Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Dvorak in love with Quad FX

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 28, 2006 11:18:32 PM

In the latest PC Magazine, Dvorak plugs the Quad FX in not one, but TWO articles:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2071732,00.asp?kc=...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2072322,00.asp

Never have I seen Dvorak talk out his ass with such bravado. Start typing your hate mail. :wink:

More about : dvorak love quad

December 28, 2006 11:30:16 PM

Quote:
In the latest PC Magazine, Dvorak plugs the Quad FX in not one, but TWO articles:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2071732,00.asp?kc=...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2072322,00.asp

Never have I seen Dvorak talk out his ass with such bravado. Start typing your hate mail. :wink:



I mentioned in another thread that about 5% of people answering out of more than 1000 said they were upgrading to QFX. It's going to catch on. especially if Newegg's prices are for two CPUs.
December 28, 2006 11:31:51 PM

Dvorak shills for whoever pays him the most. Known fact ...

He cant argue with the beating QFX gets in all the benchmarks so he resorts to just "liking it" :lol: 

Intel also uses paid shills ... so AMD need not feel too bad 8)
Related resources
December 29, 2006 12:09:14 AM

Quote:
In the latest PC Magazine, Dvorak plugs the Quad FX in not one, but TWO articles:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2071732,00.asp?kc=...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2072322,00.asp

Never have I seen Dvorak talk out his ass with such bravado. Start typing your hate mail. :wink:



I mentioned in another thread that about 5% of people answering out of more than 1000 said they were upgrading to QFX. It's going to catch on. especially if Newegg's prices are for two CPUs.

Polls dont count when you walk into the AMD Fab36 lunch room, point a gun at someones head and say, "Are you gunna buy the QFX for the employ dicounted price of free, or not" as they set the hammer with a resounding click.
December 29, 2006 12:17:19 AM

Quote:
In the latest PC Magazine, Dvorak plugs the Quad FX in not one, but TWO articles:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2071732,00.asp?kc=...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2072322,00.asp

Never have I seen Dvorak talk out his ass with such bravado. Start typing your hate mail. :wink:



I mentioned in another thread that about 5% of people answering out of more than 1000 said they were upgrading to QFX. It's going to catch on. especially if Newegg's prices are for two CPUs.

Polls dont count when you walk into the AMD Fab36 lunch room, point a gun at someones head and say, "Are you gunna buy the QFX for the employ dicounted price of free, or not" as they set the hammer with a resounding click.


But that's exactly what you do with Core 2. You threaten, insult, ridicule people who even consider not buying Core 2.


THAT'S WHY I'LL NEVER BUY IT!!!!
December 29, 2006 12:29:21 AM

Baron, Baron, Baron, nobody is threatening you, even if someone was to do so over the C2D, it’s on the net! What are they going to do? Send you gay porn?

Your insistence at having a QFX puzzles me, a woodcrest/clovertown workstation is clearly superior in satisfying to your developer needs. After all, the valve guys wont even touch QFX, aren’t they developers too?

I’m not sure why Dvorak likes QFX, there is no reason why a professional like him should recommend it. Sure, there’s Barcelona, but no reporter worth his salt would recommend something that hasn’t even been tested. Maybe he hasn’t taken a look at the benchmarks, but then, what kind of reporter would he be if he hasn’t?

All roads lead to C2D as the best PC starting 2007.
December 29, 2006 12:48:26 AM

Quote:
Baron, Baron, Baron, nobody is threatening you, even if someone was to do so over the C2D, it’s on the net! What are they going to do? Send you gay porn?

Your insistence at having a QFX puzzles me, a woodcrest/clovertown workstation is clearly superior in satisfying to your developer needs. After all, the valve guys wont even touch QFX, aren’t they developers too?

I’m not sure why Dvorak likes QFX, there is no reason why a professional like him should recommend it. Sure, there’s Barcelona, but no reporter worth his salt would recommend something that hasn’t even been tested. Maybe he hasn’t taken a look at the benchmarks, but then, what kind of reporter would he be if he hasn’t?

All roads lead to C2D as the best PC starting 2007.


See what I mean? Opteron is the same thing. It uses server RAM and has a premium. A Clovertown wksta from Dell with two 5345 (2.33 with 4GB RAM and the equivalent of 8800) was $5600. Woodcrest and Opteron top out at over $3500. A decked out QFX is around $2600. Each Clovertown is 130W also, while Woodcrest needs FBDIMMS.

