Is there any good place to look for benchmarks? Trying to find something on anandtech is like pulling teeth....
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Depends what the bottleneck is. If it's something that's using a lot of CPU > cycles and is multithreaded (meaning the software is written to it can take > advantage of multiple cores) then it should be great. But if you're doing > something like video editing and working with massive file sizes then you > also have to consider your I/O bandwidth. > > Doesn't matter how beefy your CPU is or how many you have if they are > waiting for you to load a couple TBs from a remote disk. > > --------------------------- > Brian Weeden > Technical Consultant > Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundtion.org> > +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada > +1 (202) 683-8534 US > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Steve Tomporowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> That's actually a good reason for going quad is to be able to get a >> lot running at the same time and still be snappy. Which brings to >> mind what a quad core would do for my music production. Generally you >> get limited in the number of software synths running. If you were >> running a VST host like Cubase, would the extra cores allow you to >> load up on the synths? Interesting question. >> >> Steve >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > You're right, for the most part nothing common really uses quad cores. >> > Supreme Commander is the only game I've played recently that does that I >> can >> > think of. >> > >> > I went with quad because at the time it was essentially the same price as >> > the dual core and I multitask a lot with some heavy duty programs. I'm >> > happy. >> > >> > --------------------------- >> > Brian Weeden >> > Technical Consultant >> > Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundtion.org> >> > +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada >> > +1 (202) 683-8534 US >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Steve Tomporowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >wrote: >> > >> >> Thanks guys for a couple of configurations to look at. My previous >> >> upgrade to a different computer I went with a 6850 over the Q6600, >> >> mainly because not much runs on Quad. With normal gaming (UT3) what >> >> would I expect from Quad? Anything? >> >> >> >> Also, are Nvidia chipsets that bad now? >> >> >> >> I know the processor/board of choice these days is Intel, does >> >> anything AMD offer worth anything? >> >> >> >> Thanks...Steve >> >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I upgraded a couple months ago to a Q6600 and an Abit IX38 Quad GT >> mobo >> >> and >> >> > I'm very happy. I had the whole struggle between quad and dual core >> and >> >> > opted for the quad. The motheboard is one of the most stable ones I >> have >> >> > ever had. >> >> > >> >> > Unlike the two 780G mobos I've had in my HTPC, both of which have been >> >> > giving me nothing but problems. >> >> > >> >> > --------- >> >> > Brian >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 9:34 AM, James Boswell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> E8500 >> >> >> Asus P5Q mainboard >> >> >> 4GB of DDR2-800 >> >> >> >> >> >> That should just about cover it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 5 Oct 2008, at 14:21, Steve Tomporowski wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> I am looking to upgrade the processor/motherboard on my 'oldest' >> >> >>> system. It's a Neo 4 Platinum with an Athlon X2 3800+. I'm not >> >> >>> looking for the bleeding edge, but for something that'll give me a >> >> >>> substantial increase in speed for games. I've got an Nvidia 280 >> right >> >> >>> now, so that's set. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> What's hot now? >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Thanks....Steve >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >
