I am so confused now

[Guest]

Hello everyone! I am still extraordinarily confused on what processor to get now. For some reason I have stuck in my head that getting a dual core NOW would be a silly idea. It seems as the future will press on that more and more games will begin to utilize Quad Cores, so why would I get a dual core if really soon they will just be outdated? If games do begin to implement quads, would say the E8400 or E8500 be not near as useful as other quads like the i7s?

So I guess my question is this. Is it safe to go with a dual core now if I plan on using it for 2+ years? OR. Should I spend the money now to get myself the new i7 or even say a Q9400?

 

[V3NOM]

for 2+ years, grab an i7 920 and hope its not outdated completely by 16 cores in two years :lol:

 

[eric54]

dont worry, once we hit 16 cores we'll hit a memory wall. Chances are the powers that be will be working hard on solving that problem long before we get to 16. Point is, should be a solid 4-5 years before we see 16 core mainstream. Get a quadcore now, i7's are teh shiznit so get on it. Because it will be a looooong time, if at all, get to that many cores.

 

[Guest]

Hello everyone! I am still extraordinarily confused on what processor to get now. For some reason I have stuck in my head that getting a dual core NOW would be a silly idea. It seems as the future will press on that more and more games will begin to utilize Quad Cores, so why would I get a dual core if really soon they will just be outdated? If games do begin to implement quads, would say the E8400 or E8500 be not near as useful as other quads like the i7s?

So I guess my question is this. Is it safe to go with a dual core now if I plan on using it for 2+ years? OR. Should I spend the money now to get myself the new i7 or even say a Q9400?

HA HA HAAAAA! this really cracked me up! i know this people are GHz-Nuts! i was looking for a processor thats good on a long run not for a year or two and then............................ "don't go for the quad its old and worthless" "dont go for the duo unless you are only planing to game!" "think about the frame rate!"oh its insane! i was thinking about q6600 and e8400 and omg! i had no idea what i have put mu self in to! blood,cursing,pc parts and fist's everywhere and everyone with a "GOOD" point with witch one to go, soooo i still cant decide what to do....CONFUSED!

 

[V3NOM]

dont worry, once we hit 16 cores we'll hit a memory wall. Chances are the powers that be will be working hard on solving that problem long before we get to 16. Point is, should be a solid 4-5 years before we see 16 core mainstream. Get a quadcore now, i7's are teh shiznit so get on it. Because it will be a looooong time, if at all, get to that many cores.

err it was a joke. but actually it may not be so long... theres already 800 cores in ATI graphics cards, and eventually the cpu will be either replaced or assimiliated.
the only reason theres so few cpu cores at the moment is because there are so many single threaded apps. 16 cores running at 3GHz will be faster than 8 cores running at 5GHz in multi threaded apps..

 

[V3NOM]

lol "640KB of RAM ought to be enough for anyone" :lol:

 

[blackpanther26]

you don't need a Qaud-Core like the other 95% of the world. It'snice but more than likly it'll take a couple more years for most games to write the threads in to take advantage of a quad.

 

[N@n0]

if i was you id go for the i7, cause when windows 7 is released you'll be sorted in the cpu depertment, it will be able to use the cpu's features...

theres already 800 cores in ATI graphics cards, and eventually the cpu will be either replaced or assimiliated.

umm, according to intel's road map they are going to integrate the gpu into the cpu, deticateing a number of cores to graphics, a all in one solution...

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

First of all, not everything can be used for MT, sp 5ghz single could beat 3ghz MT. Also, we dont know how well Intels solution (larrabbee) will be, so combining the 2 is still up in the air. Eventually this is the road well have to take, its just will true gpus no longer be needed? No one knows that. AMD using a gpu alongside a cpu may prove out to be far superior, but again, no one knows for sure, its too early

 

[Guest]

this has gone out of the subject...

 

[rochin]

you don't need a Qaud-Core like the other 95% of the world. It'snice but more than likly it'll take a couple more years for most games to write the threads in to take advantage of a quad.

Fallout 3 and Left4Dead both take advantage of multi cores. So I would say that a couple more years is more like 6-8 months. Companies are offloading good functions to the extra cores to make the games run better. I would have to say that a quad is smarter idea than a dual core. It is more future proof and if you end up doing any video/audio encoding or editing, you will love your quad.

 

[Belinda]

Next couple of years only a few AAA are going to use multiple cores, two or more, all the rest are going to be as they been for years. If you have the cash to spend to get the best or want to run near the cutting edge get a quad. Bang for the buck king is still dual core.
By the time a few games are using 4 or more cores well these new i7's are going to be lowend. If your using apps that use two or more cores alot get the quad.
My advice save a good lump of cash, get a good dual then put what you saved towards a new PC in 18 monthsish.
Your never going to impress the neighbourhood kids with your Hal9000 PC but your always going to have a half decent PC while doing this while not burning a shed load of cash.