This is America and free choice leads to pointless debates about what I should do with my money - I mean means I can choose what I want whether it's foolish, childish or contributes to dimming the neighborhood's lights.
8O
December 29, 2006 12:49:36 AM

Wow, it's been many years since I've read anything Dvorak has written, and after following those two links I now recall why it's been years since I've read anything he has written.

Egads.

Well, if he likes AMD he's within his rights to say so. Too bad it's currently an un-informed preference. At least for now.

He doesn't know that more RAM will improve the OS performance.

In this age of VM software he thinks dual-boot is a practical solution, and it seems like he has no idea what the MCE to Vista upgrade path is.

His "perfect" PC uses RAID-5?

He's gonna use four graphics cards to do what exactly? Besides make his local utility company stockholders jump for joy...

He accuses Windows of bottlenecking LAN performance. Oh, well yeah, you're right, this is the same guy who doesn't know RAM will improve OS performance.

Wireless as a LAN backup??

And moving on to that AMD mule and prostitute show, when the benchmarks I have seen show the E6300 and the X2 4200 to be fairly close in overall performance, one has to wonder about the alleged performance difference. Although I'm not surprised a GeForce chipset would generally trounce those Intel controllers.

Thanks for reminding me of just how much of an ill-informed, lazy, pointless fool Dvorak has become. It's impressive when the layman can find problems with nearly every paragraph!

-Brad
December 29, 2006 1:33:05 AM

Wow, such hate for a writer that wrote an article on what he thought would be the best. Sure, he chose Quad FX for his board of choice, but that isn't too bad. Maybe its just the platform he wanted. A platform that could support something like... 4 graphics cards (more cards generally equals more performance. Noticeably higher? no).

His contention on the memory was an upgrade from 4 to 8 gigabytes of memory. I too would like to see a performance benefit on a desktop system between those two levels of memory right now.

Wireless? Eh, kinda dumb, but many people are doing it these days, who knows why?

Dual boot? Many prefer it, I know I do. I use linux as my normal OS, and when I have to do something that is hardware intensive, like play a video game, I switch to windows. You can't play the same games in linux.

RAID5? Never even mentioned. Sure, he mentioned 3 terabyte drives, but that could be in JBOD as well. Minor point anyway, as he proposed other solutions as well.

@er-buddy
Frankly, I am saddened by the amount of downright hatred that comes to light in these forums for people of differing opinions. I am also disappointed by the lack of long-term vision that many people here tend to have. It seems that the definition of "enthusiast" has come to mean "someone who only looks at what's right in front of them and cares not for anything else", at least in the computer hardware sense. Perhaps I'm wrong, but could we at least not resort to name calling? I mean, come on! we're supposed to be at least old enough to know better!

I know I'll not make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things here, but maybe someone will take it to heart and realize that even though you're behind a keyboard, that doesn't make it that you shouldn't follow the rules of common courtesy. [/saddened plea for civility among nerds]
December 29, 2006 2:40:46 AM

Quote:
Wow, such hate for a writer that wrote an article on what he thought would be the best.

Well, I've been reading his stuff going way, way back to the days when he actually knew what he was talking about in the early eighties. Some people can't maintain their edge and in my ever so humble opinion, he is apparently one of them. Sure he's allowed to have his opinions, but when his articles influence thousands of people it would be nice if his opinions were based on reality. Here's a guy who makes a living writing about the IT industry and he doesn't know (and couldn't even be bothered to hit windows.com/vista and use ONE mouse-click to discover) that Home Premium or Ultimate incorporates the features of XP MCE.

But let's say for a moment that I'm just being a hyper-critical dick about this and I'll address your commentary as objectively as I can (however much that may be)...

There IS data out there about performance improvements as memory increases, particularly with Vista by the way so long as you're qualifying your parameters with the word "desktop". It's one of the reasons the box I'm building next month will have 8GB!

Dvorak didn't just mention using wireless, he mentioned using it as a backup. Since most high end AMD motherboards are being delivered with dual Ethernet adapters, and since another one is easier to add than wireless, I don't see the point in using a technology with less than a tenth of the speed capacity, especially after he bitched about GbE supposedly being strangled by Windows. Boy, if he's not happy with GbE on Windows he's really gonna be pissed with 802.11n (eh, draft, currently).

VMware. No need to dual-boot and waste time with shut-downs and re-starts and no worries about respective boot managers trampling each other. You can host it from Linux or Windows, or you can use GSX or ESX. Suave stuff if you don't mind losing a few clock cycles here and there. And then you have the option of trying out other operating systems with ease. But I highly doubt VMware will support the four video card arrangement he fancies. So... maybe I could give you this one.

Dvorak did too mention using RAID. "On its recent road show, AMD showed off a machine with 12 hard drives. That may be going overboard. I think I'd prefer 3 Seagate SATA terabyte drives arranged in a RAID array instead. I'm not conceding this one. And in my opinion it was just a shameless plug for Seagate. Oh, did I mention nobody makes a terabyte drive yet?

-Brad
December 29, 2006 2:45:49 AM

Well im gonna get bashed for sure oh well.
I do not like intel, its that simple. I have not bought an intel cpu since my 8088 and im not about to start now.
Way back in the day (Yea im probably older then 99% of you but who knows) I had my commodor vic-20, 64, then the 128, trash 80(Not a mistype :p  ) etc.
Then came pcs woo I said. Well I was also poor and Intel was very pricey so I bought cyrix/amd although mostly Amd. My last Cyrix was a 6x86p166+ at 120mhz I believe it was. Something like that. Was incompatible with some software. Like Unreal(The first one mind you). Couldnt play it at first had to wait for a patch. So I stayed with Amd after that. They kept socket 7 alive after intel abandoned it. K62 was first decent one(K5 sucked its true). K63 was even better but even then everyone was buying the more mhz is better line from intel. I rejoiced when they came out with the Athlon thats for sure.

Bottom line is Intel has been sticking it to people for so long and so viciously I cant stand em. I have 9 computers now and none of them are Intel inside thank you. People give me old computers sometimes I give the intels away to someone else who needs one.

So is Core 2 superior ? Yep you bet its faster, a lot faster for some things.
I do a lot of video editing and coding. I am sure a core2 would be faster but I wont buy em cause I hate Intel.
However if someone ask's me what to buy I will tell them to buy a core2 if it would suit them better. My personal feelings do not get in the way of business.

Bash away I dont care.
December 29, 2006 2:49:02 AM

Quote:
Well im gonna get bashed for sure oh well.
I do not like intel, its that simple. I have not bought an intel cpu since my 8088 and im not about to start now.
Way back in the day (Yea im probably older then 99% of you but who knows) I had my commodor vic-20, 64, then the 128, trash 80(Not a mistype :p  ) etc.
Then came pcs woo I said. Well I was also poor and Intel was very pricey so I bought cyrix/amd although mostly Amd. My last Cyrix was a 6x86p166+ at 120mhz I believe it was. Something like that. Was incompatible with some software. Like Unreal(The first one mind you). Couldnt play it at first had to wait for a patch. So I stayed with Amd after that. They kept socket 7 alive after intel abandoned it. K62 was first decent one(K5 sucked its true). K63 was even better but even then everyone was buying the more mhz is better line from intel. I rejoiced when they came out with the Athlon thats for sure.

Bottom line is Intel has been sticking it to people fo


r so long and so viciously I cant stand em. I have 9 computers now and none of them are Intel inside thank you. People give me old computers sometimes I give the intels away to someone else who needs one.

So is Core 2 superior ? Yep you bet its faster, a lot faster for some things.
I do a lot of video editing and coding. I am sure a core2 would be faster but I wont buy em cause I hate Intel.
However if someone ask's me what to buy I will tell them to buy a core2 if it would suit them better. My personal feelings do not get in the way of business.

Bash away I dont care.


A man after my own heart. A company's business model is just as important as their products.
December 29, 2006 3:11:52 AM

bm you sir, are an animal :lol: 
December 29, 2006 3:25:11 AM

Quote:
bm you sir, are an animal :lol: 



And I would be eating your prey a s s.
December 29, 2006 3:32:29 AM

Hold on a sec here. BM I respect your choice and dont bash you for it but you sir are a bit too much of a fanboy for my taste.

If a customer came to you or a friend whatever, say they asked you what cpu to buy. They are doing video editing and desktop publishing.
I would reccomend a core2 or even a core2 quad if they wanted high end.

You wouldnt recomend intel to anyone EVER.

Please do NOT associate me with bm!
I have reccomended core2 many times on this forum if you want to look.
I even gave thought to buying one briefly, very briefly. My personal money wont go to intel that is true but a fanboy ? Nope. Fanboys have no grasp on reality.
December 29, 2006 3:32:30 AM

After re-reading my last post and looking back at Dvorak's "The Perfect PC 2007" article, I just figured out what it is that annoys me so much about this guy.

