Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Poll: R U still pre-C2D or up with the times? Discuss

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share

Which category do you fit into?

Total: 224 votes

  • Pre- Core 2 Duo
  • 65 %
  • Core 2 Duo and beyond
  • 36 %
February 26, 2007 2:17:55 AM

Well, I've been following the birth of C2D up until now. I'm impressed. AWESOME hardware. It only seems to get better. So why hasn't everyone upgraded? Money? No need?

I've been looking and waiting, looking and looking some more and have decided NOT to get a C2D. For my situation, its fine. I have dual 250 OPTYs w/ 6 gigs ram and an x1900xtx. I can basically run anything and everything I need, despite poor scores on 3Dmark06.

I've been in the "dual CPU" era before many the guys who's first dualcore ( or having 2 core in general) was a C2D or maybe the pentium D or athlon X2's. So its not that big of a deal to me. I can see the use of 2 cores over one by far.

But...

I'm waiting for a TRUE Quadcore and most likely DDR3 ram before upgrading.

I know you guys always say that you can wait forever since the next best thing is always around corner. My thinking is that I can just build a good computer and not even touch it for a few years and it'll still be "current" enough to run most things. I know guys still running P4's w/ agp radeon 9800s and are happy (though their games look like $%#& compared to newer set ups).

A quadcore for 530 (Q6600) is excellent. If you need a fast computer and don't mind dropping 500 bucks, GO GET IT! I would rather have something thats a true quad core and not 2 C2Ds glued together.

Maybe I'm nuts. :lol: 
February 26, 2007 2:20:38 AM

I guess C2D and beyond, my two main computers both have somekind of core duo in them. My macbook has a 2ghz Core Duo, and my pc has an E6300.
February 26, 2007 2:34:24 AM

why is a qx-6700 not a true quad core - because amd says so?

everything amti does is messed up and delayed - i suspect they might be wrong on the qx-6700? yes, i will admit some issues with threading with 2 cpu in a package.

For encoding surly you would better served with 3.6ghz qx6700 -they do run air cooled just fine at 50-65c with the proper case, fans and cooler.


my systems in this room e6300, x6800, 3.0c, 4200+ am2, 560j and 2.4c
Related resources
February 26, 2007 3:14:23 AM

i built my system right as c2d was set to come out...i obviously went with amd. on the other hand, i have an hp laptop that has a c2d chip in it, cuz lets face it, intel has always made the better laptop chip.
February 26, 2007 3:30:34 AM

I agree with what you guys are saying. No doubt. There's no chance in hell that I'd go with an AMD right now.

I don't mind the whole idea of a glued C2Q, but I'd rather have a C4Q or whatever they'd call it. I guess maybe I'd like to see what intel has in store next before buying the current quads. Or at the least, buying one of the current quads for cheap.
February 26, 2007 3:36:56 AM

For me it is a combonation of money and no real need to upgrade right now. The past 6 months have brought a lot of change in hardware and also in operating systems. The hardware changes have brought a significient peformance increase while Vistas' reviews are mixed. Everything I do right now my computer does them in my opinion quite effortlessly. I had a chance to play with a new core 2 system and vista and it, for me at least, isn't worth the cost of a new computer right now.
I just bought a 7600GS and I can play games just fine.

Besides spring is right around the corner and my money will start going into my car. I have $300 in car stereo components to buy. I kinda go computer dormant during the summer. I go into car mode.
I am 32 and I still do doughnuts in the snow and proud of it. I hope I can say in 30 years that I am 62 and still doin it.
February 26, 2007 3:42:10 AM

Built my system in the summer, before C2D came out. A64 X2 3800+ runs WoW and Fable just fine, and I don't need to ask any more of it.

Chance that I might upgrade this summer, but that will be because I want to try Micro-ATX, and C2D + DirectX 10 looks like the best upgrade path at this point.

AM2 is sort of a dead end, because while it will support AM3 CPUs, it won't support DDR3 memory, which won't be too much of an upgrade because the "older" RAM will bottleneck the CPU.
February 26, 2007 3:48:49 AM

My second PC is still the old P4 2.8 Northwood with a Radeon 9800 Pro, but what decided me against C2D for my new build was partly a monetary factor and partly because I did not trust Intel that any C2D motherboard I got now would be upgradeable to a quad core by mid 2008.

I went Prescott, briefly, but that motherboard could only be upgraded to an 805 Smithfield. I remember how the original socket 775 motherboards would not accept the first Smithfields. Intel has a recent history of designing new CPUs that are not backwards compatible with most motherboards using the same socket because of voltage.

With AM2, I'm promised that the upcoming AM2+ processors will be backwards compatible with a bios flash, which is fine by me. I might not get Hyper Transport 3.0 when I upgrade to a K8L quad core in 2008, but at least I should be able to simply switch out the X2 3800+.

After all, I can afford a better processor if I don't have to replace the motherboard or RAM at the same time. That's why I'm not so much pre-C2D as "not interested" in the bigger company's products right now.

Quote:

It is one thing to get interested and caught up in the details of the architectural make up... but in the end it is the performance that counts.... AMD and Intel use different approaches to accomplish the same thing --- as C2D is showing, one may be touted as superior (i.e. HT and IMC), but it is the older 'less elegant' technology that is winning. Interesting.

Jack


Good post, but what would decide me against Intel's current quad core, besides price, are the thermal issues. I got a 65 watt X2 3800+ for a cooler running PC than my Northwood. Right now, AMD is making a similar thermal mistake as Intel did with Smithfield, but this time around, they are putting two separate dual core CPUs at their high end.

The current Intel quad cores are better designed than the slapped together Smithfields, but I'm still awaiting better quad cores from Intel (thermally) and K8L from AMD. I don't live above the arctic circle and don't want to contribute to global warming with a PC that pulls as much juice as a refrigerator while generating as much heat as a space heater.

Quote:

AM2 is sort of a dead end, because while it will support AM3 CPUs, it won't support DDR3 memory, which won't be too much of an upgrade because the "older" RAM will bottleneck the CPU.


The first DDR2 didn't exactly win any awards and people are asking if DDR3 will really bring anything new to the table in the first generation. I can't wait to see the benchmarks to see if AM2+ and DDR3 with Hyper Transport 3 make any real difference over an AM2+ processor in an AM2 socket with DDR2 and Hyper Transport 1.

Even if I find out that it slows things down a few fps in my favorite games or by a few seconds in DVD burning or 3DS Max, it won't bother me. The cost of not having to get a new motherboard and RAM next year will allow me to buy a better CPU.

That's the main reason I went with the X2 3800+, I can always put it in a dedicated mini-PC for TV recording when I upgrade to the most affordable quad core AMD has.

My new PC does a great job of playing Oblivion at high settings, while my older PC works for my 6 year old. The Radeon 9800 Pro cuts through Reader Rabbit Math like you wouldn't believe.
February 26, 2007 3:52:50 AM

My 20 month old Venice is still good enough. I'll wait to compare the new CPUs, and for mid-priced DX10 cards, and for Vista to mature. I'll probably build all new in early '08. Possibly DDR3 by then? Or I might lose patience and go with C2D this summer if the K10 looks disappointing. (I voted "pre-C2D", although my wife and my daughter both have C2Ds in their new laptops.)
February 26, 2007 3:53:53 AM

Did you try overclocking that processor? Just wondering how high you could get it with your components.
a c 96 à CPUs
February 26, 2007 3:54:44 AM

Quote:
Well, I've been following the birth of C2D up until now. I'm impressed. AWESOME hardware. It only seems to get better. So why hasn't everyone upgraded? Money? No need?


I'd be looking at a significant bill to upgrade my computer to do so as I'd have to get new RAM and a motherboard in addition to the CPU. My X2 4200+ is every bit as fast as an E6300, anyway. The very best I could do is get an X6800, which would be roughly 40% faster. 40% is not worth spending something like $1400 as $1400 was not that much less than what my entire computer cost, and that includes a 20.1" LCD before they dropped in price by 50% midway through last year. I waited until I got a ~3x increase over my old 2.2 GHz P4-M laptop before I bought this machine, and I expect to get that kind of an increase before I upgrade again.

Quote:
I've been looking and waiting, looking and looking some more and have decided NOT to get a C2D. For my situation, its fine. I have dual 250 OPTYs w/ 6 gigs ram and an x1900xtx. I can basically run anything and everything I need, despite poor scores on 3Dmark06.


Two 2.4 GHz Opterons, 6GB RAM, and an x1900XTX are plenty enough and would put most C2D systems to shame. It's a no-brainer that you didn't drop yet more money to just get something with a newer name.

Quote:
I've been in the "dual CPU" era before many the guys who's first dualcore ( or having 2 core in general) was a C2D or maybe the pentium D or athlon X2's. So its not that big of a deal to me. I can see the use of 2 cores over one by far.


