I will so splash out on a new pc when these hit the shelves (after price war gets them down a tad mind)
But which? Let the battle begin
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6871
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6845
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34742
Well I say battle, the performance is intel but the cost to perfomance ratio will be interesting.
Anyone see the Intell presentation recently, the game they had from the guys that did mad max? God - SWISH!
Im looking for a new main unit for January or Feburary and am still trying to decide whether to go for a multicore or save some dosh and buy a 3800+ Athlon with a new MoBo and memory.
Quote from: SeriousIm looking for a new main unit for January or Feburary and am still trying to decide whether to go for a multicore or save some dosh and buy a 3800+ Athlon with a new MoBo and memory.
I was the same but bar getting cheaper and a little bit more ortganised (as in rather then intel whacking on another core, making a fully functional all in one quad core like AMD) They wont get much better for at least a year.
And the Intel Quad only needs bios updates so Im going to go for it.
I have had small upgrades but my basic set up has lasted me 4 years so its time to go all out again.
IF both of us do we can help each other out getting the best price etc I suppose.
IM excited to get a beast, looking at a new case the lot. I think I have a buyer for my current pc as well. I dont mind if I pay just under a grand since I think it will last me quite a while, memory at 2gig is pleanty for ages and I think hardrive and graphcis card changes would only be needed.
On multicore processors Intel is definitely in the lead but their prices are higher to compensate. AMD probably wont be bringing out its new stuff until the second quarter at least. One major issue seems to be they need to share the cache between the CPUs which they dont ATM
Theyre not gonna be silly money;
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4253
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060919051744.html
Quote from: SeriousOn multicore processors Intel is definitely in the lead but their prices are higher to compensate. AMD probably wont be bringing out its new stuff until the second quarter at least. One major issue seems to be they need to share the cache between the CPUs which they dont ATM
Amd chips are here before xmas, the first roadmap set at least anyway
As SDP said even with the tech core prices are droping again and look set to be low next year as well for the first 1/4 at least.
Manafacture is highr right now and there is a lot of plants, and the tech getting them that way is less heat consumption material and is actually cheaper and the future looks good as new materials and manafacture processes look even cheaper still while getting better performance.
Price wise it actually is looking really nice chip wise, good stuff.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=34801
X3210 2.13GHz 1066MHz 8MB $690 looks like the one to get
interesting. But doesnt WinXP Pro top out at 2 way SMP? what operating system do you need to be running to use one of these things?
Quote from: Mongooseinteresting. But doesnt WinXP Pro top out at 2 way SMP? what operating system do you need to be running to use one of these things?
xp64 will run them of course and an update to have some extra features is on the way and of course windows vista 64bit version.
Quote from: Mongooseinteresting. But doesnt WinXP Pro top out at 2 way SMP? what operating system do you need to be running to use one of these things?
XP Pro will support up to two physical processors. It doesnt matter if that processor has two, four or eight cores, it will still support all of them.
If you install XP Pro on a dual core, dual Xeon machine it will still use all four cores.
but arent the new intel dual core processors 32 bit? sure i read a letter on the reg on this today.
Matt
No, they support both x86 and x64 (branded EM64T in this case) instructions just like AMD CPUs do
Hexus examines kentsfield x4 (http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=6871&page=1)
You know that all these processors we are looking at at the top end benchmarks on Toms hardware and hexus will be like 386s in about 4/5 years :D
Anyone remember then the P3 hit the 1ghz @ stock? That was a time when you really thought things were taking off.... now we have kit like the Kentsfield. No wait. Dual core is impressive and I still think my little Pentium D flies (and it does) and that still works on a 533 fsb, not the 1066 with shared cache business of the conroe, damnit.
If this is what they are cooking up for next year, WTF will happen in 3 years time. Scary bloody stuff.
/me prepares bank account to hammering now to avoid disappointment/banruptcy.... bloody boffins :D
Cheers
Tongy
intel/amd giveth
microsoft taketh away
With Windows, Microsoft considers license per cpu package rather than cores. XP Pro supports 2 cpus and they can comprise of any number of cores, likewise Home supports 1 cpu but that can also comprise of any number of cores. It a sensible stance from MS, people feared it would be based upon cores and thus either have one disabled or have to pay MS some Ã,£ to unlock the unused core.
Quote from: NorphyQuote from: Mongooseinteresting. But doesnt WinXP Pro top out at 2 way SMP? what operating system do you need to be running to use one of these things?
XP Pro will support up to two physical processors. It doesnt matter if that processor has two, four or eight cores, it will still support all of them.
If you install XP Pro on a dual core, dual Xeon machine it will still use all four cores.
Interesting, thanks for clearing that up Norphy
quad core.. what are you going to run on it? XP Pro is only licensed for 2 processors and as they will show up as 4 is it going to work?
EDIT: Doh! should have read the rest of the thread :whoops: