Multitasking CPU'S
- Thread starter markstit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Running more than one thing at once? A game and a antivirus scan? Then the quad 2.4, most games support multi core use.
If you want more speed then the dual. I have a 2.4 quad (Qu6600) and it multitasks fine. The tradeoff is that it has 2 more cores but at lower clockspeeds, make sense?
If you want more speed then the dual. I have a 2.4 quad (Qu6600) and it multitasks fine. The tradeoff is that it has 2 more cores but at lower clockspeeds, make sense?
Any processor will do multiple tasks at once, it's called process management. The more CPU's the better, the more cores in a CPU the better (actually this can be not true depending on some of the other hardware but we'll go with it for a generic).
I regularly play Dawn of War or C&C or FEAR while surfing the web on the other screen - on a single core AMD 2.4.
I regularly play Dawn of War or C&C or FEAR while surfing the web on the other screen - on a single core AMD 2.4.
Intels I 7 per-chance?KaZZaP said:
I've got a AMD 6000+ dc chip and my work mate is running some intel quad, his can handle a heap more than mine can without struggling...which he keeps bragging about -.-
Mobo wise...I know the Gigabyte G31M-ES2L is a pretty nifty board.
and that will be many £££££KaZZaP said:
I myself have a Q6600 with GOStepping, Don't get the B2 one.
Great thing about the Q6600 you can overclock it to about 3.2GHz on the stock cooling fan some mad people have overclocked it to about 4.5GHz if i remember right
but I say just go for Q6600
Or, more likely, Intel's i7 chip. However, that costs a fortune at the moment. Enough to warrant an upgrade to something lower for the time being.Zeeky_Santos said:
Seriously, the cheapest socket 1366 motherboard is about £200! On top of that they need DDR3 RAM and more power.
On topic, though, go for the Q6600 with G0 stepping. It's the next thing I'm going to
Really, though the Athlon 64 X2 @ 3GHZ I have now is enough to play a game and surf the web at the same time. It's dual core. I think one of the above posts explained this well.
No-one. He can't say he's professional either, they use Quadro cards.Zeeky_Santos said:
God. He sounds loaded, can he send me his old rig, It's probably miles better than my current one
I did some pricing on the i7 a month ago, and came up with a pretty sweet rig for under a grand. I was going to buy it in May when my current PC turns 3 years old. I did just see Intel announce an i5 which is supposed to be 3 quad cores strapped together for release in October. I'm planning on waiting until then to get the i7 because I'm sure thats going to drive the price down.
Also there aren't a lot of i7 mobos out there right now. That drove the price up a bit
One word on AMDs: Cheap. And a few more words: My brother is a huge AMD fanboy and I can see why. The dollar-to-performance ratio is great on AMDs if you are gaming. All the benchmarks at Tomshardware.com shows the AMD performing superbly for its price. However, the AMDs were falling flat on their face when it came to pure number crunching. Whether it was video compression (xvid) or file compression (winrar), Intel was far, FAR superior. I do a lot of that stuff, so I'm going to stick with Intel for now.
I think AMD did release a new line of processors since I looked at those charts. Something might have changed.
Also there aren't a lot of i7 mobos out there right now. That drove the price up a bit
One word on AMDs: Cheap. And a few more words: My brother is a huge AMD fanboy and I can see why. The dollar-to-performance ratio is great on AMDs if you are gaming. All the benchmarks at Tomshardware.com shows the AMD performing superbly for its price. However, the AMDs were falling flat on their face when it came to pure number crunching. Whether it was video compression (xvid) or file compression (winrar), Intel was far, FAR superior. I do a lot of that stuff, so I'm going to stick with Intel for now.
I think AMD did release a new line of processors since I looked at those charts. Something might have changed.
most people don't have a big need for multicore cpu's. most programs aren't multithreaded and don't take advantage of the other cores or cpus in a chip/mb
get the one that's the best value
get the one that's the best value
SLI boards can support 2 or 3 separate cards in SLI, but no more than 4 individual GPUs at the same time. Since the 295 is a dual-GPU card, it's possible to use two together (2 GTX295s with 2 GPUs per card=Quad-SLI), but using 3 (6 GPUs total) is more than the hardware and drivers can handle. 3-card SLI is only possible with one GPU per card (3x GTX285s, for instance). nVidia's naming system sucks so bad...Zeeky_Santos said: