me still using dual core
even never try core 2...even more quad
btw.me just a noob..dual core=o/c till dead=priceless

yeah... value wise of course lar... quads are gonna replace duals stage by stage anyway... many distri already clear out their old processor stock d... waiting for new arrivals...



well since lauching price is pretty much the same wif conroe when it 1st came out... i don see any value probs there...
but gaming and video encoding and all depends on their developer and microsoft to optimize core usage...



aiyo... ur rig still can at least last a year or maybe more... mean while juz save money and upgrade next 2 years lar...

dude.. i'm still on single core.. still a happy man .. he he

i'm prefer Old School Single Core Rocks!

i'm still using single core proc..and i would say it still ROCKS! running my rig 24/7..downloading..audio..playing games (Crysis, COD4 with 1024X768 resolution)..without a hitch..

hey ... ya poll... forget bout a "tri-core"

well ... quad core ... play games, save video, designing @d same time shudnt b a problem...

Tri Core Phenom (AMD) ... i dono lo ...

dual core... play games ... save video... feel dizzy lagger keke^^

single core... play games ... wat else? save video ... better get use to CTRL +ALT +DEL key den ...

how bout 64 Cores !? http://www.tilera.com/products/processors.php

Erm......im assuming that you're refering to a quadcores price now compared to the cost of a dual core conroe when it 1st came out? However let me put another take on it. An intel quadcore still costs arnd RM800-900. I put together my entire backup rig for RM700. Get what I'm trying to say now? I reiterate once again, its all about how you use the system. Although atm after seeing the launch of the new celeron dual cores and amd procs, I have to say that dual core is already a very budget solution.

Correct. A program can only utilize a dual or quad core 'if' it was written to utilize it. That's why a single core (Pentium 4) 3.8Ghz can win Dual Core 1.6Ghz in certain games unless you wanna play games while chatting in IM and doing some Excel sheets . But in the future, I'll bet the designers will write a game which utilizes multi-core processor. Plus, multi-core uses lower power.

It already happened.

And no, multi-core CPUs uses more power than a single-core. Don't give me the comparison of a Wolfdale processor to a Netburst architectured P4. If you want to compare, just go ahead and look at Pentium D(not the Allendale based) consumption power under load.

Are u sure multi-core CPUs uses more power?
Just look at the toms' hardware power graph below:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/28/int...tion/page9.html

Clearly it shows that power consumption of dual core is lower..

at the time of this thread, multi-core optimized OS and games has existed. 4 cores of course is better than 2 cores. In Vista, at any time u can find the number of threads is around 900 to 1000, although not all are active at the same time but it do helps by alleviating the kesesakan by handling 4 threads at one time. U can choose which task belongs to which core "CPU" in Vista task manager, have folding run at one core, HD movie run for another, the rest leave to windows.

Kinda agree with you guys.

The power consumption of a multi-core processor isn't always necessarily higher. Allow me to explain. Remember that the clock speed of a quad-core cannot be as high like a dual-core because of thermal reasons and the TDP constraints. The objective in a multi-core processor is not about extremely high clock speed but rather multiple cores of reasonable clock speed.

With the progress of silicon fabrication and newer architecture, its the efficiency of the processor architecture and how good the software utilize these facilities that matters. So a reasonable clock speed in a multi-core environment coupled with advance fabrication process and modern architecture will not always consume more power than say an extremely high clock speed of a dual-core processor.

This is synonymous with Intel's Core (1 or 2) architecture. Wide execution and higher performance per watt ratio. We can already spot a trend over here. The architecture design is slowly moving towards more transistor budget allocated for caches and lesser for execution units. From the early Pentiums to Intel Core 2 Duo, cache increment was very obvious. Look at the development trend of software. Now look at the console gaming hardware. Its a very ideal platform to test the market and your technologies.

XBOX360 has a tri-core general purpose in-order with an extremely simplified execution unit architecture that is at the same time multi-core and yet extremely high clock speed. Look at PS3, a single general purpose execution unit (almost similar to XBOX360) and with up to 8 (only 7 active) dedicated processing units which is again extremely simplified cores.

Its all about parallel processing from now on. Making a general purpose processor more parallel with dedicated purpose processing in its execution units for acceleration. Its all about simplified and efficient architecture and multi-core in nature. IBM and Sun's UltraSparc T1 processor has been leading the way to parallelism. AMD is going with its Fusion and we can see Intel will definitely progressing to it too with its simplified 80-core experimental processor. Its going to be multi-core with multiple acceleration units for the future. Just remember that a DSP is more powerful and consumes lesser power than any general processing platform for a given dedicated task.

This post has been edited by davidmak: Jan 28 2008, 08:25 AM

By the time more softwares support quad core, the quad core processors would be cheap... and Q6600 most probably be obselete.

why q6600 obsolete??dont understand

The most important thing is the segment of cheap performance per price ratio will always be there from both AMD and Intel. Doesn't matter if today Q6600 is cheap today and obsolete tomorrow. There will always be such a product available for consumers who want something new for a good deal. The value for price product will always be consumer's highest priority and the manufacturers will not leave it out of their offerings. 101 marketing rule, do not reduce price but introduce higher value by giving more features.

During the introduction of dual-core processor, Intel offered Pentium D 805 which was best bang for the buck and OC-able. Then we have a few value for money dual-core processor which was on the Core 2 architecture. Today, that same segment is now represented by Q6600 for quad-core processor product. In a few months, we will have Penryn replacements for quad-core which will be very popular.

Today, software for multi-core (not only quad-core) support (at least for what I am doing) is matured. By the time it is widespread to consumer software, I would have something new to replace Q6600 because its gonna be cheap as chips. Again, I can still hold on a few months or a year or two with that Q6600 because at least I'm still using it, squeezing every last value from it. I don't think you could do the same with a single-core or a low-end dual-core processor though. You'll be on the verge of upgrade sooner. I don't care if my Q6600 is obsolete and become of no value, at least I am still using it for its intended purpose, multi-core processing. At least I will be satisfying the requirement of my work.

agreed... singel core processors gives more respond to users, while multi cores processors better of with running heavy loads.
its like a Lotus Elise (representing netburst proc) VS a Lambourghini Murcielago (representing Multi core proc)

VISTA S**, takes in more than 1GB of ram or paging file shich provide super slow responds,
too graphically advanced which will slow down your computer...

Q6600 will not be obselete so soon... all the netburst processor will obselete earlier...
it will be the basic level of quad core processor, the 1st batch, which will be the best bang for buck coz it will last you maybe another 4-5 years... till 6 cores processor came out.
the first batch is always the best bang for buck. (well... not all la)

can someone clear me on this?...i played GE..but why only one core that processing?...the second core can go only 50%...it should be 50~50 isnt?

QUAD CORE IS MY DREAM it rocks

Different ppl different needs
Get me QUADCORE!!

i think with quadcore....we can do more things and gaming?