# First Intel Wolfdale Benchmarks



## Nyte (Aug 9, 2007)

The folks over at Project LAN have gotten their hands on the new Intel Wofldale CPU (6 MB L2 Cache). They compare it against the Intel Core2 Duo E6550 in several benchmarks ranging from games to system applications.

Also, take note of the 31% increase in performance for Half-Life 2.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 9, 2007)

mad .. pwnage?

do teh current 775 boards support wolfdale?


----------



## NinkobEi (Aug 9, 2007)

1024x768 resolution benchmarking. what the eff !


----------



## Grings (Aug 9, 2007)

whoa, 116% improvement in divx 6.6 (w/sse4) cool, and ninkobwi, cpu's show a bigger difference at lower res than at higher res


----------



## tvdang7 (Aug 9, 2007)

so this cpu is the same as the ones out now just 45nm and 6mb of cache right? man hl2 gets a big boost. im only on a 2mb right now...... maybe i should jump over.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 9, 2007)

TVdang - the CPU's in your sys specs/sig are only 512K cache, half a meg, not 2MB.

I've just ordered a Q6600 G0 w/ 8MB, lets hope i dont regret it when the 12MB cache quads come out.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 9, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> do teh current 775 boards support wolfdale?



???


----------



## OBR (Aug 9, 2007)

This is week old article, original is posted with many pictures on HKEPC!


----------



## tvdang7 (Aug 9, 2007)

Mussels said:


> TVdang - the CPU's in your sys specs/sig are only 512K cache, half a meg, not 2MB.
> 
> I've just ordered a Q6600 G0 w/ 8MB, lets hope i dont regret it when the 12MB cache quads come out.



my sig is like 2 years old. i have an e6300 right now.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 9, 2007)

OBR said:


> This is week old article, original is posted with many pictures on HKEPC!



Then don't read it.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Aug 9, 2007)

Ninkobwi said:


> 1024x768 resolution benchmarking. what the eff !



Lower resolutions prevent the videocard from being a bottleneck, therefor it is logical to benchmark a CPU that way.


----------



## metro (Aug 9, 2007)

Damn mates, look around those results come from HKEPC and are about 3 days old.


----------



## Grings (Aug 9, 2007)

it was news to me, which i wouldnt have known if someone hadnt posted it here, its not like theyve been released or anything


----------



## metro (Aug 9, 2007)

Grings said:


> it was news to me, which i wouldnt have known if someone hadnt posted it here, its not like theyve been released or anything



I'm not aguing that, im saying give credit to the real source you at least have to do that


----------



## OBR (Aug 9, 2007)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Then don't read it.


I dont Mr. nothing, i like stupid noobs like you are ...


----------



## mandelore (Aug 9, 2007)

OBR said:


> I dont Mr. nothing, i like stupid noobs like you are ...



huh?


----------



## breakfromyou (Aug 9, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> mad .. pwnage?
> 
> do teh current 775 boards support wolfdale?



They should. That's the whole point behind P35. DDR3, 1333 FSB support, and 45nm support.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Aug 9, 2007)

mandelore said:


> huh?



that is what i was thinking...


----------



## Wile E (Aug 9, 2007)

Easy Rhino said:


> that is what i was thinking...


Third that.

Did he just call dan a noob?


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 9, 2007)

metro said:


> I'm not aguing that, im saying give credit to the real source you at least have to do that



The thread starter gave credit to the source he got it from which I think is the point, if he had of got it from HKEPC I am sure he would have given them credit.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 9, 2007)

OBR said:


> I dont Mr. nothing, i like stupid noobs like you are ...



I can only assume from your comment that you dont consider yourself a noob then?  The comment Dan made did not insult you and yet you feel it appropriate to come into a thread that you now have said that you have not read and insult people, where I come from one of the definitions of a "noob" is one that insults others without even reading the thread through.....tolerance, patience and good manners cost little but it's things that most of us like to see from time to time in this forum.


----------



## jothy (Aug 9, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> mad .. pwnage?
> 
> do teh current 775 boards support wolfdale?



alot of p965 boards do also, with a bios flash.


----------



## error_f0rce (Aug 9, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> I can only assume from your comment that you dont consider yourself a noob then?  The comment Dan made did not insult you and yet you feel it appropriate to come into a thread that you now have said that you have not read and insult people, where I come from one of the definitions of a "noob" is one that insults others without even reading the thread through.....tolerance, patience and good manners cost little but it's things that most of us like to see from time to time in this forum.



Amen... 
LOL, Dan a noob... that's a good one


----------



## Tuk (Aug 9, 2007)

Looks like SSE4 makes a HUGE performance difference.

I wish they had compared Wolfdale to a Quad-Core CPU.

In any case, now I hope people see why buying an E6750 now and Yorkfield later is better than buying the Q6600 after the price drop (Yorkfield @ 4.2Ghz, 8 threads, 12MB). E6750 @ 4.0Ghz gives the same performance as the Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz (stock) until then anyway.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 9, 2007)

Tuk said:


> Looks like SSE4 makes a HUGE performance difference.
> 
> I wish they had compared Wolfdale to a Quad-Core CPU.
> 
> In any case, now I hope people see why buying an E6750 now and Yorkfield later is better than buying the Q6600 after the price drop (Yorkfield @ 4.2Ghz, 8 threads, 12MB). E6750 @ 4.0Ghz gives the same performance as the Q6600 @ 2.4Ghz (stock) until then anyway.


Yeah, but what if you OC the quad?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 9, 2007)

Wile E said:


> Yeah, but what if you OC the quad?



NO!  You are only allowed to overclock the Dual Core!  Considering overclocking with the Quad-Core would make his argument baseless, so you are not allowed to even consider it.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 9, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> NO!  You are only allowed to overclock the Dual Core!  Considering overclocking with the Quad-Core would make his argument baseless, so you are not allowed to even consider it.


----------



## error_f0rce (Aug 9, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> NO!  You are only allowed to overclock the Dual Core!  Considering overclocking with the Quad-Core would make his argument baseless, so you are not allowed to even consider it.



 ROTFLMAO...... can't...... stop....... laughing...... 

ok, better now.  no offense intended Tuk, but that was hysterical, I keep laughing every time I read it   newtekie is gonna get me fired if he keeps this up


----------



## Mussels (Aug 9, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> NO!  You are only allowed to overclock the Dual Core!  Considering overclocking with the Quad-Core would make his argument baseless, so you are not allowed to even consider it.



awww but i dont want to run my new G0 Q6600 at stock 


These new cores will be great, but the thing is - they arent available now. Sure, if you're building a system and you want it to last a few years then by all means, grab a celeron and OC it til it makes baby jesus cry while waiting on one of these babies but otherwise grab something decent today, and sell it off on ebay when the new ones become available


----------



## Darkrealms (Aug 9, 2007)

Thats a pretty nice performance gain.
Whats the timeframe difference on release from the 8mb cache and the 128mb cache chips?