It's not the lack of knowledge. Plenty of writers and speakers suffer from that. It's the utter laziness. It's not that he doesn't know the stuff, he just doesn't care enough to even bother finding out. He wants everything spoon fed to him...

He writes "Four gigs for starters; eight might be better, although I'd like to see some data on the effectiveness of more memory." He never implied the data doesn't exist, he just wants someone to feed it to him. Or maybe the guy has never heard of Google.

It goes perfectly along with him writing "The machine has to dual-boot Windows Vista and Linux. [...] The OS needs to incorporate Windows Media Center Edition software." He doesn't know because he wants Bill Gates to call him personally and give him the right version.

The only amazing part of any of his article is that he was actually more or less correct about his choice in wireless chipsets. Well, except that it's still very vulnerable to interference and cranks down speed when legacy devices are near.

-Brad
December 29, 2006 3:41:41 AM

Quote:
Hold on a sec here. BM I respect your choice and dont bash you for it but you sir are a bit too much of a fanboy for my taste.

If a customer came to you or a friend whatever, say they asked you what cpu to buy. They are doing video editing and desktop publishing.
I would reccomend a core2 or even a core2 quad if they wanted high end.

You wouldnt recomend intel to anyone EVER.

Please do NOT associate me with bm!
I have reccomended core2 many times on this forum if you want to look.
I even gave thought to buying one briefly, very briefly. My personal money wont go to intel that is true but a fanboy ? Nope. Fanboys have no grasp on reality.


i have seen bm reccomending a c2d over an amd plenty of times here at the forums.
December 29, 2006 3:46:32 AM

Quote:
Hold on a sec here. BM I respect your choice and dont bash you for it but you sir are a bit too much of a fanboy for my taste.

If a customer came to you or a friend whatever, say they asked you what cpu to buy. They are doing video editing and desktop publishing.
I would reccomend a core2 or even a core2 quad if they wanted high end.

You wouldnt recomend intel to anyone EVER.

Please do NOT associate me with bm!
I have reccomended core2 many times on this forum if you want to look.
I even gave thought to buying one briefly, very briefly. My personal money wont go to intel that is true but a fanboy ? Nope. Fanboys have no grasp on reality.


i have seen bm reccomending a c2d over an amd plenty of times here at the forums.

I don't think that prevents anyone from being considered a fanboi. Recommendation (free) != Assembled Systems (investment).

Plus, BaronMatrix is like Sharikou - he spins facts or rumors in a pro-AMD anti-Intel way; all information from BaronMatrix may or may not be true, and is likely contaminated by his own biased interpretation.
December 29, 2006 3:58:13 AM

yes bm is a little off. but i have nothing against him.
December 29, 2006 3:59:40 AM

damn just looking at your sig. 8O

thats a killer system. :lol: 
December 29, 2006 4:03:14 AM

Quote:
damn just looking at your sig. 8O

thats a killer system. :lol: 


And i thought my P2 celeron 366mhz was the worst system on the forums... BUT no more, by the end of the week i shall have a dual core beast with an 8800gts... HE HE HE :wink:
December 29, 2006 4:09:21 AM

Quote:
damn just looking at your sig. 8O

thats a killer system. :lol: 


And i thought my P2 celeron 366mhz was the worst system on the forums... BUT no more, by the end of the week i shall have a dual core beast with an 8800gts... HE HE HE :wink:

well if your new cpu is c2d based. it will be better than mine :cry: 
as will be your gpu :cry: 
December 29, 2006 4:11:55 AM

Quote:
damn just looking at your sig. 8O

thats a killer system. :lol: 


And i thought my P2 celeron 366mhz was the worst system on the forums... BUT no more, by the end of the week i shall have a dual core beast with an 8800gts... HE HE HE :wink:

well if your new cpu is c2d based. it will be better than mine :cry: 
as will be your gpu :cry: 

Well actually the processor is a x2 3800 EE, but i plan on overclocking it to at least 2.6ghz, so that should be about e6400 levels. I mainly play games so i didn't splurge on the processor, plus i want to upgrade it later so whats the point of spending all the money now?
December 29, 2006 4:13:42 AM

I've always wondered about Evil Root's rig. With such a low amount of ram, I can't imagine it running Windows 98 very well. Even DSL would be strapped for resources. I'm thinking either Windows 95, or MenuetOS. Bonus points to Evil Root if he's running DOS. :) 
December 29, 2006 4:27:18 AM

mine is a x24400 have had it to 2.6 but no difference except in the benchies.

old one is a 3700 and have had it to 2.6 still no diff but in the benchies.

im happy with both.

one thing was. i split my 4 512,s up to make the 2 comp,s.
now that sucked.

just today got 2 more 512 sticks for the 3700 computer.
and got all 4 512 sticks of corsair xms back in my computer.
WOOHOO :!:

man 2 gigs is far faster than one gig, an oc cant even touch that.
after i went back to 1 gig i oc,ed my x2 to 2.7 (couldnt get that)
with 4 sticks.

to try to make up the lack of ram but no go.

in short i like more memory :lol: 
December 29, 2006 4:53:21 AM

Quote:


in short i like more memory :lol: 



Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.
December 29, 2006 4:55:51 AM

Quote:
in short i like more memory :lol: 


Y'know, they say the first thing to go is your memory.

Can't remember what the second thing is...

[/bad grandpa joke]
December 29, 2006 5:06:28 AM

Quote:


in short i like more memory :lol: 



Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.

well what ever you get sell the rest to me for really cheap :lol: 

or just ship it to me in okla.
ill pay for the shipping from ny :lol: 
December 29, 2006 5:07:11 AM

Quote:
in short i like more memory :lol: 


Y'know, they say the first thing to go is your memory.

Can't remember what the second thing is...

[/bad grandpa joke]

im not that old 8O

just pushin 40 :lol: 
December 29, 2006 7:07:40 AM

"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse.' There is no evidence that people want to use these things."
-- John C. Dvorak, SF Examiner, Feb. 1984.

Well, so much for John's judgement.

:lol: 

All kidding aside, all through my AMD-bashing, I'm still more than open in going with a Quad FX instead of my long-lusted-for 2xClovertown. Naturally it will have to be with quadcores sitting on each socket. If by the time I've finished holding up 7/11s and have the money to buy the system there is a choice in 2xQuads from AMD and Intel I will carefully weigh my options completely blind to brand. Bang for the buck is my only consideration. If Quad FX wins, then I'm whipping out my Visa card and starting my own QFX DaClan with Baron. :lol: 
December 29, 2006 7:54:03 AM

a c 99 à CPUs
December 29, 2006 1:17:19 PM

Quote:
Wow, it's been many years since I've read anything Dvorak has written, and after following those two links I now recall why it's been years since I've read anything he has written.

Egads.

Well, if he likes AMD he's within his rights to say so. Too bad it's currently an un-informed preference. At least for now.

He doesn't know that more RAM will improve the OS performance.


That's really only true up until a certain point, dependent upon your setup and usage. There is some caching/preloading of commonly-used applications in RAM, but it's not quite as much as you might think. Your computer will run a word processor, Web browser, or e-mail at the same speed if you have 512MB RAM or 128GB RAM.

Quote:
In this age of VM software he thinks dual-boot is a practical solution, and it seems like he has no idea what the MCE to Vista upgrade path is.


VMs are good, I'll tell you that. I run 64-bit Linux and it's nice to not have to reboot to be able to be able to open some %$*! Windows-only thing (usually some ActiveX-dependent website or DRM'ed file.) But they do have their shortcomings, particularly in the fact that they cannot handle accelerated graphics, access all of the host machine's hardware directly or load drivers. They also eat a bunch of RAM and are much slower than running something on the "bare metal." So VMs are good for office-type programs and other non-intensive, non-hardware-interfacing (except for USB devices which VMware can handle) programs but useless for games and things that need to load drivers and talk to the hardware directly. So to really see how Linux will act on your computer, you'd need to dual-boot it. Windows has to restart a lot anyway, so I don't think that doing that a little more will be a pain. Also, if you want to share files, it's much easier when you dual-boot as long as you have an ext2 or FAT32 partition somewhere to put files on so that both OSes can read. If you want to share stuff in a VM, it can be done only over the network.

Quote:
His "perfect" PC uses RAID-5?


RAID 5 is not bad to tell the truth, but it's not really optimal for straight desktop usage. It is expensive because you have to get 3 HDDs and an RAID controller if your motherboard or OS does not support RAID 5. Write speed also is much slower on RAID 5 than a single drive. To tell the truth, with the possible exception of RAID 1, *no* RAID level is really suited for general desktop usage. And RAID 1 would be better made as one HDD in the machine and another outside the machine used for an external backup drive. RAID is used for special situations where you need redundancy and the need to string several HDDs together to make one big contiguous space. Unless you're into video or other very disk space dependent or data-is-critical applications, RAID really isn't for you.

P.S. Nowhere did Dvirak say what RAID level he planned to use. For all we know he could use RAID 0, RAID 3, RAID 4, or RAID 1 with two parity disks or a normal RAID 1 setup with a hot spare. I guess he's a desktop guy, so my feeling is that it would be RAID 0 (very stupid unless his PC syncs with an external NAS frequently) or possibly RAID 5 as you stated.

Quote:
He accuses Windows of bottlenecking LAN performance. Oh, well yeah, you're right, this is the same guy who doesn't know RAM will improve OS performance.


As I said above, there is a limit to how much adding RAM will improve your performance. And Dvorak's 100% right that it's hard to get more than 500 Mbps out of GbE adapters under Windows, although that's more due to not being able to fine-tune the MTU of all of your LAN adapters for peak throughput than the TCP/IP stack's fault. He might also be referring to the performance of Windows SMB file-sharing format, which is slow- slower than UNIX NFS, HTTP/FTP, or raw TCP/IP data sharing via something like netcat.

Quote:
Wireless as a LAN backup??


I think he means also being able to use wireless to connect to the local network. This is handy if your house isn't wired for Ethernet and your desktop doesn't sit within cable reach of the modem or router. I had to use a wireless adapter (a bridge, actually) on my desktop until I was able to move my computer to where it was within reach of the router.

Quote:
And moving on to that AMD mule and prostitute show, when the benchmarks I have seen show the E6300 and the X2 4200 to be fairly close in overall performance, one has to wonder about the alleged performance difference. Although I'm not surprised a GeForce chipset would generally trounce those Intel controllers.


The E6300 is roughly equal to the X2 4200+ only in SSE-heavy applications due to its 128-bit SSE execution engine. It's much faster in integer math but slower in non-SSE performance than an equivalently-clocked K8. I work in a lab where we do a lot of simulations and they are not optimized for SSE. An Athlon X2 4200+ is faster than a Core 2 Duo E6400 for that application. I know as I have an X2 4200+ (939) and benchmarked it using the program. It runs a tad faster than the E6400.
December 29, 2006 2:19:46 PM

Quote:
He doesn't know that more RAM will improve the OS performance.

That's really only true up until a certain point, dependent upon your setup and usage. There is some caching/preloading of commonly-used applications in RAM, but it's not quite as much as you might think. Your computer will run a word processor, Web browser, or e-mail at the same speed if you have 512MB RAM or 128GB RAM.
Sorry but when it comes to Vista, you're wrong about that. And I'm not talking about a subtle wrong, or a maybe we're splitting hairs wrong, or maybe it's a subjective thing wrong. You're wrong, wrong, absolutely positively way the hell wrong here.

Plus Dvorak talks about scoring movies with his Vista system. Video editing LOVES memory. Lots and lots of it. The more the better. Don't take my word for it (even though it's a sincere statement drawn from personal experience, and never mind the fact that I work for a television network) - go ahead and Google it for yourself.

Quote:
In this age of VM software he thinks dual-boot is a practical solution, and it seems like he has no idea what the MCE to Vista upgrade path is.

VMs are good, I'll tell you that. I run 64-bit Linux and it's nice to not have to reboot to be able to be able to open some %$*! Windows-only thing (usually some ActiveX-dependent website or DRM'ed file.) But they do have their shortcomings, particularly in the fact that they cannot handle accelerated graphics, access all of the host machine's hardware directly or load drivers. Windows has to restart a lot anyway, [...]
No argument about that. I wish I knew what you folks were doing that causes you to restart Windows so often, though. Y'all running Windows ME or something? I've got XP Pro, 2000 Server, 2003 Server, etc. scattered all over my house and it's all been rock solid. At the office we had a funny incident recently where an NT4 box which runs a middleware app with known memory leaks, which because of that known memory leak was supposed to be on a weekly reboot schedule, crashed. Turns out nobody in the data center was recycling it and it had been running un-touched for a year and a half before the leak finally caused the kernel to barf.

Quote:
His "perfect" PC uses RAID-5?

RAID 5 is not bad to tell the truth, but it's not really optimal for straight desktop usage. It is expensive because you have to get 3 HDDs and an RAID controller if your motherboard or OS does not support RAID 5. Write speed also is much slower on RAID 5 than a single drive.
Exactly. And what's another drive (for RAID 0+1 or RAID 10) if you're going to spend that much cash anyway?

