Would just like to throw in my 2 cents, and agree with Eggo. My Q6600 w/ Go Stepping is overclocked to 3.4 on air, and has been for 6 months now, at least.Eggo post=9.75061.856285 said:
But, so what? You do realize there's more to a processor then just Ghz, right?Zrahni post=9.75061.856449 said:
I do. I once rendered a two minute 30 second scene of just a stacked bunch of NURBS glasses that were only clear in Mental Ray. They were on a wood bar with some glasses in the background. I seem to remember using about 20 lights sources approximating normal sunlight in the afternoon(around 3PM). At the time I just had a normal single core processor. It took just over 6 days of watching lines of Rendering in Maya fly by. I would have died for a Quad-Core. I almost did not make my final because it too so damn long.Richard Groovy Pants post=9.75061.856475 said:
Thank you, after going to college I hope I know what I am talking about. LOL. Otherwise I wasted a truck load of cash. I work with Maya and ZBrush. ZBrush is another program that will eat Quad-Cores for breakfast. I get some model into the 15-20 million poly range. Even with a AMD Athalon X2 6400+ Black Edition Dual Core 3.2 Ghz processor and 8 GB of RAM is slows to a damn crawl. I NEED to get a Quad-Core.Richard Groovy Pants post=9.75061.856599 said:
I am wasting on this Dual-Core like there was no tomorrow.
Definitely dual cores- you see, most games (not all, but most) are just beginning to even fully utilize dual core technology. There are very few that take full advantage of more than two cores (Crysis Warhead and Far Cry 2 are ones that come off the top of my head). Also, if you have a high-end dual core system, you'll have a generally faster computer (as even operating systems don't take the biggest advantage of quad-core CPUs in my experience)...Richard Groovy Pants post=9.75061.855652 said:
No, no- I didn't mean it like that! A quad-core is certainly more versatile than a dual-core. I suppose what I was saying was that the multi-threading for games has only recently taken full advantage of dual-core technology, and there are few games at the present that fully exploit quad-cores (or triple-cores in the case of a few models of the AMD Phenoms).Eggo post=9.75061.856973 said:
An OC'd Dual Core will last just as long as your Quad Core, simply because we now have the situation were seriously powerful GPUs are having some of their spare processing power farmed out to task that would normally be the domain of the CPU.
The only real difference technically between them is that most quads use more power if I am correct. Both can overclock good and well the for the more power the quad uses it runs tasks better.Eggo post=9.75061.857189 said:
Not in Alan Wake! If I remember correctly...Not like it's out yet though.Zrahni post=9.75061.856449 said:
In 90% of tasks it won't since a similar priced dual core will come out of the box with a higher clockspeed, will OC to a higher clock speed and require less cooling to do so. Before you can say it will leave a Dual Core in the dust, with reference to the OP's post, you need to know what the OP is going to use it for. I am willing to bet that the OP is going to do what most people do, game, internet, watch movies, listen to music and maybe a bit of work on their PC certainly nothing that really justifies forking out for a Quad Core.
I understand your point, Eggo. I suppose most of this arguing is dual-core users trying to justify why they don't have quad-core processors yet (I'm guilty!)...Eggo post=9.75061.857609 said:
A 2.4Ghz quad is actually cheaper then a 3.0GHz when I checked newegg last.Eggo post=9.75061.857609 said:
