Curse

Quaker · Jun 09, 2008, 04:04 PM // 16:04

Just to add my 2 cents - there is so little software that makes use of multiple cores - particularly, more than 2 cores - that at this point in time you'd be better off with 3 faster cores than 4 slower cores.
That may change in the future as programs become more able to use multiple cores, but by then, you'll be upgrading again anyway.

DarkNecrid · Jun 09, 2008, 04:30 PM // 16:30

why would they be 4 slower cores

you can set core affinity man

The Way Out · Jun 09, 2008, 04:32 PM // 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rahja the Thief

No, not really. Most of you forum goers don't utilize a quad core at all. Dual core = fitting for most of the Guru population. Dual core is easy to make compilers for, quad+ are much more complex. There are no games that utilize more than a quad core, not even the mighty Crysis (at least not to any really significant extent)

45nm chips can handle higher voltages then you might think. Oh, and voltages only damage a chip when they become extremely high, like to the point of insanity. It is the heat generated from the voltage increases that causes 98% of the population who overclock, the damage. Adequate cooling = no problems.

Oh, and the Intel chipsets that support Crossfire FAIL in comparison to the AMD based chipsets designed natively for Crossfire. AMD currently has the best chipset offerings on the market for the single and dual GPU solution. Triple SLi 780/790 scales better than triple crossfire or quad crossfire, but alas, that is another story.

Intel chipsets have failed for a very long time (and I speak of the Server market also).

I agree with you and Quaker about the underutilization of multiple cores with average users. I see too many people go out and purchase quads just because it is the latest and greatest (which it really isn't that anymore... anyhow).

If the average owner of a quad core understood processor affinity (or better yet, ran any *nix, I would argue that they were making a good purchase, however, that isn't the case). The average user who owns a muticore processor is running either XP Pro or a flavor of Vista. That same user is running crappy games on it, believing that they are getting sick performance out of it. What ends up happening is that they use two of the four cores and barely scratch the other two. They peak out on RAM and say their systems scream. Sad sad sad....

Quaker · Jun 09, 2008, 10:04 PM // 22:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

why would they be 4 slower cores

you can set core affinity man

Whuh??

Setting affinity has nothing to do with the speed of the cores.

Read the OP's post if you want to know why 4 cores would be slower.