While Dvorak didn't say what RAID level he was planning, any solution with three drives is going to be silly for desktop use.

Quote:
He accuses Windows of bottlenecking LAN performance. Oh, well yeah, you're right, this is the same guy who doesn't know RAM will improve OS performance.

And Dvorak's 100% right that it's hard to get more than 500 Mbps out of GbE adapters under Windows
Buy better NICs and better switches. I've had no such issues. We have servers that are entirely capable of saturating Cisco gig switch ports.

Quote:
Wireless as a LAN backup??

I think he means also being able to use wireless to connect to the local network. This is handy if your house isn't wired for Ethernet and your desktop doesn't sit within cable reach of the modem or router.
Since he said "I like having two network access systems. The first would be a gigabit controller, which should be on the motherboard by now. [..] Let's also add a wireless backup", that tells me his primary connectivity would be copper. While I'm having trouble envisioning the old fart moving his perfect seventy pound desktop all over his hovel, perhaps I'm wrong.

It also reminds me of how clueless Dvorak is since it's nearly impossible to find a motherboard that, if it integrates a NIC, doesn't integrate a gig NIC.

Quote:
And moving on to that AMD mule and prostitute show, when the benchmarks I have seen show the E6300 and the X2 4200 to be fairly close in overall performance, one has to wonder about the alleged performance difference. Although I'm not surprised a GeForce chipset would generally trounce those Intel controllers.

The E6300 is roughly equal to the X2 4200+ only in SSE-heavy applications due to its 128-bit SSE execution engine. It's much faster in integer math but slower in non-SSE performance than an equivalently-clocked K8.
Yes, the AMDs are almost universally superior with the FP work. Somehow though, I'm having trouble envisioning Mr. Dvorak doing laboratory -variety number crunching while editing his videos, composing his ill-informed articles and playing whatever game he thinks he needs four video cards for. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong. You think AMD's mule and prostitute routine showcased math apps? Beats me.

-Brad
December 29, 2006 5:49:13 PM

Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks
December 29, 2006 6:02:01 PM

Quote:


in short i like more memory :lol: 



Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?
December 29, 2006 6:11:02 PM

Quote:
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?

From the likes of Micron, Kingston, etc. You won't find 'em at Mushkin or Corsair. And they'll cost ya' at least 50% more in price per MB.

-Brad
December 29, 2006 6:13:57 PM

Righto. Look here shinny:

2 GB sticks

Of course, to reach 8 GB, Baron will need to spend a minimum of $1,000, JUST on memory 8O .
December 29, 2006 7:54:40 PM

Quote:


in short i like more memory :lol: 



Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.

well what ever you get sell the rest to me for really cheap :lol: 

or just ship it to me in okla.
ill pay for the shipping from ny :lol: 

Sure. I'll let you know when I get my upgrade.
December 29, 2006 7:56:04 PM

Quote:


in short i like more memory :lol: 



Aahh the root of my current dilemna. DO I go with 5600+ and 8GB RAM (lots more programs can coexist) or go with FX70 and 4GB(plenty for Vista and apps but stretching it) and get the new mobo and chips and sell a barebones FX70.
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?


Yes they do. OCZ just released 2x2GB sets for $513, which is less than 4GB in 2x1GB sets. Check out Newegg.
December 29, 2006 7:58:49 PM

Quote:
Righto. Look here shinny:

2 GB sticks

Of course, to reach 8 GB, Baron will need to spend a minimum of $1,000, JUST on memory 8O .



Yes it's an expense, but it would be worth it. 4GB is around $600 so it's not double the price.
December 29, 2006 8:24:52 PM

Quote:
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks

Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.
December 29, 2006 8:27:01 PM

Quote:
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks

Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.
December 29, 2006 8:37:03 PM

Performance hit?
December 29, 2006 8:37:16 PM

Quote:
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks

Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.

BaronMatrix is correct in his claim, but misses the point ultimately. Who the HELL would buy a 4x4 motherboard to run a single FX-7x chip?

There's nothing special about running a 1-chip K8 setup, we can do that cheaper and cooler with AM2. The whole point of 4x4 is to use TWO K8 chips to achieve "higher" performance.
December 29, 2006 8:42:36 PM

Quote:
Yes they do. OCZ just released 2x2GB sets for $513, which is less than 4GB in 2x1GB sets. Check out Newegg.