Me too. I do a lot of compiling, so I get a more or less linear increase in speed with number of cores. I waited until decent dual-core desktop CPUs became somewhat affordable. It's a whole lot less expensive to build a dual-core UP desktop than a single-core DP workstation.

Quote:
But...

I'm waiting for a TRUE Quadcore and most likely DDR3 ram before upgrading.


Intel's dual-die MCMs are hack jobs, but they're a good hack as opposed to an ugly one. They seem to work just fine and there would likely be little to gain in putting all cores on one die, with the possible exception to be able to use an IMC, which they don't use. That's one reason why AMD has to have monolithic multi-core chips, but I digress.

Quote:
I know you guys always say that you can wait forever since the next best thing is always around corner. My thinking is that I can just build a good computer and not even touch it for a few years and it'll still be "current" enough to run most things. I know guys still running P4's w/ agp radeon 9800s and are happy (though their games look like $%#& compared to newer set ups).


I wait until my current machine is not cutting it anymore and I have the money to upgrade. I couldn't care less what else is out there or how much faster it is than what I have, unless it's needed and the right price.

Quote:
A quadcore for 530 (Q6600) is excellent. If you need a fast computer and don't mind dropping 500 bucks, GO GET IT! I would rather have something thats a true quad core and not 2 C2Ds glued together.

Maybe I'm nuts. :lol: 


You're not nuts. That would be an excellent machine for me to get if I were buying one today as that's the cheapest speed out there for my uses (it would more than halve build times compared to my X2 4200+.) But it wouldn't be that great of a choice for most people right now as it's darn expensive and games won't run any faster on that than they would on a $320 E6600. Not to mention than the E6600 is a whole lot cooler.

I'm personally looking at the roadmaps to see what's out there 2010-ish. My guess is my next machine will be 32nm and have at least 8 cores at 3 GHz (drool)
February 26, 2007 4:08:01 AM

Believe it or not, I built my new setup just about a month ago, well after C2D was released. My old setup was a Socket A system and it was never enough for what I wanted it to do. My new System will last me at least a couple of years and is quite powerful, it does everything I want it to as fast as I need it to. And by going with Socket 939 I was able to use the same RAM that I already had and save about $200 (and a good S939 mobo is also a bit cheaper than a good intel board ATM).

Cost aside I would have gone C2D, but some of us have to budget our hard earned money :wink:
February 26, 2007 4:42:28 AM

Still on the pre-C3D wagon. Money plays the biggest part seeing as I couldn't finish studying (and get a better job now) due to my parent's financial status at that time. I don't blame them though. I really would love one but other things are more important in my life at the moment.
February 26, 2007 5:33:09 AM

Quote:
--- the 'glued' approach will provide ever as much benefit as a monolithic approach but simply appears less elegant.


I keep thinking about the Barcelona's shared L3 cache when this is brought up. If an application is aware that cache is shared across all cores, then multiple threads of a single application on separate cores requiring access to shared resources can be much much much faster. This is not possible in all cases on the glued approach. But does it really matter? I believe the application must be aware of this fact; and I don't believe many apps exist today or in the near future that will take specific advantage of it. Most apps are coded as CPU generic rather than CPU specific.


Quote:
Regardless, if Intel brings a 3.2 GHz or so glued quad and it out performs an AMD monolithic, would that mean you will still choose the lower performing quad simply because it is glued?


Heck no... Go for the better performer; or performance/watt. :) 


Quote:
It is one thing to get interested and caught up in the details of the architectural make up... but in the end it is the performance that counts.... AMD and Intel use different approaches to accomplish the same thing --- as C2D is showing, one may be touted as superior (i.e. HT and IMC), but it is the older 'less elegant' technology that is winning. Interesting.


Currently the C2D has the newer and more elegant technology in its uArch. You sound as if K10 is out and already lost the race. You still may be right... but it is a little premature. :wink:
February 26, 2007 6:22:50 AM

A customer with a 750 thunderbird asked if I could build them a new system for $800 canadian ($650us).
I suggested they dump the 14 inch monitor, and that other than that, they wouldn't notice much difference.
She said do it anyhow.
It's not enough to get a dual core here, but she got an A64 3500 system, and a nice new 17 inch samsung lcd monitor .
They love the monitor, but cant see much difference between the two systems.
February 26, 2007 6:35:44 AM

I built my C2D setup last September. I was originally going to build an X2-3800 rig (built one for a friend earlier that year) but when I heard about Intel's new chips I impatiently waited another six months.

If you are building a system from scratch, you're a fanboy if you don't pick the best performing side. I am really glad I waited for the C2D because I'm running a safe 40% OC on my E6400 to sit at 3Ghz.

AMD should be able to turn the tables with K8L, and when they do you should build an AMD rig. If they don't actually turn the tables though, why buy their chips? I like to spend my money wisely.

Don't cry about upgrades on either side. You'll never build a system that can swap parts to match the new toys a few years down the road. Euthanasia is how technology rolls.

I sold my Willamette P4 setup for $300 to a friend - equivalent to pulling the plug on grandpa.
February 26, 2007 7:59:48 AM

Last years tax return got me an opty 165 with a new Mobo and and x1900 All in Wonder card. I decided at the time I didn't want to wait for C2D because it wasn't worth it for me to do a platform refresh and switch to DDR2 memory when I already had a nice 2Gig set of DDR.

More than that though, my Rig does everything I need (gaming, design work, video encoding, etc) at acceptable speeds or better. I have no reason to upgrade now, and, as much as it kills me, probably won't this time until I am forced to by complete obsolescence or hardware failure.

If I were upgrading today, I would definitely go C2D, even though my last three chips were AMD (they were all the better performers at the time. I had the privilege of finding out that most P4s sucked right when they first launched). By the time I get around to upgrading again, who knows? I'll have to look at the comparison at that time. Intel's quad cores are nice, but I also like the concept behind torrenza, and am eager to see if it pans out into something useful.
February 26, 2007 8:15:33 AM

Quote:
It is one thing to get interested and caught up in the details of the architectural make up... but in the end it is the performance that counts.... AMD and Intel use different approaches to accomplish the same thing --- as C2D is showing, one may be touted as superior (i.e. HT and IMC), but it is the older 'less elegant' technology that is winning. Interesting.


Currently the C2D has the newer and more elegant technology in its uArch. You sound as if K10 is out and already lost the race. You still may be right... but it is a little premature. :wink:

The current AMD 64s technically have the "newer" technology of the IMC and HyperTransport, since Core2Duo is technically just an improved Pentium M with more instructions per clock. AMD and Intel have reached their gains is different ways, and obviously each one touts their as best. Last round, AMD was right, and Intel went back to one of their older technologies and vastly improved on it for their current flagship product.
February 26, 2007 8:52:48 AM

I just built my e4300 C2D after 4 years of using a home-built AMD Duron set-up, so you can see my need for an upgrade hahaha -- started off as an Athlon but that burnt up in 2 months at factory clock. My old computer actually served me very well, and it had some solid hardware (2 CDRs, Audigy Platinum, a couple hefty Hds, and an ok NVIDIA video card). It took me through my last couple years of college, and has been a great aid to many of my hobbies since. The heat sink did sound like a friggin jet engine though, ahahaha.
Now that I'm doing more music and video stuff, it was time for a real beefy system. I can see myself using this one for another 4-5 years; so, for me, it is all about application. I could give a crap about the silly AMD vs Intel debates (hardware will always improve all around), and I only care if what I have is working for me or not. I understand that things change in the face of competition, and I appreciate the evolution thereby, but I'd rather spend my time using my computer than arguing to someone else about how much better it is than the other's. So yeah, I upgrade according to my applications.
February 26, 2007 10:11:13 AM

I'll be upgrading when i need to. Currently my desktop has a 3800+ x2, the performance is still really good, only let down is my x1600 pro in that system.

However recently i purchased a new laptop for Uni, so i when with teh best architecture (obvious reasons). I am amazed by how good the core 2 duo is, my next upgrade will be to replace teh T5500 with a T7600, in a year or 2 when teh warenty runs out. and my next upgrade for my desktop will be to a C2d system, unless teh K10 is just as good (fell better haveing ATI (my x1600) in an AMD system).
February 26, 2007 10:24:56 AM

I'm still pre C2D. I recently upgraded CPU from an Opteron 144 to an Opteron 180.
The main reason I didn't go C2D was that it was a fairly cost effective upgrade, even if the 180 doesn't have the price/performance ratio the 165/170/175s have, as I didnt have to also buy a new motherboard and 2gb of DDR2.
February 26, 2007 10:44:56 AM

I dont have a C2D yet.
However, my next purchase will be C2D-based. Im actually only waiting for nVidias G80 mobile chips.
February 26, 2007 10:51:50 AM

Money.

That's why I'm still stuck with AXP 2400+ and a 4 years old 64 MB Radeon 9000 (non-Pro)
February 26, 2007 11:32:53 AM

Quote:
The current AMD 64s technically have the "newer" technology of the IMC and HyperTransport, since Core2Duo is technically just an improved Pentium M with more instructions per clock. AMD and Intel have reached their gains is different ways, and obviously each one touts their as best. Last round, AMD was right, and Intel went back to one of their older technologies and vastly improved on it for their current flagship product.


Silly me... I thought the AMD 64s have had the IMC and HyperTransport before the C2D was even available to purchase. True, the C2D is "based" on the Pentium M, that does not imply that it is not a new uArch -- Don't tell that to the guys that designed it. :wink:

So, at least to me it still sounds like C2D is newer tech.
February 26, 2007 11:53:41 AM

well, they did have 3 years to come out with a truly amazing product. (the amd fanboy part of me speaking) :) 
a c 96 à CPUs
February 26, 2007 12:20:40 PM

Quote:
A 'true' vs 'glued' is somewhat psychological. A MCP approach still puts 4 execution cores into the same socket, it scales as you would expect in software that supports multithreaded --- i.e. see valve's particle benchmarks between dual and quad core.

The pentium 4 was slapped together to make a dual core which had 4 discrete L2 caches, a FSB interconnect cohering all 4 caches, and a poor architecture.... the core uArch is significantly better, only two L2 cache pools to cohere, and a signficantly faster FSB interconnect --- the 'glued' approach will provide ever as much benefit as a monolithic approach but simply appears less elegant.


The Pentium D was made of two Pentium 4 dies as you say, and the NetBurst architecture was less than optimal. But, the Core 2 Quadro is made and runs in exactly the same manner as the Pentium D. Both have two discrete dies, each with its own separate L2 cache, and both caches need to be made coherent over the FSB. The Pentium Ds did *not* have 4 L2 caches to cohere over a single FSB- 4 L2s means 4 cores. Two Xeon DP Paxvilles did have to cohere 4 L2s over the same shared FSB, but that's not a Pentium D. The FSB of the average Pentium D was 800 MHz while the average Core 2 Duo FSB is 1066 MHz, but there are 1066 MHz Pentium Ds (955EE and 965EE) as well as 800 MHz FSB Core 2 Duos (E4300.) If I remember correctly, the 1066 and 800 Pentium Ds and Core 2 Duos did not perform all that differently clock-for-clock.

Quote:
Regardless, if Intel brings a 3.2 GHz or so glued quad and it out performs an AMD monolithic, would that mean you will still choose the lower performing quad simply because it is glued? This is like choosing an X2 today because it has an IMC and C2D does not, yet C2D outperforms in most circumstances.

It is one thing to get interested and caught up in the details of the architectural make up... but in the end it is the performance that counts.... AMD and Intel use different approaches to accomplish the same thing --- as C2D is showing, one may be touted as superior (i.e. HT and IMC), but it is the older 'less elegant' technology that is winning. Interesting.


I think you mean "still choose the lower-performing quad because it is monolithic?" There are a few advantages of having a monolithic core, but they more have to deal with multiple power planes and adjustability than performance. The K10 is able to clock each core independently of each other, so it can vary power consumption better with load than a MCM chip, which has to do "all or nothing" when it comes to varying clock speed. But most of us enthusiasts don't care much about that, so in the end, you're right- performance and price are the only things that matter. If you run a big server farm, different story, and this is an area in which AMD holds the crown, and rightly so. Different areas of usage have different needs, and no one chip design is generally going to satisfy them all.
February 26, 2007 12:23:29 PM

For me, the choice was money. I had the money but, to do the complete upgrade it was going to cost me 1,100 ( that's including my new 20.1 widescreen that I was not willing to wait for ) vs. spending just 600 for the system I have now wich I really do like. This past year I got into PCs and bought my fist mobo witch is a asus p4p800-e deluxe and was running it with a 6200oc 256mb PCI card and life was hell! Just thought it was a real shame to by this mobo to never experience what AGP runs like. And hell I already have 2gigs of ram to boot. So it just made more sense for me to do a small upgrade for what I got and wait two years after I've bought me a house for my family and then act a damn fool when it comes to spending some riches and the gaming pc I really want to build. That's just my take!
February 26, 2007 1:10:55 PM

I'm simply waiting, but the more current games that i keep getting, the more impatient i become.