Wile E said:


> Third that.
> 
> Did he just call dan a noob?



??          ??Wouldn't that make him a noob then??          ??



Ok, sorry I had to ;P  
Sorry *Tatty_One*, ty for the reasoning.


----------



## hat (Aug 9, 2007)

Buy a Celeron Conroe-L. IT'S A CONROE CPU WITH A DISABLED CORE :O :O :O :O :O
4GHz anyone?


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 9, 2007)

breakfromyou said:


> They should. That's the whole point behind P35. DDR3, 1333 FSB support, and 45nm support.



i have a 965 1333 ddr2 board .. would it?


----------



## driver66 (Aug 9, 2007)

Yes ira our board is compatible with the latest bios


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 9, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> i have a 965 1333 ddr2 board .. would it?



Not 965 based boards, the only boards out now that can support 45nm are P35 based.


----------



## jothy (Aug 9, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Not 965 based boards, the only boards out now that can support 45nm are P35 based.



Not true. Asus (surely more) has enabled 45nm support on numerous P965 boards. A bios flash is needed.

http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 9, 2007)

Abit AB9 Pro i gots ...


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 9, 2007)

jothy said:


> Not true. Asus (surely more) has enabled 45nm support on numerous P965 boards. A bios flash is needed.
> 
> http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/



 huh, then Intel got f*cked over


----------



## driver66 (Aug 9, 2007)

965 is an intel chipset  And yes they do support the 1333 fsb with a bios update

http://www.abit.com.tw/cpu-support-list/mb/intel_p965_ab9_series.htm
http://www2.abit.com.tw/page/en/dow...&pTITLE_ON_SCREEN=AB9+Pro&pSOCKET_TYPE=LGA775



[I.R.A]_FBi   The bios file you need is #919 in the second link


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 9, 2007)

jothy said:


> Not true. Asus (surely more) has enabled 45nm support on numerous P965 boards. A bios flash is needed.
> 
> http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/



And some Asus 650i boards also.


----------



## surfsk8snow.jah (Aug 9, 2007)

what about 680i boards?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 9, 2007)

The 680i boards support 45nm processors also.


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 9, 2007)

Man I'm so confused, I thought P35 was the only chipset that was going to support Penryn .


----------



## driver66 (Aug 9, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Man I'm so confused, I thought P35 was the only chipset that was going to support Penryn .



No need to bang your head i'll do it for u   and a  for kicks


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 9, 2007)

driver66 said:


> [I.R.A]_FBi   The bios file you need is #919 in the second link



done!


----------



## driver66 (Aug 9, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> done!


 Sweet!!!  Glad i could help.


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> NO!  You are only allowed to overclock the Dual Core!  Considering overclocking with the Quad-Core would make his argument baseless, so you are not allowed to even consider it.



That's not funny. If you read what I said you could have answered that question urself.

Yes, if you overclock the Quad-Core you will get better performance in the 1 or 2 games out that actually use more than 1 thread.

But first of all, you won't be able to overclock it above 3.4Ghz, unless you want to wait for a month till you can find the G0 version and then u may be able to get to 3.6Ghz.
Secondly, even if it was overclocked to 3.6Ghz, at this time, this would ONLY give you a performance imporovement over the 4.0Ghz E6750 in Lost Planet, which is at best, a crappy console port that you wouldn't be able to play well anyway. And EVERYTHING else would play a hell of a lot better on the E6750.

And thats beside the fact that buying the Q6600 now makes NO sense when you can get Yorkfield and overclock it to 4.2Ghhz and have twice the threads as the Q6600 AND 12 MB of cache. Not to mention u can do all this on the same motherboard as the E6750, so upgrading couldnt be easier, be it a 680i board or a P35 board.
It's true though, that waiting for X38 may be a better idea for some people. But it will only be launched after the summer is over so..


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 10, 2007)

where can i find out more about this "yorkdale" of which you speak?


----------



## metro (Aug 10, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> The thread starter gave credit to the source he got it from which I think is the point, if he had of got it from HKEPC I am sure he would have given them credit.



That website copied the numbers form HKEPC and published as their own:
http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?tid=837351&tp=Intel-Penryn-Preview&rid=837360

If you run a news website at least you have to look around, read Dailytech, The Inquirer, X-Bitblabs, Fudzilla all the most famous got the right source.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

metro said:


> That website copied the numbers form HKEPC and published as their own:
> http://www.hkepc.com/bbs/hwdb.php?tid=837351&tp=Intel-Penryn-Preview&rid=837360
> 
> If you run a news website at least you have to look around, read Dailytech, The Inquirer, X-Bitblabs, Fudzilla all the most famous got the right source.



I agree but a news poster cannot do a historical credit, as in credit his source then credit their source then credit their source and on and on, he can only credit where he found the info.


----------



## mandelore (Aug 10, 2007)

it depends, where you first read it from could also be classed as the source, for it was the source of your info, but thats getting a bit picky


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> That's not funny. If you read what I said you could have answered that question urself.
> 
> Yes, if you overclock the Quad-Core you will get better performance in the 1 or 2 games out that actually use more than 1 thread.
> 
> ...



Your facts are flawed in some area's I am afraid.  In no particular order, The G0 stepping is quite readily available, perhaps not to everyone yet but if you care to check the Q6600 thread in these forums you will already see about 12 TPU members with G0 stepping Quads.  In the same thread, and the 3D Mark 2006 thread you will see that some of those are capable of 3.9Gig on air! You refer to the "one or two" games that are multithreaded, I wont bore you and everyone else here with a list of multi-threaded games available today but to give you a hint, this post would be Very long if I listed them all (I think 29 at last count) and if you want to add those games that have since been patched for multithreading then add another 16, feel free to PM me if you would like the list.

Next, MANY current boards support Quad, 1333FSB etc etc, mine for instance and it's considered a budget board so whether it a Quad, a 6750 or whatever does not require an upgrade, perhaps just a BIOS flash.  Lastly   If you want to see some performance differences you only need to look again at the 3D Mark 2006 thread, look at the league tables, the No 3 NVidia score was acheived with a Q6600 @ 3.3Gig the No1 ATi score was acheived with a 6600 @ 4.1Gig......go to the screenshots in the thread that posted the scores....you will see that the CPU score for a Q6600 @3.3Gig is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the CPU score for the dual core @ 4.1Gig......cause even what is now a fairly old bench is multithreaded, so it will use 2 cores if you have them, or it will use 4 cores if you have them.

I happen to agree with a fair amount of your logic in your post but my point is that some of your arguments in support of that logic is flawed IMO.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> That's not funny. If you read what I said you could have answered that question urself.
> 
> Yes, if you overclock the Quad-Core you will get better performance in the 1 or 2 games out that actually use more than 1 thread.
> 
> ...


OK, next question. What if you also do some A/V editing/mixing/encoding or some 3D rendering? You do know that games aren't the only thing a computer is used for, right?


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Your facts are flawed in some area's I am afraid.



No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though.



Tatty_One said:


> In no particular order, The G0 stepping is quite readily available, perhaps not to everyone yet but if you care to check the Q6600 thread in these forums you will already see about 12 TPU members with G0 stepping Quads.



Then they are very lucky. I live in the UK and have not been able to find a single store selling them. Trust me, if I did, I would already have one.



Tatty_One said:


> In the same thread, and the 3D Mark 2006 thread you will see that some of those are capable of 3.9Gig on air!



A Quad-Core CPU overclocked to 3.9Ghz on air? I'm going to try to keep a straight face 



Tatty_One said:


> I wont bore you and everyone else here with a list of multi-threaded games available today but I think 29 at last count.



In other words, you don't know any of but since no one is going to check, you can bullshit us and think you can get away with it.
Currently, there are 2 games which are multi-threaded - Supreme Commander and Lost Planet. Lost Planet being the only one that actually uses the whole 4 threads.
But hey, if you like crappy console ports..



Tatty_One said:


> Next, MANY current boards support Quad, 1333FSB etc etc, mine for instance and it's considered a budget board so whether it a Quad, a 6750 or whatever does not require an upgrade, perhaps just a BIOS flash.



Yeh, I agree here, there is no reason to buy an expensive motherboard for Quad-Cores. Probably a case of not reading what I said too well. On a positive note we can agree on this one.



Tatty_One said:


> Lastly   If you want to see some performance differences you only need to look again at the 3D Mark 2006 thread, look at the league tables, the No 3 NVidia score was acheived with a Q6600 @ 3.3Gig the No1 ATi score was acheived with a 6600 @ 4.1Gig......go to the screenshots in the thread that posted the scores....you will see that the CPU score for a Q6600 @3.3Gig is SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the CPU score for the dual core @ 4.1Gig......cause even what is now a fairly old bench is multithreaded, so it will use 2 cores if you have them, or it will use 4 cores if you have them.



Like I always say - "there is nothing more important than a synthetic benchmark that has nothing to do with real-world performance".




Tatty_One said:


> I happen to agree with a fair amount of your logic in your post but my point is that some of your arguments in support of that logic is flawed IMO.



Well, with all due respect, I know a little more than you do about this issue.
But I'm not in any way trying to make you look or feel bad. I just wish to make things right.

If you have anything to add to what I said, or have any furthur questions, please ask.


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Wile E said:


> OK, next question. What if you also do some A/V editing/mixing/encoding or some 3D rendering? You do know that games aren't the only thing a computer is used for, right?



This is an interesting question, and I seem to answer it on every forum I visit.

Unlike Video Games, there is no "playable" setting to rendering. If your project or video file is rendered in 15 minutes or 10 minutes, it makes no difference. It could be nice to only have to wait 10 minutes, but it's not a neccesity such as getting 30 FPS in a Video Game.
So, the only thing that actually NEEDS the power is games. And since we have yet to see games that actually NEED 4 cores to work, buying a Dual-Core at this time makes sense.
I mean, the thought that you can run Oblivion on a Single-Core CPU but can't run Supreme Commander or Crysis on a (far more advanced) Dual-Core CPU is simply crazy. It could only be true if my theory is correct and the coding is bad.. but I won't get into that right now.

This is beside the fact that these programs are the only ones that actually are multi-threaded and most people would not buy a CPU JUST for Video Editing because it's not a big part of the average person's schedule, and if it were then that person would probably be better off with a Workstation, where he could have up to 8 threads at this point, and 16 soon enough.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> This is an interesting question, and I seem to answer it on every forum I visit.
> 
> Unlike Video Games, there is no "playable" setting to rendering. If your project or video file is rendered in 15 minutes or 10 minutes, it makes no difference. It could be nice to only have to wait 10 minutes, but it's not a neccesity such as getting 30 FPS in a Video Game.
> So, the only thing that actually NEEDS the power is games. And since we have yet to see games that actually NEED 4 cores to work, buying a Dual-Core at this time makes sense.
> ...


5min makes a difference to me. Maybe time isn't precious to you, but it is to some. I fully disagree about the rendering apps not NEEDING the cpu power, as you put it. Time saved is time saved, period.

For the games, once you reach a certain FPS, anything more is only for bragging rights anyway. The overclocked quad, when put into the same setup as the dual core, will most likely still produce perfectly playable framerates at the same settings, but it will hold the advantage in multi tasking, and the above mentioned apps, so your point is moot.

As far as the Workstation comment, that doesn't necessarily make sense for a hobbyist.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though.
> 
> Lol it just seems to me that you have made your mind up with little research, please dont be concerened....I dont feel bad, you clearly have not looked at any of the evidence I have provided for you so i spose I am going to have to do the work for you as you clearly have not reserached your arguments and you seem so convinced you are right you dont actually want too, thats a little worrying for me because it suggests you dont want to develop your knowledge so again.....I will start from the top.........
> 
> ...


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

Damn, for those that knew him......I am turning into Alec Starr!!!


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Lol it just seems to me that you have made your mind up with little *research*
> you clearly have not looked at any of the *evidence *
> I have provided for you so i spose I am as you clearly have not *reserached* your arguments
> it suggests you dont want to develop your *knowledge* so again



Quite judgmental for a person who lies about giving "evidence", aren't you? 



Tatty_One said:


> Scan had 10 G0 stepping in that arrived on Tuesday 17th July, they all sold same day!
> I think it's a case of having to contact each etailer as most of them dont show the stepping anyways.
> Now if you doubt my comments about their availability at scan....take a look here.
> my guess is that few are from the UK but your origional post did not actually mention country specific availability, I meerly said that some were available.



Yes, it's true that SOME are available. But since it's hard enough to find one (and don't think I havn't been trying), and since it's best to just wait for Yorkfield, I don't really care.


Tatty_One said:


> Post 1503 here:
> http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=25995&page=61
> Enuff said?  As I said, if you bothered to look then you would see   I assume your face is no longer straight?



