Curse

Abedeus · Nov 30, 2008, 02:09 PM // 14:09

One post is enough, you didn't NEED to triple post for Christs sake.

And I think we all agree (normal people) that Vista sucks and probably will always. It's the Windows ME of this decade.

Besides, Vista Transformation Pack + 64 bit XP >>>>> Vista in every way.

Avectius · Nov 30, 2008, 09:06 PM // 21:06

Yep, Vista will never be a better OS than XP, EVER! And we all know that

Lord Sojar · Dec 01, 2008, 11:32 AM // 11:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avectius

...differences between Intel Core 2 Quad and Intel i7, sure theyl be differences, but theyre really small...

In the words of Kevin Spacey...

"WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Abedeus · Dec 01, 2008, 02:36 PM // 14:36

Quote:

In the words of Kevin Spacey...

"WRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Or, in my words... AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH *gaaaasp* HAHAHAHHAHAHA.

It's so wrong it's like saying "The difference between Windows NT and XP is only interface and 8,5 years". Wrong in so many ways it bottles the mind.

Avectius · Dec 05, 2008, 11:04 AM // 11:04

Ok, then youre saying like 10 to 30 People are lying? Go shoot a vid with a core Quad And an Intel i7 ( same Ghz ) lets say.. with Call of Duty 4 And see if theres a BIIIIG Diference in performance like youre saying. I stand corrected tho: Absolutly No need to spend extra ubber money on an i7, games qith quad will already run Perfectly or near it. Nuff said.

Abedeus · Dec 05, 2008, 03:07 PM // 15:07

Not many games use quads. I know only of Crysis, Crysis: Warhead and World at War. MAYBE GTA 4 would use it, but only because it's bugged to hell and bad technically.

You do know that with i7 PC thinks it's got 8 cores (threads) as opposed to 4 cores in Quads? Of course, there is NO point in buying it if you are a gamer. Not now.

But at least since it's more powerful than quads, they will get cheaper by the time. And just like a good Dual Core is for less than $150 now, quads will be less than $250 now. Good ones, not crappy ones.

Turbobusa · Dec 05, 2008, 04:01 PM // 16:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avectius

Ok, then youre saying like 10 to 30 People are lying? Go shoot a vid with a core Quad And an Intel i7 ( same Ghz ) lets say.. with Call of Duty 4 And see if theres a BIIIIG Diference in performance like youre saying. I stand corrected tho: Absolutly No need to spend extra ubber money on an i7, games qith quad will already run Perfectly or near it. Nuff said.

the i7 is a core quad, the "same ghz" is the clock and does not define a system's speed on its own... as abedeus said, the i7 can process 2 threads at the same time, so each core appears as 2.

so biiiiiiiig difference, yes!!!

But you won't see it if the game do not need it. So yes, do not spend extra money yet because you won't see real applications until next year at least.

Lord Sojar · Dec 06, 2008, 10:18 PM // 22:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbobusa

the i7 is a core quad

No, actually, it isn't. It is radically different from the Core archetype, which is what Penryn was derived from. Nehalem (i7) is a completely new archetype, not just a revision of Core.

Turbobusa · Dec 07, 2008, 09:28 AM // 09:28

It integrates 4 cores...
I don't know what you mean by archetype, if it is architecture you're talking about,it is just the way each core is assigned a function or the bus' path or whatever and has (nearly) nothing to do with the number of cores

Dante the Warlord · Dec 07, 2008, 06:13 PM // 18:13

vista freezes up A LOT so yea its not great, but i can live with it

Lord Sojar · Dec 08, 2008, 04:26 AM // 04:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbobusa

It integrates 4 cores...
I don't know what you mean by archetype, if it is architecture you're talking about,it is just the way each core is assigned a function or the bus' path or whatever and has (nearly) nothing to do with the number of cores

The i7's core and I/O design is a radical deviation from Core (Conroe and Penryn are both Core)

Nehalem is what AMD has been boasting with their Opterons and Phenom processors, a "true quad core." Nehalem is radically different is so many ways, it would be like comparing an elephant a bicycle...

Nehalem's cache hierarchy is completely different from Core's, in addition to Nehalem having an uncore system extremely similar to AMD's. Core lacks that entirely.

Nehalem also employs power DiEL gate transistors, which allow Nehalem to reduce or totally shut down performance of unused or underused cores. Oh, and dare we forget about the CMOS subsystems? Purely static, with an added P logic and short cells for energy performance without performance loss because of the interlinking design.