I'm still using an AXP +3000 @ 2.1 w/ 2x1GB ddr400 @ 2-3-2-5 on a stock AGP 7800GS because the damn settings wont stay overclocked, although i can get it to sit at 500/1500 stable.

I'm waiting for hellgate london to really upgrade just because i want all the eye candy for that game and i suppose there will be better hardware out by then but i'm honestly only waiting for R600 just to compare which one is better. Despite who comes out on top, AMD AFAIK won't have anything until close to next year, so i'll be having a C2D for my next build. I already have DDR2-800 that o/c's to 900 on 2.1v @ 4-4-4-12, i've yet to see how far i can take it though cause i dont have a DDR2 system!! hehe
February 26, 2007 1:33:22 PM

I'm still pre-C2D for a couple reasons.

First of all, money was a factor. I had a s939 system with a newcastle 3500+, 2 gigs of DDR500, and an x850xt. I chose to get an opteron 165 dual core and overclock it to 2.7ghz (50% increase) which is basically a FX-61 (between fx-60 and fx-62). According to Tom's benchmarks, this puts it at the about the same performance as an E6600 at stock clocks, give or take a couple percentage points depending on the benchmark. If I had chosen to buy a C2D, I'd have had to buy new RAM (DDR2 is slower than good DDR 90% of the time anyways, so I'd feel like I was wasting money for no good reason) and a new motherboard also.

Second reason is, I don't really see such a drastic performance increase to justify all the money and work it would take to transform my pc in a c2dpc. Have to reinstall windows, pay a lot more money, and spend a day changing out parts, cleaning heatsinks, testing for stability, etc. etc. All for maybe a 20% increase in performance? That is assuming the C2D is overclocked, which would mean I'd probably need to get a new HSF combo too.

Third reason is, I think the name "Core 2 Duo" is the lamest name for a processor I've ever seen! I mean, come on, use a little more imagination when naming your next processors Intel...

All that being said, I do like the potential I see in the next generation of processors from both Intel and AMD, and I'm particularly excited about the Nehalem core, 8 cores with hyperthreading for 16 threads at a time?!?! High K metal dialectric gates and all this other fancy stuff that I don't really know anything about still sounds pretty exciting to me, and I am glad to see the processor industry taking leaps and bounds after several years of marginal improvements.
February 26, 2007 2:21:36 PM

AXP 2500+ OC to 2.2(3200+)
Nforce2 MB
512 DDR
ATI 9600 AIW
2x 7200 80GB WD Drives
:evil:  :oops: 


I currently have the money to get a new C2D but I am waiting on K10 to see if it will be as good as it is said to be. Which ever is the fastest of the two I will buy.

At least I know that what ever I get I will tell a difference in performance :D 
February 26, 2007 2:23:07 PM

Quote:
Money.

That's why I'm still stuck with AXP 2400+ and a 4 years old 64 MB Radeon 9000 (non-Pro)

^AXP 2800+ and a 4 year old 128MB 9800Pro

Besides that... ditto.
February 26, 2007 2:40:54 PM

Quote:
A 'true' vs 'glued' is somewhat psychological. A MCP approach still puts 4 execution cores into the same socket, it scales as you would expect in software that supports multithreaded --- i.e. see valve's particle benchmarks between dual and quad core.

The pentium 4 was slapped together to make a dual core which had 4 discrete L2 caches, a FSB interconnect cohering all 4 caches, and a poor architecture.... the core uArch is significantly better, only two L2 cache pools to cohere, and a signficantly faster FSB interconnect --- the 'glued' approach will provide ever as much benefit as a monolithic approach but simply appears less elegant.

Regardless, if Intel brings a 3.2 GHz or so glued quad and it out performs an AMD monolithic, would that mean you will still choose the lower performing quad simply because it is glued? This is like choosing an X2 today because it has an IMC and C2D does not, yet C2D outperforms in most circumstances.

It is one thing to get interested and caught up in the details of the architectural make up... but in the end it is the performance that counts.... AMD and Intel use different approaches to accomplish the same thing --- as C2D is showing, one may be touted as superior (i.e. HT and IMC), but it is the older 'less elegant' technology that is winning. Interesting.

