even singel core dosnt mean shit, some people and companys still have use for singel core chips, as stated many will probbly be quad/dual core chips that have defective cores, i know a few people who would buy singel core over dual or quadcore simply because they seen no added value in running more then 1 core to game or suft the web.think about the avrage low end user, they dont game, they dont heavly multitask, they suft a bit, mabydownload some prOn or music and email, thats about it, they dont use their pc like us geeks, so low ram/singel core/pos video is plenty for anything they do.
That's true for the most part... but, some 'normal folks' end up being "transformed into geeks", once they get into it. Not all do, but... remember when YOU were "normal"?
(LOL - on a 'funny side-note': I had to say that... sounds funny, doesn't it? Think about it though, because @ SOME POINT, you too, were 'normal'... lol!)
and take note my main system still isnt dual core, because for gaming currentlyits not worth while, k8l/k10 almost hear(5-6months away, maby 7 b4 prices are reasonable on aegna and kuma)
Depends on that game though!
E.G.-> Dual-or-more CPU core bearing CPU's, imo, ARE worth it for Quake 4 SMP!
(On many tests I have seen this seems to be the case: & even up thru the HIGHER range of resolution folks can use (does the most thru 640x480 - 1024x768 resolutions though, in terms of most 'pound-for-pound' gains), the gain of using dual-or-more cores IS there still, because that game (one of the "few, the proud") does take advantage of dual-or-more core CPU setups, but over those resolutions, the graphics card does the 'bulk/majority' of the work, but still - the dual-or-more core gain is there nevertheless, it just doesn't 'go away', as I am sure you realize/know, like most folks here - we beat that one to death here debating it...).
Plus, personal computers? They're a LOT MORE than just gaming... far more. If all a person does is game?? Get a CONSOLE!
and we didnt acctualy see real perf info on core2/conroe other then intel benches but back the everybody was allover "you gotta go conroe" i find how now the mantality is "wait and see" and even if amd did something unlike themselves and put out benches of their current ES silicon and it BLEW core2 out of the water, people would be "wait and see"
Well, I am going to "beg to differ" a bit on that account/note: WE HERE, DID SEE A DIFFERENCE HERE, FOR FOLKS USING CONROES, & it was FAIRLY LARGE!
(When they overclocked mostly, those CPU's are GREAT for that apparently... out of the box, they are NOT THAT IMPRESSIVE over X² Athlon64 cpu's, but they are when they get o/c'd)
E.G./I.E. -> The ScienceMark 2.0 tests were 'ruled' by Opterons & X² Athlon64 CPU's, for the LONGEST TIME, here on these forums... same in Super-Pi for the most part, & AquaMark 3.0 testings.
(e.g.-> like my system, see signature below for specs, it was in the "TOP 10" group for ages, until the INTEL CONROE series came out... those blew us AMD users, CLEAN AWAY!)
Yes, it (ScienceMark 2.0, Super-Pi, & AquaMark 3.0) ARE "just synthetic benchmarks" but, the point's still there, & they're a decent guideline indicator of what's-what, performance-wise, imo @ least, & DO cover a lot of ground between them all, as far as what a CPU goes thru, as well as graphics cards (AquaMark 3.0 here on the GPU, not in ScienceMark &/or Super-Pi) in combination w/ them.
i never jump on the first gen of anything, the chip im using now is f2, 2nd run/gen of am2, it was CHEAP yet im getting 3gz out of it on PIB aircooling, i know it dosnt super PI liike a core2, but guess what it games just as well as any core2 you put it against in current games.
Again - not ALL current games: Some do use the extra cores present effectively (Quake 4 SMP, once more, does & well)... but, on jumping on 'latest/greatest' core revisions for CPU's, I tend to agree w/ you... but, mainly because of the high costs of going for "latest/greatest"... I wait out price drops & usually am 1 generation back.
What I am certain of though, is that a GOOD 90-95% (or more) of what you run bears multiple threads, & usually, if done right/correctly (even 'coarse multithreading' separating datasets being worked on across diff. CPU cores), it makes a difference, because most of what you RUN is multithreaded (excluding MOST games today)...
i may endup with a rana, because if they are cheap and powerfull why not? im sure they will clock VERY VERY well
I don't know WHAT one I will go for in the future... tests will help ME determine that though, because if I was to buy NOW?
I would go INTEL "CoreDuo", personally!
* Again, because of their results on ScienceMark 2.0, Super-Pi, & AquaMark 3.0 tests we did here (an impressive array of tests that, synthetic or not, DO show INTEL CORE2DUO SUPERIORITY, across the boards) - that's for "the NOW" though.
APK
P.S.=> I cannot wait to see what AMD pulls out from their 'hat' on this one... "K10" sounds like a good nickname for them too, better imo than K8L... apk
) cause i will get the best that i can with my money and before my current rig it was a X2 3800+ what beat the shit outta intels pentium d series, swings and roundabouts kiddies