Crap, I look away for ten days and the world turns upside-down...
December 29, 2006 8:54:34 PM

Quote:
How do you fit 8GBs of RAM onto an AM2 motherboard? They have 2GB sticks now?

From the likes of Micron, Kingston, etc. You won't find 'em at Mushkin or Corsair. And they'll cost ya' at least 50% more in price per MB.

-Brad
MUST!HAVE!
December 29, 2006 8:55:40 PM

Quote:
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks

Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.

BaronMatrix is correct in his claim, but misses the point ultimately. Who the HELL would buy a 4x4 motherboard to run a single FX-7x chip?

There's nothing special about running a 1-chip K8 setup, we can do that cheaper and cooler with AM2. The whole point of 4x4 is to use TWO K8 chips to achieve "higher" performance.

I think that there are other applications of the 4x4 concept that as of yet have not been realized. All the talk of the coprocessors has gotten me thinking of what kinds of applications that this could be used for. I think that there's a lot more to the 4x4 platform than anyone here is giving it credit for. Besides, don't single FX 7x series have more performance than any of the other FX lines? Surely, the platform would cost more, but I think it would be less than a similar server setup, and with a lot more options geared toward the enthusiast.

I don't know. I'm excited about the possibilities of the 4x4, even if they aren't being realized at this very moment.
December 29, 2006 9:01:06 PM

Quote:
Maybe this doesn't have much to with how this thread has been going, but I figured there was a bit more knowledge about the Quad FX platform in this thread than in some others.

I was wondering if it was possible to run QFX with only one processor. I just read the latest CPU charts and they are always showing the single package price with the cpu's for the FX 70 series, and the only way I could even think of this as a feasible way of displaying data would be if you could get a system and only buy one of them. So, I repeat, and ask if you could just buy one proc for the system. OR, is it possible to mix and match, something like an SLI situation? I'm sure somebody in this thread knows the answer to this.

Thanks

Impossible. QuadFX requires the CPU's to be run in pairs.

not true. Anand showed that it does run with one chip.

BaronMatrix is correct in his claim, but misses the point ultimately. Who the HELL would buy a 4x4 motherboard to run a single FX-7x chip?

There's nothing special about running a 1-chip K8 setup, we can do that cheaper and cooler with AM2. The whole point of 4x4 is to use TWO K8 chips to achieve "higher" performance.

I think that there are other applications of the 4x4 concept that as of yet have not been realized. All the talk of the coprocessors has gotten me thinking of what kinds of applications that this could be used for. I think that there's a lot more to the 4x4 platform than anyone here is giving it credit for. Besides, don't single FX 7x series have more performance than any of the other FX lines? Surely, the platform would cost more, but I think it would be less than a similar server setup, and with a lot more options geared toward the enthusiast.

I don't know. I'm excited about the possibilities of the 4x4, even if they aren't being realized at this very moment.

You have a point, but right now the only use for the second socket on the Asus 4x4 motherboard is for another FX-7x chip.

Leave the future alone, it'll come along later, and we can judge from hard facts instead of speculation/FUD. :wink:
December 29, 2006 9:13:53 PM

Quote:
Performance hit?


Because of the NUMA Problem the board had with XP it actually runs like the FX62, whereas two chips caused problems with placement and actually lost around 8%. Fortunately 8% of what FX62 does will still provide higher frame rates than I'm getting. I should be able to go up to 1600x1200.

That is a little bummed out but Vista has seemed to fix a lot of the problems with games @ RC2. RTM should be even better.
December 29, 2006 9:18:57 PM

Quote:
I think that there are other applications of the 4x4 concept that as of yet have not been realized. All the talk of the coprocessors has gotten me thinking of what kinds of applications that this could be used for. I think that there's a lot more to the 4x4 platform than anyone here is giving it credit for. Besides, don't single FX 7x series have more performance than any of the other FX lines? Surely, the platform would cost more, but I think it would be less than a similar server setup, and with a lot more options geared toward the enthusiast.

I don't know. I'm excited about the possibilities of the 4x4, even if they aren't being realized at this very moment.


OF course I would never run both but if they aren't in the same box you can just buy them one at a time. I am confident in it's ability to run multi-threaded games and productivity apps very well.

I can't wait to compile some apps I have to see the difference between my Turion X2, 4400+ and QFX. I'm definitely going to also load up a large DB and put a bunch of clients on it.
!