An exclusive gaming industry community targeted
to, and designed for Professionals, Businesses
and Students in the sectors and industries
of Gaming, New Media and the Web, all closely
related with it's Business and Industry.
A Rich content driven service including articles,
contributed discussion, news, reviews, networking, downloads,
and debate.
We strive to cater for cultural influencers,
technology decision makers, early adopters and business leaders in the gaming industry.
A medium to share your or contribute your ideas,
experiences, questions and point of view or network
with other colleagues here at iVirtua Community.
I'm interested in seeing that new quad core that Sony, IBM and Toshiba have been working on. It's said to smoke anything that we've seen in recent years or hope to see from AMD or INTEL. Imagine that...a new contender in CPU's...it'll rock.
As for what is better, AMD or INTEL..to each his own.
I think INTEL is a little too expensive for what they offer.
I remember just a few years ago, a buddy of mine purchased a computer from Dell with all of the bells and whistles--running an Intel as fast as was available at the time. I purchased an Abit Board along with an AMD XP chip--and we benchmarked them.
For the most part, I spanked his hiney...and for significantly less than his machine cost. :ph43r:
Experts believe that Intel will beat AMD to dual core.
Topic pinned.
Currently Intel is using ONE FSB for there Dual Core CPU's. This alone is a bottleneck which will most likely cause system stalls. Intel will try & eliminate this bottleneck by increasing the L2 cache, just to make the Cores are consistently feed with info.
AMD's Dual Core looks quite promising thanks to there HTT, so this will sure be a new competition beyond competition.
Dual Core's will probably \"NOT\" be better @ multi-tasking. They will be 100%+ better with \"ONLY\" Multi-Threaded\" app's, games & programs.
We cannot confuse what Multi-Tasking is & what Multi-Threading is. Both are 100% Completely different things.
I've seen reviews which showed hardly an improvement with Intel's new EE Dual Core CPU's vs. there P4 660 series. With Multi-Tasking, it's there lengthier pipelines which give them better performance.
AMD?s Athlon 64 3500+ was benchmarked against Intel?s currently fastest Dual Core CPU called Pentium D & Extreme Edition, well the AMD killed in gaming performance & in many other benchmarks, but when they benchmarked with Multi-Threaded games & programs, the Dual Core took the cake by far. That is the difference.
Expect AMD?s Dual Core CPU?s to out perform by far Intel?s Dual Core CPU?s. Intel?s Dual Core?s are suffering due to a single FSB feeding both CPU?s. That is a terrible design, so Intel increased the L2 cache to try & relieve the bottlenecks caused my both CPU?s fighting over the FSB.
Dual Core CPU's are all going to be Over Priced & Intel will advertise to make you think you need it right now, where as \"YOU DO NOT NEED Dual Core Right Now\"
Don't worry, by the time AMD comes out with there Super Dual Core Desktop CPU's there will be a lot more \"Multi-Threaded\" Games & Programs coming out I hope.
Single Core CPU = Single Threaded App's. Dual Core CPU = Multi-Threaded App's. (Most of the time, one CPU would do all the work while the other sits @ idle & generate loads of heat to your diss-advantage i.e.: Intel Dual Core CPU's are doing just that)
AMD is looking better @ Dual Core everyday I'd say.
Digg Topic
Tag topic on On del.icio.us
Technorati Search
Post to Slashdot
