Quote from: ThrowingShapes on January 16, 2009, 10:36:47 AM

Quote from: Track on January 15, 2009, 10:57:17 PM

Oh for the love of.. not this again. It seems like every few months I have rain in the newbies on this forum.

Yes, if Quad SLi was around the same price (or around a reasonable price for a GPU) as SLi, then there would be no reason not to get Quad SLi.

But Quad SLi doesn't even come close to being a worthy comparison because it is HIGHLY inefficient, where as having 4 cores gives you twice the performance of 2 cores. It does not matter if a program can utilize more than a single core, it's that WINDOWS itself can use as many threads as it wants. You have dozens of programs and mini-programs run by the OS itself running at any second, especially in Vista and having twice the power to handle them for around the same price - just makes sense.

It's simply ridiculous not to buy a Quad core CPU. What reason do you have for not buying it? You'd reach pretty much the same clocks by overclocking. You'd get no worse performance. You'd spend almost the same amount of money. A year ago, it would have been a debate, but NOW.. not buying a Quad core is simply the dumbest thing one can do. Look at Intel and their new i7 line - do you see a dual-core CPU offering? No, of course not.

Most programs don't use more than a single core. So ask yourself - why should I get a single-core CPU. And why don't you? Because that would be a waste when you can have 2 cores, which are at worst 0% better and at best 100% better, and the companies know this which is why they no longer make single-core CPU's.

I could GO on, but the point is this - if you buy a dual-core CPU you cannot be my friend. Yes, that's right. Friendship with me will not be a possibility if you waste your money on a dual-core CPU.

Where do I begin? Windows uses as many threads as it can, ok, but windows doesn't really require 4 threads.  I'm not saying a quad core is a waste, I use one personally, and this certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack which you seem to have taken it as.  You say they have the same clocks when overclocking, but you do realize that buying a board that can overclock efficiently will bump up the price even more. This specific person is probably new to the overclocking scene, seeing as how he is hesitant to peice his computer together himself.  As far as intels new i7 line (first off LOL for even bringing that up) those are intended to be used as high end cpus.  That's like asking why Cadillac doesn't release a car from the 1980's next to their escalades.  The single core comparison is, again, an ineffective one because both of us are aware that games require more than a single core CPU at this point which would be the reason for not purchasing one. Unless of course you didn't notice that, in which case I'm glad I could fill you in.

Oh and you not being somebodies friend will make them reconsider their purchase I'm sure.

Quote from: Track

Listen, either save up the money and get a GTX 295, or find a 260 for ~250$ and if you're lucky a 280 for around the same price, like we saw at Buy.com just a few days ago.

The 295, really?  You want him to pay $100 more over the 4870x2 for ~ 5% more performance?  I'm not an ati fanboy, as I own an nvidia card, but the 295, at it's CURRENT pricepoint fails on price/performance.

I'm done arguing with you over your ILLOGICAL posts, I'll let somebody else handle them from here on out.

It's amazing how useless logic is in the PC realm without experience. You, sir, can no longer be my friend.

Quote from: Track on January 16, 2009, 06:46:34 PM

It's amazing how useless logic is in the PC realm without experience. You, sir, can no longer be my friend.

experience? you mean, "use the newest card, motherboard, and CPU you can buy. I don't care if you can afford it" doesn't say much about experience.

it's called getting the most bang for ones buck. Not buying just manufactured video cards and CPU's at sky-high prices simply for the month long thrill of having the best available. The feeling wears off when, a week later, the price is less then half of what it was.

Where do I begin?

Windows uses as many threads as it can, ok, but windows doesn't really require 4 threads.

 I'm not saying a quad core is a waste, I use one personally, and this certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack which you seem to have taken it as. 

You say they have the same clocks when overclocking, but you do realize that buying a board that can overclock efficiently will bump up the price even more. This specific person is probably new to the overclocking scene, seeing as how he is hesitant to peice his computer together himself. 

As far as intels new i7 line (first off LOL for even bringing that up) those are intended to be used as high end cpus. 

That's like asking why Cadillac doesn't release a car from the 1980's next to their escalades. 

The single core comparison is, again, an ineffective one because both of us are aware that games require more than a single core CPU at this point which would be the reason for not purchasing one. Unless of course you didn't notice that, in which case I'm glad I could fill you in.

Oh and you not being somebodies friend will make them reconsider their purchase I'm sure.

say, does anybody want my top of the line ATI 3d Rage Pro? it has a overwhelming 8192 kilobytes of VRAM. exhilaratingly slow speed, and completely unReliable Drivers. I'll trade it for either a old cat or a comb.

Trades for old bits of fluff or string will be considered as well.

Windows will run twice as fast with twice as many cores.

Are you suggesting that Quad-Core CPU's have lower clocks at stock and thus require overclocking to reach the same clock speeds as Dual-Core CPU's? That's ridiculous.

You'd reach pretty much the same clocks by overclocking. You'd get no worse performance. You'd spend almost the same amount of money.