you guys are making me want to build a new computer, STOP IT

quote:

---

Originally posted by -667-
"I have an idea, why not put 2k in a computer and save a hundred bucks by buying something that breaks easily, is slower, and downright fucking sucks. Just so you can replace it later when it fucks up"

I'm a moron btw lol"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RamJam

quote:

---

Originally posted by -667-
"I have an idea, why not put 2k in a computer and save a hundred bucks by buying something that breaks easily, is slower, and downright fucking sucks. Just so you can replace it later when it fucks up"

I'm a moron btw lol"

---

what exactly are you referring too?

---

couple things had a price on them but were actually free; like the batman game that i will never even open.

send it to me and i will open it

lol @ this whole thread. bunch of retards giving retard advice to a retard.

"I still don't see what's wrong with mining bitcoins, jealous perhaps?" - Soilent Green

quote:

---

Originally posted by Soilent Green
lol @ this whole thread. bunch of retards giving retard advice to a retard.

---

I was just looking at a few sites, and to me it seems like the sweet spot, for performance vs price, is the i7-2600k? Looking at some of the performance reviews, you get about a 4000 more increase in the benchmark with an i7, over the i5-2500, and the price differential is like 80 bucks?

With all this talk of upgrades I may upgrade my CPU/board as I've been running the same athlon phenom x2 for like 4 years. It still runs mostly everything I want, but I think it's bottlenecking my 480gtx pretty badly lol.

Yeah but he's buying the computer for gaming. An i7 currently has no advantage over the i5 for gaming purposes because games cannot currently utilize 4 cores let alone the hyper-threading. The i5 overclocks better than the i7 too. Benchmark points can be very misleading.

ya benchmarks are going to bench default speeds unless specifically noted. the i5 and i7 are essentially the same chip and overclock similarly. there'd be no difference between the two at the same speeds when it comes to gaming.

So how will additional processors effect your performance then? As in,
if I want to run music, while playing a video game (say battlefield 3 or something graphic intensive), while downloading torrents--how do you determine how many processors you can effectively use?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kith-Kanin
So how will additional processors effect your performance then? As in,
if I want to run music, while playing a video game (say battlefield 3 or something graphic intensive), while downloading torrents--how do you determine how many processors you can effectively use?

---

I know a lot of people buy the dual core (with quad threading) i5 model because it actually performs better than the quad core models
I think it overclocks better, or it's just that software takes better advantage of dual core than quad

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
I know a lot of people buy the dual core (with quad threading) i5 model because it actually performs better than the quad core models
I think it overclocks better, or it's just that software takes better advantage of dual core than quad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
I know a lot of people buy the dual core (with quad threading) i5 model because it actually performs better than the quad core models
I think it overclocks better, or it's just that software takes better advantage of dual core than quad

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by foonat
you guys are making me want to build a new computer, STOP IT

---

I play war2 on an 82 inch high def television while sitting on the couch.
_________________
[quote="turtleman@can"]shotgun doesnt hack, i trained him in the arts of homosexuality[/quote]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerasal

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
I know a lot of people buy the dual core (with quad threading) i5 model because it actually performs better than the quad core models
I think it overclocks better, or it's just that software takes better advantage of dual core than quad

---

pretty bizarre claims. almost positive there are no dual core i5's (don't feel like googling to find out), at least not the newest sandy bridge models, and a dual core with the same architecture and speed as a quad core will not perform better than it. if software isn't coded to take advantage of additional cores they would simply be neglected, they wouldn't slow down a program.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerasal

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
I know a lot of people buy the dual core (with quad threading) i5 model because it actually performs better than the quad core models
I think it overclocks better, or it's just that software takes better advantage of dual core than quad

---

pretty bizarre claims. almost positive there are no dual core i5's (don't feel like googling to find out), at least not the newest sandy bridge models, and a dual core with the same architecture and speed as a quad core will not perform better than it. if software isn't coded to take advantage of additional cores they would simply be neglected, they wouldn't slow down a program.

---

Well, I'm running a dual core i5 and they wouldn't have the same architecture as a quad core processor - I don't know the details about why it performs better, I'm just passing along secondhand knowledge from a few of my uber nerd friends.

