Edited by connorss, 16 March 2010 - 08:33 PM.
iBotModz CBox
wow uber fail
#1
Posted 16 March 2010 - 08:16 PM
#2
Posted 16 March 2010 - 08:25 PM
#3
Posted 16 March 2010 - 08:34 PM
#4
Posted 16 March 2010 - 10:03 PM
P.S. AMD's response is coming soon, they already have engineering samples of a Phenom II x6 out.
#5
Posted 17 March 2010 - 11:05 AM
6 cores... i do audio engineering at 96Khz quality (im sure that means nothing but just imagine a really big number ) but some systems (with that sorta cpu) can go up to 148khz, and edit blueray quality video simultaneously. try that on your $200 cpu and watch your computer crawl to a painful hault.The new core i7 980x is fail. like c'mon who's gona pay 999$ for a cpu while amd has a cpu that is around as good for 200$.
i agree that for the AVERAGE user it is useless, but if you had $999 to spend on a single component, chances are you dont want an average pc... yes?
ps... i would call it more of a win. 6 cores would be epic
#7
Posted 17 March 2010 - 01:10 PM
6 cores... i do audio engineering at 96Khz quality (im sure that means nothing but just imagine a really big number ) but some systems (with that sorta cpu) can go up to 148khz, and edit blueray quality video simultaneously. try that on your $200 cpu and watch your computer crawl to a painful hault.
i agree that for the AVERAGE user it is useless, but if you had $999 to spend on a single component, chances are you dont want an average pc... yes?
ps... i would call it more of a win. 6 cores would be epic
This is a perfect example.
#8
Posted 17 March 2010 - 04:02 PM
ok true u beat me there i cant wait for amd responce6 cores... i do audio engineering at 96Khz quality (im sure that means nothing but just imagine a really big number ) but some systems (with that sorta cpu) can go up to 148khz, and edit blueray quality video simultaneously. try that on your $200 cpu and watch your computer crawl to a painful hault.
i agree that for the AVERAGE user it is useless, but if you had $999 to spend on a single component, chances are you dont want an average pc... yes?
ps... i would call it more of a win. 6 cores would be epic
#9
Posted 18 March 2010 - 01:20 PM
....it has 6 cores
I only have one =(
#10
Posted 18 March 2010 - 04:01 PM
thanksThis is a perfect example.
diddnt mean 2 be agressive, but yeah point provedok true u beat me there i cant wait for amd responce
#11
Posted 18 March 2010 - 06:52 PM
Most apps arnt coded for that many cores, so it doesnt make much of a case.thanks
diddnt mean 2 be agressive, but yeah point proved
#12
Posted 18 March 2010 - 07:47 PM
Most apps arnt coded for that many cores, so it doesnt make much of a case.
Well, then those apps don't need 6 cores. But the apps for industry pros can utilize 6 cores, many can handle more than that. For instance there is a motherboard out that can hold 4 AMD processors, with 6 cores each. Thats 24 cores, and apps can utilize those too. Of Course, the average windows system cannot utilize more than 1 CPU, but thats beside the point.
http://www.pugetsyst...o.php?part=6643
http://www.pugetsyst...o.php?part=6655
#13
Posted 18 March 2010 - 08:05 PM
Thats a sever motherboard though, which is far above any end user.Well, then those apps don't need 6 cores. But the apps for industry pros can utilize 6 cores, many can handle more than that. For instance there is a motherboard out that can hold 4 AMD processors, with 6 cores each. Thats 24 cores, and apps can utilize those too. Of Course, the average windows system cannot utilize more than 1 CPU, but thats beside the point.
http://www.pugetsyst...o.php?part=6643
http://www.pugetsyst...o.php?part=6655
#14
Posted 19 March 2010 - 06:36 AM
Thats a sever motherboard though, which is far above any end user.
=Ahh, but we are not talking about the "end user", We are talking about large company's that need a very fast central server (maybe the schools should take a lesson in that, instead of the slow as shit ones my school has =.=), but your right, the average user cannot use a server mobo & CPU. But this is just proving the point that CPU's with more than 4 cores can be useful.
#15
Posted 19 March 2010 - 08:19 AM
actualy, Microsoft released a new mainframe os.=Ahh, but we are not talking about the "end user", We are talking about large company's that need a very fast central server (maybe the schools should take a lesson in that, instead of the slow as shit ones my school has =.=), but your right, the average user cannot use a server mobo & CPU. But this is just proving the point that CPU's with more than 4 cores can be useful.
but if you were going to do that you would use a xeon, not a core i7
Edited by gruntmods, 19 March 2010 - 08:20 AM.
#16
Posted 19 March 2010 - 09:13 AM
actualy, Microsoft released a new mainframe os.
but if you were going to do that you would use a xeon, not a core i7
This is mainly true, but for a multipurpose system, why not an i7? Xeon's are mainly for servers.
#17
Posted 19 March 2010 - 09:24 AM
But a mainframe is a serverThis is mainly true, but for a multipurpose system, why not an i7? Xeon's are mainly for servers.
#18
Posted 19 March 2010 - 11:51 AM
But a mainframe is a server
Percisly, thats where you would use an Xeon or Opteron. But for a system that would be used for video editing, for example, you would not use a server motherboard & CPU.