So now you are blaming me for not bothering to look at every web page on the planet?
If you make such radical claims, support them. It's most uncurtious.

And as for this alleged 3.9Ghz on AIR.. well, the temps completely give this one away.
My friend has a QX6850 with the same G0 stepping and he can barely get it to 3.6Ghz. When he does, the temps are above 60C.
And somehow u want me to believe that this guy got his Q6600 to 3.9Ghz(!) at only 45C??
And even IF that were actually true, by some miracle of Horus, then that would still be a single case which means even less than your synthetic benchmarks.


Tatty_One said:


> Now this is fun.....you did NOT PM me to ask for the list, you again would rather not on the off chance it would disprove your origional point but you still manage to trash an opinion that by your own admittance you cant be arsed to research.



Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to take my time and personally message you to ask if what you said really was bullshit?
Once again, if you make radical claims, it is up to YOU to support them. You can't say that stuff and then blame ME for calling you on it! :shadedshu




Tatty_One said:


> you remember Quake 4?  yes you guessed it, it's multithreadded.
> http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/94969-13-dual-core-supported-games
> 21 Games, many not console ports!
> 16 games, some of which are not on first linky, so the number goes up:
> http://www.hardwaregeeks.com/board/showthread.php?t=32483



Alright, this was quite an interesting link.
First of all, those are NOT multi-threaded games. They are only Dual-threaded.
Having said that, the support for the second thread is nothing more than a patch. You are not going to see a big difference between Dual and Single-Core CPUs with any of those games.
And besides, Dual-threaded sides with buying the E6750 and not the Q6600.

As for the games that support MORE than 2 threads..
Almost all of those games aren't out yet, so all we know is that they SUPPORT more than 2 threads, not if they actually BENEFIT from them. As I've already said, it's nothing short of crazy to think that Oblivion can run fine on a single thread but BioShock can't on 2 much more powerful threads.
And lastly, the games that DO benefit from 4 threads, then think how much they will like 8 when Yorkfield comes out.



Tatty_One said:


> And for those of us that dont just game, an example of 47 multi-threadded apps that optimise 2 or more cores.



I'm not denying that there are multi-threaded apps. But even if I actually wanted to use them (which I don't, and no gamer would), I would still not care if my project was done in 10 minutes instead of 15.



Tatty_One said:


> Clearly you dont know more than me.



Yes... clearly.


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Wile E said:


> 5min makes a difference to me. Maybe time isn't precious to you, but it is to some. I fully disagree about the rendering apps not NEEDING the cpu power, as you put it. Time saved is time saved, period.


Well, if 5 minutes matters that much to you, then you should really spend the 5,000$ needed for a high-end workstation. Turn that 10 into 5 minutes.
But the more important question is, what did u do when u could only render a project in 30 minutes? Now u can do it in 15 and u are still moaning? That sounds kind of spoiled to me, especially since I have a Single-Core Pentium 4 for the time being.


Wile E said:


> For the games, once you reach a certain FPS, anything more is only for bragging rights anyway. The overclocked quad, when put into the same setup as the dual core, will most likely still produce perfectly playable framerates at the same settings, but it will hold the advantage in multi tasking, and the above mentioned apps, so your point is moot.



Yes, that's true.
But it's not games that you need the more powerful first core, it's everything else. Emulators mostly.


Wile E said:


> As far as the Workstation comment, that doesn't necessarily make sense for a hobbyist.



And buying a Quad-Core only to shave off 5 minutes of off a project does?


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

We could clearly go around in circles here for ever, no I am not expecting you to check every post, thread, link on the internet, I, in my origional post said that you could PM me for the list, you chose to assume that I was....in your words "bullshitting" without me taking the time to list them all from a computer at home when as I said I am at work and without even bothering to ask me, so you would rather call someone a bullshitter than simply ask them to provide the evidence? hence my point that you assumed that it was bullshit without checking....so your assumption was based on nothing TBH.  If you cast your eyes back to your origional post you made specific reference to multithredding, not "optimised for more than 2 cores", true multithredding matters not how many cores (providing there is more than one) as it will use 2 if you have 2, it will use 4 if you have 4, hence my point about the multithredded 3D Mark 2006!

Then you have the nerve to call me judgemental!   You stated in your previous post...clearly........and I quote:

 Originally Posted by Tatty_One  
Your facts are flawed in some area's I am afraid. 

"No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though".  

I did mention multithredded patches previously, Quake 4 was a "patch" but there was significant improvements to be gained with a dual core processor, I experienced those improvements in FPS alone personally.  You will also see that a lot more than 2 of those games are not "patched" which kind of already shows you were wrong in your origional count of 2?

You said that you would try and keep a straight face when I meerly said that people had acheived 3.9Gig on air, and not just manged by the way to boot to windows but to run a benchmark also, now what are you saying....."ignore that you were wrong and concentrate on the temps"....wtf.....you were wrong.

lastly, you mention the word "uncourtious"....check your last 3 threads, then check mine, you let me know whose language mentioned "bullshit" and "lies" and then reach your own conclusions about common courtesy.  Whenever I disagree with someones thoughts, you will notice I use the statement "IMO" because thats what it is, you clearly state that you know more than anyone else and that what you say is fact, my point is that is not always the case, whether you like that or not.......IMO 

I like healthy debate, I also beleive it or not like to put my hands up when I am shown to be wrong or misinformed, your posts make it at least appear that you do not.

So lets agree to disagree on this one?


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> in my origional post said that you could PM me for the list



My fault, I did not see it.



Tatty_One said:


> you would rather call someone a bullshitter than simply ask them to provide the evidence?



No, I did not know you had evidence. And even if you did, you need to show it and not be offended when I call bullshit. 
Was the bullshit deserving? Yes, but even if it wasn't being offended isn't going to furthur this conversation.



Tatty_One said:


> true multithredding matters not how many cores (providing there is more than one) as it will use 2 if you have 2, it will use 4 if you have 4, hence my point about the multithredded 3D Mark 2006!



It's true that "multi" means "more than one". But since your stand was pro-Quad, Dual-threaded games don't help you very much, now do they?
And your point about the meaningless synthetic benchmark 3D Mark 06, means Nothing!


Tatty_One said:


> Then you have the nerve to call me judgemental!   You stated in your previous post...clearly........and I quote:
> "No, they never are. I'll show you how YOURS are though".



Yes, you are judgmental. You said that *I* had not done MY research, when it was you that presented the radicalized claim. It was not me that needed to support my claims with evidence, but YOU.


Tatty_One said:


> I did mention multithredded patches previously, Quake 4 was a "patch" but there was significant improvements to be gained with a dual core processor, I experienced those improvements in FPS alone personally.  You will also see that a lot more than 2 of those games are not "patched" which kind of already shows you were wrong in your origional count of 2?