---

yo poster you never replied

why would you buy win7 newb edition err i mean home edition for $99

if you can download Ultimate for $0.00 ?

the loader (crack) from [daz] is pretty effective.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerasal

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
I know a lot of people buy the dual core (with quad threading) i5 model because it actually performs better than the quad core models
I think it overclocks better, or it's just that software takes better advantage of dual core than quad

---

pretty bizarre claims. almost positive there are no dual core i5's (don't feel like googling to find out), at least not the newest sandy bridge models, and a dual core with the same architecture and speed as a quad core will not perform better than it. if software isn't coded to take advantage of additional cores they would simply be neglected, they wouldn't slow down a program.

---

the idea behind having multiple cores is so that software can perform multi-threading , basically running operations in parallel instead of consecutively, which results in faster processing.

When you write software, let's say you write a calculate function that performs these calculations
1+2=3
3+3=6
4*2=8
6-5=1

if you wanted this to support multi-core functionality, you would say
if user processor is single core, perform all operations consecutively
if user processor is dual core, perform 2 operations in parallel
if ..., perform 4 operations in parallel

writing code like this for an entire program is very cumbersome, so most programs will never support multi-core functionality. Even major publishers are not supporting quad core , because it requires double the amount of code to do it and processors right now are way beyond what is actually necessary to perform the calculations for most programs. And when the burden gets heavier on processing, they usually will just send this to the video card.

So basically, because i3s and earlier i5 models(desktop) are dual core processors and they overclock well, a lot of people would rather do this because 2 cores running at 3.6ghz is probably going to be very comparable to a quad core running at the same speed. And they're generally a lot cheaper. Processors do not bottleneck you at all. This generation of technology will be obsolete by the time we're running programs that require these processors - video cards are the only thing that matter.

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
the idea behind having multiple cores is so that software can perform multi-threading , basically running operations in parallel instead of consecutively, which results in faster processing.

When you write software, let's say you write a calculate function that performs these calculations
1+2=3
3+3=6
4*2=8
6-5=1

if you wanted this to support multi-core functionality, you would say
if user processor is single core, perform all operations consecutively
if user processor is dual core, perform 2 operations in parallel
if ..., perform 4 operations in parallel

writing code like this for an entire program is very cumbersome, so most programs will never support multi-core functionality. Even major publishers are not supporting quad core , because it requires double the amount of code to do it and processors right now are way beyond what is actually necessary to perform the calculations for most programs. And when the burden gets heavier on processing, they usually will just send this to the video card.

So basically, because i3s and earlier i5 models(desktop) are dual core processors and they overclock well, a lot of people would rather do this because 2 cores running at 3.6ghz is probably going to be very comparable to a quad core running at the same speed. And they're generally a lot cheaper. Processors do not bottleneck you at all. This generation of technology will be obsolete by the time we're running programs that require these processors - video cards are the only thing that matter.

---

^ the guy that got mad at me for saying that the science in the movie "Armageddon" was factually inaccurate.
_________________
<[TD]ViRuZ> You have balls...I like balls

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_G0D
^ the guy that got mad at me for saying that the science in the movie "Armageddon" was factually inaccurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aerasal

quote:

---

Originally posted by The_G0D
^ the guy that got mad at me for saying that the science in the movie "Armageddon" was factually inaccurate.

---

oh i forgot that was you. thanks for reminding me how dumb you are.

http://war2.warcraft.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19275&highlight=armageddon

edit: i just reread that thread. you still don't think it was a really stupid thing to say the earth like gravity of the asteroid ruined the completely ridiculous and over the top movie and i was 100% sarcastic? and considering how ben affleck MOTHERFUCKING FLIES/FLOATS HIS BUGGY THING ACROSS A CAVERN UNTIL HE ACTIVATES THE GRAVITY BOOSTERS TO REACH BRUCE WILLIS. seriously, how do you miss that part?

---

I guess all their props and pieces of asteroid that were being drilled also had "rocket boosters" too huh. el oh el
_________________
<[TD]ViRuZ> You have balls...I like balls

my bad... "gravity boosters"
_________________
<[TD]ViRuZ> You have balls...I like balls

Aersal has anger management problems, seems he has a short fuse
_________________