They are not similar at all minus the fact that they both have 4 processor cores... otherwise... that's it.

Turbobusa · Dec 08, 2008, 05:13 AM // 05:13

core = processing unit.
Nehalem = architecture.
Apples to oranges!
There are cores in the i7 which uses the Nehalem architecture. Now that's correct.

I agree the architecture is very different, but it's still a core quad...

http://ark.intel.com/cpu.aspx?groupId=37147
I was just pointing that saying "let's compare a core quad and an i7" is incorrect ("let's compare apples to granny smiths!"), if you re-read what I said you'll see I already mentionned the performances given are higher than those given by common architectures w/ the same cores' characteristics.

Lord Sojar · Dec 08, 2008, 05:40 AM // 05:40

But they have no similar characteristics other than being CPUs... Nehalem (i7) is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from Core (Core2). Nehalem (i7) is an entirely new architecture. You need to look up what that means. That means Core has NOTHING similar. The core design is completely different, just as Core was different from Pentium 4.

Trying to compare them in any sense is like comparison an Opteron with an Itanium 2. No, just no...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbobusa

I agree the architecture is very different, but it's still a core quad...

^ Your statement contradicts itself. You are misunderstanding the term "architecture" as it applies to processor design. It is a quad core, but not a Core quad.

Turbobusa · Dec 08, 2008, 05:25 PM // 17:25

"Core" taken as an Intel brand name has absolutely nothing to do with the i7, however the definition of a core is basically "processing unit", and the i7 integrates 4, since it's a core quad.

As for " It is a quad core, but not a Core quad." either you're talking about brand names, and we misunderstood as i'm talking about cores in general, or I really don't know where that comes from.

Although I know why you thought I was talking about the Intel CPU, to me a core quad is the association of four cores before being some intel chip. If Avectius was talking about the Core quad with a capital C, then my sentence was wrong.

JupiterStarWarrior · Dec 08, 2008, 06:04 PM // 18:04

Personally, I'm going to try Vista just to see how it works for me. My sister has a laptop with Vista Home Premium on it, and it works okay for her. My mom also has a laptop with Vista Home Premium on it, and that works okay for her. Then again, they don't play heavy games or anything like that; just normal use of the computer. I'm slightly above that, but I like to play music and videos and such. Perhaps Vista will work for me. If not, then I can always go back to XP.

Lord Sojar · Dec 09, 2008, 05:43 AM // 05:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turbobusa

"Core" taken as an Intel brand name has absolutely nothing to do with the i7, however the definition of a core is basically "processing unit", and the i7 integrates 4, since it's a core quad.

As for " It is a quad core, but not a Core quad." either you're talking about brand names, and we misunderstood as i'm talking about cores in general, or I really don't know where that comes from.

Although I know why you thought I was talking about the Intel CPU, to me a core quad is the association of four cores before being some intel chip. If Avectius was talking about the Core quad with a capital C, then my sentence was wrong.

The way you phrased it lead me to believe you were referring to the Core architecture.

As a future failsafe to avoid confusion, when you say "core quad" that refers to the brand Core Quad (Q6600 etc), but when you say "quad core", that refers to a processor with 4 cores. I know it is picky, but that is the way the tech industry is. Another example of this would be saying IIBS vs iiBS, those standing for Integrated Internal Bus System and 2nd level Bus System, respectively). Capital letters make worlds of difference, but so does word order. I know, again this is being picky, but when discussing technology as a whole, you must use great care in the order and accuracy of words and abbreviations.

jonnieboi05 · Dec 27, 2008, 01:43 AM // 01:43

close to 3 months later and still no explanation.

lololol sorry to revive a dead thread. xD

Abedeus · Dec 27, 2008, 06:37 AM // 06:37

Oh, there has been a lot of explaining.

Vista sucks unless you have a computer from space.

JupiterStarWarrior · Dec 27, 2008, 07:51 AM // 07:51

Hmmm...

Actually, I'm currently running Vista sub-par (I say this because I need to upgrade my Video and my Sound cards), and it seems to be running fine. A few bumps along the way, but so far so good.

jonnieboi05 · Mar 29, 2009, 02:24 AM // 02:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

Oh, there has been a lot of explaining.

Vista sucks unless you have a computer from space.

lol, yeh, no doubt.