My original count was about games that support MORE than 2 threads.
And games like Quake 4 would not need anything more than a Single-Core CPU to run at 60 FPS. With these old Single-thread optimized games, it is only the GPU power that matter.
Which is why I am so sceptical about the performance of Quad-Cores in games.



Tatty_One said:


> You said that you would try and keep a straight face when I meerly said that people had acheived 3.9Gig on air, and not just manged by the way to boot to windows but to run a benchmark also, now what are you saying....."ignore that you were wrong and concentrate on the temps"....wtf.....you were wrong.



Excuse me??
I completely blew your evidence into the water, and now you are accusing me of looking at the evidence instead of believing what you said on FAITH?
Are u mad? 


Tatty_One said:


> lastly, you mention the word "uncourtious"....check your last 3 threads, then check mine, you let me know whose language mentioned "bullshit" and "lies" and then reach your own conclusions about common courtesy.  Whenever I disagree with someones thoughts, you will notice I use the statement "IMO" because thats what it is, you clearly state that you know more than anyone else and that what you say is fact, my point is that is not always the case, whether you like that or not.......IMO



You appear to be confused about being uncurtious towards the person you are disccusing with, and towards the furthurment of the disccusion.
When I called you "uncurtious", I meant that you had acted in an unlawful way towards the furthurment of this honest disccusion by telling ME that *I* should be the one to provide evidence for YOUR radical claims.
What YOU call "uncurtious" is simply that your feelings got hurt when I called you out and demanded proof for your claims. Make no mistake, I WILL call bullshit whenever I see an unsolicited radicalized claim.



Tatty_One said:


> I like healthy debate, I also beleive it or not like to put my hands up when I am shown to be wrong or misinformed, your posts make it at least appear that you do not.



You have been wrong all along. Most of this debate has been about YOU and your feelings, and me having to defend my curtiousy to you.
You have not been right on a single point, but if you were, I would gladly admit it. I only claim to know more than you so as to not have to get into meaningless fights like you seem to have dragged me into now.


Tatty_One said:


> So lets agree to disagree on this one?



And now you want out of the disccusion?
Very well, I suppose I have risen victorious and thus the E6750 is the better buy.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

Circles again so this is the final time I will rise to the bait, the only thing that really confuses me in what you have said was the fact that I dais 3.9Gig has been acheived on air....you contested that, I provided you with a link thats shows 3.9Gig has been acheived on air ....and you think you are right? 

I must be mistaken, it's obvious then by your logic that you said it could be acheived and I said the opposite otherwise I would be right of course.

I do find it kind of hollow that you say it's upto me to provided evidence if I contest what you are saying but you do not seem to think that you need to when challenging anyone elses!  If you recall, you were the one that firstly disagreed with my opinion but at no point have you provided any evidence to support your views, therefore your points are just un-subtantiated views.

Lastly, if you are so sure that buying the 6750 was the better option, why have you used as an argument that you would have got the Q6600 with the G0 stepping if you could have got your hands on one?  That kind of supports the Quad do you not think.  I have absolutely no doubts that in most games that are either single threadded or support only dual threadding that the dual cores would be a better option and statistics show this, but gain for some games and many apps it's the other way round, take a look at this, it kind of confirms what you have said and confirms what I have said but in a Q6600 that is no more expensive than the E6850 (I have been considering between the 2) there is little price benefit:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/08/08/extreme_fsb_2/page11.html

You will recall from my first post to you that I said that I concur with some of your logic but that "IMO some of the arguments in support of that logic were flawed" so no.......I am not an out and out Quad supporter by any means, I just try and give a fairly balanced opinion, whichever way you or any other thread reader cares to translate our debate the facts are, when you cut away the periphery, in your FIRST post which didnt actually contradict me:

1.  You said that Q6600 were not available (although you didnt specifically mention a country/Region etc at that time) - they are, and even in the UK have been.....evidence supplied.
2.   You intimated that a Q6600 with G0 stepping couldnt acheive 3.9Gig on air, it has in these forums (you did not articulate that with any temp or voltage restrictions)........evidence provided.
3.  You stated there are only 2 multithredded games, there are more, how many more OK is under debate, you did not mention patched, dual, quad just multi and thats what I remarked on. There are actually more than 2 Quad core optimised games, although I may be embarrassed to say there are only 3, with a 4th just about to arrive (not DX10). 
4.  On the "bullshit", thats just the point, i offered to provide evidence, you didnt ask for it, you just assumed it didnt exist...you assumed bullshit wrongly, thats not a critism, that insulting......maybe thats acceptable to you, it isnt to me, I do not insult/flame.

Lastly, please do not confuse my boredom with arguing/debating with you as an act of defeat, you have at least already suggested in previous posts that you misunderstood on a couple of origional points, lets just leave it at that   Phew....I need to go lie down in a dark room now, good job it's a quiet day at work!


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 10, 2007)

Tatty, just give up.  Tuk doesn't know what he is talking about and won't admit it and will continue to sling the same BS over and over again, which is exactly why I didn't even bother to respond to his nonsense.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> Tatty, just give up.  Tuk doesn't know what he is talking about and won't admit it and will continue to sling the same BS over and over again, which is exactly why I didn't even bother to respond to his nonsense.



Your right.....rest assured I am now perminantly shut up


----------



## driver66 (Aug 10, 2007)

Right on tatty he's of on a rant 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatty_One View Post
in my origional post said that you could PM me for the list


My fault, I did not see it.                




A LIE?     


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatty_One View Post
Now this is fun.....you did NOT PM me to ask for the list, you again would rather not on the off chance it would disprove your origional point but you still manage to trash an opinion that by your own admittance you cant be arsed to research.



Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to take my time and personally message you to ask if what you said really was bullshit?
Once again, if you make radical claims, it is up to YOU to support them. You can't say that stuff and then blame ME for calling you on it!


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> Tatty, just give up.  Tuk doesn't know what he is talking about and won't admit it and will continue to sling the same BS over and over again, which is exactly why I didn't even bother to respond to his nonsense.



It somehow never surprises me how people from a certain forum will side with the more senior member, despite how wrong he may be. Sometimes I just don't get why I even bother.

And sir, if you think what I said is wrong, PLEASE, correct me. 
Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

driver66 said:


> Right on tatty he's of on a rant
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not at all. And after all the time I took to adress this issue, you have the audacity to call me a lier? 
You have no sense of dignity, sir.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 10, 2007)

when all else fails ....


----------



## Grings (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> It somehow never surprises me how people from a certain forum will side with the more senior member, despite how wrong he may be. Sometimes I just don't get why I even bother.
> 
> And sir, if you think what I said is wrong, PLEASE, correct me.
> Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.



Well yeah, you turn up and INSTANTLY start ranting about somebodies posts, and calling him a bullshitter, not exactly the most endearing entrance is it?


----------



## Grings (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> Not at all. And after all the time I took to adress this issue, you have the audacity to call me a lier?
> You have no sense of dignity, sir.



lol, and your grand entrance to these forums WAS dignified?


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 10, 2007)

Grings said:


> lol, and your grand entrance to these forums WAS dignified?



He wasn't even here a week and he is already on my ignore list.  Yep, real dignified.


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> It somehow never surprises me how people from a certain forum will side with the more senior member, despite how wrong he may be. Sometimes I just don't get why I even bother.
> 
> And sir, if you think what I said is wrong, PLEASE, correct me.
> Otherwise you are nothing more than a hypocrite.



Ok, the games that Tatty listed, while they may be dual threaded a quad core still will be better.  Why?  Because you have more than the game running it's two threads through the processor.  You have the two threads then all the threads that are going on in the background in Windows.  I know that when mcaffee (yeah, idk how to spell) decides to update it runs one of my cores up to ~100%.  Now if you're running a dual core game and say you're limited by your cpu and one core jumps to ~100% then you're going to lose ~50% of your fps.  With a quad core you'd lose nothing.  What happens if you want to say.....run a cs server and play at the same time?  Wouldn't you like the benifit of knowing neither is going to slow down due to anything in the background?  These are just two examples btw.

And yes you want to edit a video, you can't say time isn't precious.  How much time do we spend planning things out so we'll be here for one hour, then the next here, and the next here etc.  If you don't think saving 5 minutes is important, then that's quite contrary to most people's views.  With 5 minutes, I could cook my lunch, or I could practice an instrument, or I could come on TPU and post, or I could play some games, or I could spend 5 minutes going to work and earning more money.  If you end up doing alot of editing, then you're going to notice those 5 minutes building up.

You're trying to say quad core isn't worth it?  That's the same view when dual cores came out, but even when we got a HT P4 I could feel the difference between our comp and my friends' comps that weren't HT.  Making the jump from HT to dual core was a bigger difference.  What about things like Folding, more cores=more work that can be done in x amount of time.  

As far as overclocking the G0 quad core, did you realize the thread Tatty posted was after he ran the benchmark?  Not when the cpu was loaded down.  Also, how about ambient temperatures?  G0 quad cores can get quite fast compare to previous B3 (that was the old stepping right?) quad cores. 

There's my support for quad cores.  BTW we're not going to get anywhere by just raising clock speeds on dual cores, multi core proves to be the more efficient way of gaining performance.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 10, 2007)

if 2 was good 4 going be better .. simple ...


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> Circles again so this is the final time I will rise to the bait, the only thing that really confuses me in what you have said was the fact that I dais 3.9Gig has been acheived on air....you contested that, I provided you with a link thats shows 3.9Gig has been acheived on air ....and you think you are right?



You provided a radical claim.
For this claim, at first you presented no proof. Only later did you present a piece of evidence.
In order to refute this piece of evidence, I appealed to common logic which states that it is  impossible to have a Quad-Core at 3.0Ghz or above with anything lower than 50C on AIR.
So no, that single piece of evidence means NOTHING. Anyone with half a brain can see that it's fake in either the fact that screenshot was photoshoped, or the cooler was fabricated.



Tatty_One said:


> I do find it kind of hollow that you say it's upto me to provided evidence if I contest what you are saying but you do not seem to think that you need to when challenging anyone elses!  If you recall, you were the one that firstly disagreed with my opinion but at no point have you provided any evidence to support your views, therefore your points are just un-subtantiated views.



I don't have to provide evidence that it's impossible to reach 3.9Ghz on a Quad-Core, YOU have to provide proof that it IS possible. Since you are the one making the claim, the burdon of proof is on YOU.
My views stem from logic, understanding of computer hardware, and experience. I'm not the one claiming that it's impossible to reach 3.9Ghz on a Quad-Core, but that it has not been done as of yet.



Tatty_One said:


> Lastly, if you are so sure that buying the 6750 was the better option, why have you used as an argument that you would have got the Q6600 with the G0 stepping if you could have got your hands on one?  That kind of supports the Quad do you not think.



Yeh well, if you look at futureproofing, the Q6600 is a good idea. But for someone who intends on buying Yorkfield, it's just a waste of money.



Tatty_One said:


> I have absolutely no doubts that in most games that are either single threadded or support only dual threadding that the dual cores would be a better option and statistics show this.



Another radical and unsubstantiated claim, I see.
How exactly would a game that only support a single core perform better with a Quad-Core @ 3.6Ghz, than a Dual-Core @ 4.0Ghz?




Tatty_One said:


> You will recall from my first post to you that I said that I concur with some of your logic but that "IMO some of the arguments in support of that logic were flawed" so no.......I am not an out and out Quad supporter by any means, I just try and give a fairly balanced opinion, whichever way you or any other thread reader cares to translate our debate the facts are, when you cut away the periphery, in your FIRST post which didnt actually contradict me:
> 
> 1.  You said that Q6600 were not available (although you didnt specifically mention a country/Region etc at that time) - they are, and even in the UK have been.....evidence supplied.



Well, I'm sure that the yanks would have a much easier chance at getting a G0 stepping Q6600, but as my experience goes, I have not been able to find one in many parts of the world, helping many friends. The only place where I actually found a store selling the G0 stepping exclusively was Canada and the website "DirectCanada.com". Needless to say we jumped on that deal. 
As for the availability in the UK, I myself have not found one and I think that is testiment to how hard they are to find. Shops refuse to save them, sites continue to obscure G0 from B3, and everyone jumps at the bit to buy one as soon as they see it in the open.



Tatty_One said:


> 2.   You intimated that a Q6600 with G0 stepping couldnt acheive 3.9Gig on air, it has in these forums (you did not articulate that with any temp or voltage restrictions)........evidence provided.



BULLSHIT.
A single photo on a Quad-Core @ 3.9Ghz with temps at 45C and a flimsy claim of AIR cooling is only evidence to the lie that you appear to believe.
There is no intelligent and knowledged person on any forum that would take that as credible evidence in any way. And I am not any different.
Evidence does not equal proof.




Tatty_One said:


> 3.  You stated there are only 2 multithredded games, there are more, how many more OK is under debate, you did not mention patched, dual, quad just multi and thats what I remarked on. There are actually more than 2 Quad core optimised games, although I may be embarrassed to say there are only 3, with a 4th just about to arrive (not DX10).



What I meant by "multi" is more than 2. Not that it really matters because all those games which support 2 threads, do not actually benefit very much from the second thread.
Not to mention that none of them actually NEED 2 threads, as u can get 100 FPS in F.E.A.R. with a single core and the right graphics power.
As I've already stated, it is the graphics power that it the bottleneck here, not the CPU.

The fact that there are more than 2 Quad-Core optimized games only rules in my favor, because there are only two that actually BENEFIT from more than 2 threads, furthuring my theory.



Tatty_One said:


> 4.  On the "bullshit", thats just the point, i offered to provide evidence, you didnt ask for it, you just assumed it didnt exist...you assumed bullshit wrongly, thats not a critism, that insulting......maybe thats acceptable to you, it isnt to me, I do not insult/flame.



I always assume that it does not exist. That is the base assumption that any serious person must claim.
Otherwise a credible belief in a deity could be considered  credible.
Unless you provide proof (not just evidence), you will only recieve contempt for a radical theory. Not that it means that you are wrong though, make no mistake you could be 100% right, but you must show the proof!.



Tatty_One said:


> Lastly, please do not confuse my boredom with arguing/debating with you as an act of defeat, you have at least already suggested in previous posts that you misunderstood on a couple of origional points, lets just leave it at that   Phew....I need to go lie down in a dark room now, good job it's a quiet day at work!



I am not one to confuse boredom with defeat, but regardless of your ability to stay on subject, you have been wrong on these issues and I have not. But you're right, those who read the discussion will take from it what they will... "IMO"


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Grings said:


> Well yeah, you turn up and INSTANTLY start ranting about somebodies posts, and calling him a bullshitter, not exactly the most endearing entrance is it?



I'm afraid you are gravely mistaken, sir. It was not me, but him who was ranting. I was merely defending myself.


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

Grings said:


> lol, and your grand entrance to these forums WAS dignified?



Of course. I was not the one who started this.


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

newtekie1 said:


> He wasn't even here a week and he is already on my ignore list.  Yep, real dignified.



What are you afraid of, The truth?


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Ok, the games that Tatty listed, while they may be dual threaded a quad core still will be better.  Why?  Because you have more than the game running it's two threads through the processor.  You have the two threads then all the threads that are going on in the background in Windows.



Uh, I think you mean processes going on in the background. And no, that would result in maybe a 2-5% increase in performance in favor of the Quad-Core.
I myself can have MP3 and MPG decoding at the same time I play a high-end game on my old Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and see no difference in performance pretty much.



kwchang007 said:


> And yes you want to edit a video, you can't say time isn't precious.  How much time do we spend planning things out so we'll be here for one hour, then the next here, and the next here etc.  If you don't think saving 5 minutes is important, then that's quite contrary to most people's views.  With 5 minutes, I could cook my lunch, or I could practice an instrument, or I could come on TPU and post, or I could play some games, or I could spend 5 minutes going to work and earning more money.  If you end up doing alot of editing, then you're going to notice those 5 minutes building up.



I can't even begin to explain how bullshit that claim is. It's almost like you're trying to refute every single thing I'm saying just because you don't like me, despite the fact that you have absolutely nothing to say..
But in any case.. 5 minutes is NOTHING. If you edit your project in an hour and a half and then render it in 10 minutes instead of 15 minutes, and then claim that in those 5 minutes you can visit TPU and thus it's worth it, then I have nothing left to say to you.
If you want to waste your money for 5 minutes, please do.




kwchang007 said:


> You're trying to say quad core isn't worth it?  That's the same view when dual cores came out, but even when we got a HT P4 I could feel the difference between our comp and my friends' comps that weren't HT.  Making the jump from HT to dual core was a bigger difference.  What about things like Folding, more cores=more work that can be done in x amount of time.



Yeh, I know it was said about Dual-Cores, and guess what? It true! The only thing that Dual-Core CPUs or HT is good for is multi-tasking. And if that's your turn on then please go right ahead and buy the Q6600. Just realize that you would have to have 4 DVD burning sessions in the background to scratch that CPU while I can have 2 and I only need one.




kwchang007 said:


> As far as overclocking the G0 quad core, did you realize the thread Tatty posted was after he ran the benchmark?  Not when the cpu was loaded down.  Also, how about ambient temperatures?  G0 quad cores can get quite fast compare to previous B3 (that was the old stepping right?) quad cores.



So you're saying that 3.9Ghz temps were IDLE?
If so, then this is only testiment to how horribly tatty can explain things 
Well, from personal experience I can still say that, logically, I doubt that 3.9Ghz STABLE is even close to being possible.



kwchang007 said:


> There's my support for quad cores.  BTW we're not going to get anywhere by just raising clock speeds on dual cores, multi core proves to be the more efficient way of gaining performance.



No, thats absolutely not true.
For a program to benefit from more than a single thread, it needs to be coded for it. Thats why almost all programs will run better on the higher clocked Dual-Core.


----------



## Tuk (Aug 10, 2007)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> if 2 was good 4 going be better .. simple ...



If you have 2 highways and 2 cars and you create 2 more highways to make 4, that would make absolutely no difference. Theres no difference.


----------



## driver66 (Aug 10, 2007)

Jesus what a full of himself WINDBAG   Pointed to no one in particular


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 10, 2007)

Tuk said:


> Uh, I think you mean processes going on in the background. And no, that would result in maybe a 2-5% increase in performance in favor of the Quad-Core.
> I myself can have MP3 and MPG decoding at the same time I play a high-end game on my old Pentium 4 3.0Ghz and see no difference in performance pretty much.
> 
> 
> ...



From the top:

Ok, that's how your system runs, and that's a cool thing that you don't lose much fps.

I get 5 minutes to go to classes in school, and need it all, every second counts.  And you can't say cooking a meal in 5 minutes while your program is rendering isn't a good use of time, unless you don't eat of course. 

Dvd burning  I could have 5 sessions running on my computer and it wouldn't be using the whole cpu.  Also, what's this whole thing with I only need one?  The idea of a cpu and computer parts aren't to have them run at 100% the whole time.  I have a computer that does that with xp, and it sucks.  

3.9 ghz is possible to get stable.  It's been done as tatty as posted, idk why you are saying it's a fake etc.  Why would someone lie?  If they got 3.9 ghz on water, why would they say it was on air?  Not like it gives you anything by saying it was on air.  Oh and I'm hoping you are talking about on air, because people get well over 4 ghz on LN.

