring two Dual-Core Intel Xeon “Woodcrest” processors and decide how fast they fly: 2.0GHz, 2.66GHz, or 3.0GHz. At 3.0GHz, the quad-core Mac Pro runs up to 2x faster than the Power Mac G5 Quad."

wait, what?

so even their quad core is not actually quad-core, but two duo-core processors?

4/6/2007 11:19:53 AM

2x4=8... Nope, looks like their math is right.

[Edited on April 6, 2007 at 12:00 PM. Reason : ]

4/6/2007 11:58:30 AM

but isn't their a difference between a dual-core processor, and putting together two single core processors?

and between a quad-core processor and two dual-cores together, or four single cores together?

read what Noen said.

4/6/2007 1:31:51 PM

^ yes, but 4 cores + 4 cores still totals 8 cores
it is not a false statement, it is just exploiting most peoples' limited knowledge to make them think it is something special

[Edited on April 6, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2007 1:39:00 PM

It's not really exploiting much at all. They're two of the highest end processors, and back in the day people bitched that saying "dual core" computers was deceptive because it wasn't really the same as "dual processor."

4/6/2007 5:54:48 PM

this is kind of a rough thread to be in.

i dont think im ready for it yet.

4/7/2007 5:16:57 AM