Jack


I think the point of having "true" is power management. If a true quad core is doing very little work, only one core is being used. Vs. glued quad-core where 2 cores are always doing something. But in a high-CPU load, this doesn't matter.
OK, performance matters. If the gluded quad is faster, I'll buy the gluded quad. If the performance is the same, I'll rather have the more elegant true quad.
February 26, 2007 2:41:45 PM

I'm waiting for more funds before I buy another pc... and even so, I'll go with whatever is better in terms of performance, and that applies to every component in my pc, CPU, GPU, memory, hard-drive, etc.

The PC i have is a Socket 939 4200+ OC'ed at 2.4Ghz, with a X1900XT and 2 GB of low latency RAM. It's all I need at the moment, and since it runs Supreme Commander nicely enough, I can't complain. C2D? I don't need it at the moment, and though I know its good, I'll stick with my current pc. I'm waiting out to see if Barcelona is any good, because if it is, then I'm going AMD with my next pc, if not, Intel and its C2Q. Simple.
February 26, 2007 3:35:05 PM

I am pre C2D since I bought my system before it was released. It was just a matter of timing really. Not so long ago I built a rig for my wife and she got a 6400. Son his pretty much due for a new rig and will surely get a C2D as well.
a c 80 à CPUs
February 26, 2007 3:44:09 PM

Well if my present system couldn't do everything I need it to do then building a newer would be a possible thought, we're talking a few FPS, or a minute or 2 longer to burn a DVD, convert an MP3, its just not worth jumping on the C2D band wagon.

Benchmark wise, with my present machine OC'd some of what you guys are bragging about scorewise is barely above what I'm getting right now, so its not like my rig is a Model T in comparison, so I don't see the need to build a machine thats only a percentage better.

Present AMDs can be OC'd too, along with video cards Etc.

And just presently out of my own curiosity seemingly most Intel fanatics have AMD dead and buried passing out flyers to the funeral but AMD is a Phoenix and I believe its far from over.

So the big question for myself is, does my present setup do what I need, and the answer is yes, so I'll wait for the Phoenix to rise, and when she does, and AMD retakes the speed crown, I'll be laughing my ass off !!!

If that day doesn't come then I'll regretfully build a new, but if I honestly look at Intel and AMD as far as my past history with both companies is concerned, I've yet to get a bad AMD CPU, but I cannot say that about Intel.

But like I've already said, my machine does what I need it to do, theres no reason to build another.
February 26, 2007 4:02:11 PM

Intels next architecture is going to be native quad-core.
February 26, 2007 4:16:27 PM

As soon as I could I upgraded my main desktop from an A64 3700+ to an E6600 and my linux box from an A64 3000+ to a E6400. No sense in staying in the back of the heap.
February 26, 2007 4:45:25 PM

Northwood 2.8, with 2 gig of ram, x800xl..

stuck there for the past 2 yrs, will be for quite some time to come, unless someone craps a golden egg in my general direction.

it boils down to money, and I am pretty sure most of us who haven't yet upgraded will attest to that being the main (or at least very high up the list of reasons) why we havent yet.

Here I am building core 2's and X2's all day long, and I am stuck with a damn northwood.. sigh
February 26, 2007 5:15:24 PM

How about a p4 Prescott 3.06 Bottom dweller. :lol: 

Just waiting for the octo-core opteron processors to make my build! :lol: 


_________________
No matter where you go or what you do, you live your entire life within the confines of your head”. ~Terry Josephson
February 26, 2007 5:29:45 PM

I am pre-Core2.

My reasons are mostly money and need.

I don't have much money so I tend to wait until I can find a steal to buy.

I don't generally have a need for more comp power.

My AMD XP 2600+ is plenty powerful for what I am doing right now.
I can't game much because for an extremely poor and a very busy college student, but what I am interested in was starting to demand too much from my system.
In the 18 months I have upgraded from 1 GB to 2 GB and my Ti4600 to a 7600GS.

The memory was mostly for vanity reasons but I do tend to do a lot of intensive multitasking. My old video card would have been fine for everything I do except it was Direct X 8.0 based and Direct X 9.0c is starting to make its way into things I do have time for.

I might not get Core2 Duo when it comes time to upgrade. It will depend on what is avaliable at the time. I am currently looking at the possibility of doing a total system replacement about the middle of the year.
February 26, 2007 5:45:34 PM

I have no need for a faster processor. In fact, I could always go for a aftermarket cooler and take my Opty farther than I have for about $40-60.

The ony upgrade I see myself doing through the next 12 months is perhaps a GPU, PSU, and OS upgrade. That alone would break my bank, and as long as I stay away from heavy video encoding and other such processor-intense applications, I'll be happy.
February 26, 2007 5:49:14 PM

I am pre-Core2.

I guess I could buy new, but my wife could kill me for spending the money. She was pissed when I upgraded last year. My old system was an XP 2400 with a 4400ti (with busted fan). My new system is a Athlon 64 3000+ Venice core (939) running at stock speads 1.8ghz. I have a PCI-E 6600 GT a gig of RAM and 250 GB hd. I just had to replace the MB since the old one crapped out I think because of the power supply., Replaced it with a 500w.

My plan for upgrading is to put a new 939 cpu, x2 4800, I'm hoping prices will be dirt cheap by the end of the year. Buy a new video card, don't know if I'll get a cheap one or splurge since this will be the only part that will be able to be reused on a new build, and I guess waste $80 on another gig of ram. I can always sell the ddr on ebay when I build new.

Currently running dual booting Vista and Xp 64 bit for games.
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2007 5:53:56 PM

I'm in the pre-c2d camp. The way I figure it tho, with my current set up, I figure it'll last another 1.5-2 years before apps and games force an overhaul and upgrade. If necessary, I can pick up 2 dual core optys for quad core and upgrade to a DX10 gpu when they become more mainstream, plus the fact that my mobo is SLI capable, I'm not too worried. The only thing that might cause me to upgrade sooner is the memory, my mobo only supports DDR. :cry:  If they actually get DDR3 onto mobos, that would probably do it. I'm not terribly impressed by DDR2.

The title of this thread seems to imply that you're not "with it" if you've got less than c2d. Based on the poll results, the majority of posts are pre-c2d. If those are the pre-c2d numbers from an enthusiast website, then it verifies the rest of the computing world is still be running P4's and AthlonXP's.
February 26, 2007 6:09:14 PM

4.2ghz D930 and 3.7ghz Northwood FTW!
February 26, 2007 6:14:55 PM

Quote:
I dont have a C2D yet.
However, my next purchase will be C2D-based. Im actually only waiting for nVidias G80 mobile chips.
I think you may be waiting awhile; it's hard to imagine even a 65nm revision of the G80 meeting mobile GPU power requirements so it's likely the number of shaders will have to be cut down. I cannot deny however, I'd love to have a Go 8800GTX in my next laptop if possible.

As to the poll, I'm running on a dated Socket 939 Athlon X2 4800+ mildly overclocked.
February 26, 2007 6:16:53 PM

Quote:

As to the poll, I'm running on a dated Socket 939 Athlon X2 4800+ mildly overclocked.


Yes....very dated :p 
February 26, 2007 6:25:38 PM

Still pre-C2D. Actually I'm still pre-X2 too! haha my p4 1.8 is chugging away still.
But I'm hoping to get a C2D or quad at the end of May or so. Waiting for price cuts and hopefully some RAM price cuts too...

Just never really needed a dual core or it was too expensive. Or, in the case of the Pentium D's, it wasn't worth it. But now w/ video rendering, audio work, I'm itching to upgrade.
February 26, 2007 6:54:53 PM

Quote:

As to the poll, I'm running on a dated Socket 939 Athlon X2 4800+ mildly overclocked.


Yes....very dated :p It's so slow, sometimes I just can't take it. :wink:
February 26, 2007 7:01:37 PM

Quote:

The title of this thread seems to imply that you're not "with it" if you've got less than c2d. Based on the poll results, the majority of posts are pre-c2d. If those are the pre-c2d numbers from an enthusiast website, then it verifies the rest of the computing world is still be running P4's and AthlonXP's.


Don't forget the 64s
February 26, 2007 7:23:51 PM

The Core2 microarchitecture is a smashing success and makes a good foundation for killer PC's.

That being said, I had the need to migrate from an 8 year old machine to a new PC early in the summer and I didn't want to wait for Intel. Am I said? Hell no! My 939 X2 4200+ runs silky smooth @ 2.2, faster @ 2.5, and really fast @ 2.8 when the time comes that I want that type ofspeed.. Paired with a X1900CE (sold the XTX), I get frames galore on a 19" widescreen monitor.

Will I build C2Duo? Probably never. My rig will hold me safely through college and do everything that I need. If I get desperate for a new GPU than I can save money for that.
!