At 09:22 AM 11/8/2007, you wrote:
Right on cue Tom's has a new article debating the dual vs quad issue
focusing primarily on overclocking and value for the money:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/11/08/dual_vs_quad/
Brian Weeden
I am surprised that anybody is still screwing around with
overclocking considering the the price and power of modern
processors. I have enough trouble getting a perfect encoding without
adding in the added risk that comes from overclocking.
One thing that really isn't considered is the growth of quad core
supported apps. My guess is that next year lots of new apps are going
to support Quad core and the years after that even more. That means
your Quad core processor is actually going to get faster over time,
which will not be the case for dual core. So what is the real value
chip? One that gets better and better over the next five year, or one
that you start dreaming about replacing a year from know.
And who cares about value anyway when you are building for your self.
We are the HWG right...high end and on the edge of performance. We
aren't talking about the difference between 3K and 2k, we are talking
about a few hundred bucks. I have decided when I get some time to
update my P4 3.4 video box it will be with the Intel Core 2 Quad
Q6700 at $534 Newegg,.... or whatever is the fastest non extreme Quad core.
I paid 900 bucks for my Xeon 3.06 cpus four and a half years ago and
they are still doing great today. I could of saved three or four
hundred bucks going with the 2.8s. But now 3 sounds so much better
then 2.8, and I never think I need to update them. I will run them
at some level until the Asus board goes and I can't find a
replacement board. One day they will make a great media server. It
could easily keep going for another four or six years . Now that's value!