And you forget that more and more programs are being programmed to use more than one core.  Remember, xp was only designed to handle one core, but they quickly changed their os with a sp.  Also, remember the 360 and ps3 are multi-core and take advantage of it to.  

Oh and btw nothing I've said in a post to you is bullshit.


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 10, 2007)

SSSShhhhhhh


----------



## GSG-9 (Aug 10, 2007)

Emmmk...all that aside, someone mentioned they thought the huge increase in speed in source was due to sse4. I was under the impression Source did not yet support sse4 so how could that be the cause of the increase in speed?


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Aug 10, 2007)

Please remember to be polite and civil when discussing news.  If you find yourself incapable of maintaining the proper form of behavior please refrain from posting at all.  

Please get this back on topic or it will be closed.

Thanks
Thermopylae_480


----------



## crow1001 (Aug 11, 2007)

Intel are just so frigging on the ball right now and we the consumer are getting the best of it, oh man i love Intel so much, keep it up guys.Intel


----------



## Tuk (Aug 11, 2007)

Tatty_One said:


> SSSShhhhhhh



Are you and everyone here just going to discard what I've said because you don't like to hear it?

I kept with the discussion and came out on top, and yet people seem to be against me..

This forum is quite juvenile, now isn't it?


----------



## Tuk (Aug 11, 2007)

kwchang007 said:


> Oh and btw nothing I've said in a post to you is bullshit.



Wow, that's almost as bad of a lie as Fox Noise pertaining to be "Fair and Balanced".

EVERYTHING you've said is Bullshit, and I have already corrected it.

Your problem is you either don't have nearly enough knowledge (which is your fault for not wanting it) or not enough critical though, which seems to be very common these days.


----------



## Wile E (Aug 11, 2007)

Tuk said:


> But the more important question is, what did u do when u could only render a project in 30 minutes? Now u can do it in 15 and u are still moaning? That sounds kind of spoiled to me, especially since I have a Single-Core Pentium 4 for the time being.


How does that pertain to a quad being better than a dual? The quad is better in this scenario, period. That's all that matters.


Tuk said:


> Well, if 5 minutes matters that much to you, then you should really spend the 5,000$ needed for a high-end workstation. Turn that 10 into 5 minutes.





Tuk said:


> And buying a Quad-Core only to shave off 5 minutes of off a project does?


I'll address both points at once.
Yes, that 5 minutes means something to me. Not to mention, when I'm mixing, the additional threads of the quad would allow me to run more plug-ins and effects simultaneously. I also game, so to someone like me, the gaming computer with a quad makes more sense. To compound things, the E6850 and Q6600 are the same price, how does buying a quad equate to spending $5k on a workstation?

Now, a dual may be a better purchase for you, but it is not the better purchase for everyone, which is the way you are making it seem.


Now, back on topic: I'd really like to see what the quad version of this could do.


----------



## mandelore (Aug 11, 2007)

omg, ive just waded thru what i can only call a thread contaminated by crap. 

Tatty just beat him over the head with the butt of your rifle and be done with it. Will save us laughing to death then hurting from to much laughing then getting pissed off coz the thread missed the first turning on the right and now is heading down to ape-shitville


----------



## kwchang007 (Aug 11, 2007)

Tuk said:


> Wow, that's almost as bad of a lie as Fox Noise pertaining to be "Fair and Balanced".
> 
> EVERYTHING you've said is Bullshit, and I have already corrected it.
> 
> Your problem is you either don't have nearly enough knowledge (which is your fault for not wanting it) or not enough critical though, which seems to be very common these days.



Talk about a statement that was beyond reason to say.  I don't have enough knowledge?  If I say 5 minutes is valuable that's an opinion, because I like every minute and second of my days.  If you don't think it's valuable, I have no problem with that, but when you call my opinions bullshit, then you're the one that's being ignorant.  You can't respect other people's opinions, and what kind of non-ignorant person can't respect someone's opinion?  Also, since when did a dvd burning session tax one core to the max?  Last time I checked my bottleneck was in the burner, how fast it could operate, how fast my hdd can move information, the ram, nb, etc, but it was all how fast it could move, not my cpu.  Is 4ghz+ quad core on Liquid nitrogen bull?  No it's not, just look at the futuremark hall of fame (3dmark06).

@GSG- They also improved the dividing capabilities, maybe that's why it performed better in source?


----------



## Tatty_One (Aug 11, 2007)

Tuk said:


> Are you and everyone here just going to discard what I've said because you don't like to hear it?
> 
> I kept with the discussion and came out on top, and yet people seem to be against me..
> 
> This forum is quite juvenile, now isn't it?



Thanks for calling me a "senior member" earlier, although thats not really the way it works here, my "star count" is just about number of posts, the "thanked" count is only a fairly recent addition and between the two of them it is an indicator of contribution to these forums, we dont really go too much on the seniority thing until a member becomes a moderator, there are plenty of new people here with few stars that have a good knowledge, certainly in certain area's that can teach many of us a few things.

Strange thing is, it would appear from what I have read over the last page and a half that you seem to be the only one thinking you came out on top.....wonder why that might be? If you feel the need to be competative feel free to do some benching and post some scores in the various competition threads, competition is good.....but what matters most is the way you compete.

It really does sadden me that you feel that this forum is "Juvenille", by that statement you obviously include me so I would genuinly like to thank you for that, at the age of 47 I am rarely referred to as a Juvenille anymore, but based on the fact  (evidenced in the last couple of pages) that a number of these "Juvenille" forum members think that your approach has not shall we say  ....been too endearing then perhaps you should take a small look at yourself before pointing your finger at others, apart from that....welcome to TPU......I hope your stay with us is worthwhile and beneficial.


----------



## imperialreign (Aug 11, 2007)

Tuk said:


> Evidence does not equal proof.










. . . and if I may say so, I completely agree with Tatty's posts - and the evidence he uses to backup his claims.


IMO, I think you're arguing with a fanboi, man, you won't ever be able to get him to admit defeat.  I'm surprised he's not trying to make stuff up . . . yet.



and if I might say so - Intel CPU's are notorious for running much cooler than AMD's.  As for multithreading - anything that utilizes or has more than one core is considered multi-threaded.  Whether it's a 2nd logical core, or multiple physical cores.  I even saw a fps bump with the Quake4 patch on my Hyperthreaded P4.  I only have one physical core, but I also have a 2nd logical core.  Psuedo-dual-core (or simulated, or emulated - whatever you want to say).


----------



## Thermopylae_480 (Aug 11, 2007)

Listen to me when I ask it please.


----------



## zekrahminator (Aug 11, 2007)

Oh dear, it seems as though Track has gotten past his IP ban...time to put him back in his place.


----------

