[computeruler]

i herd amd uses child labor in 5th world contries or mabye 3rd i cant remember

[pandahead]

See, that's odd. It always used to be that a cheaper AMD chip would beat an intel chip. *shrugs* Well, if Intel have sorted the stability issues that plagued their earlier dual core models, then I may well go back to them.

Okay, next question. Turion ZM-80 chip. Good or bad?

[Spencer2004]

intel is best, they perform better and overclock better. on the other hand you can get an amd dualcore for about £30 so amd is good for budget and media PCs

[marko]

i have got to say that the intel quad extreme does perform well but always like amd just beacause the architectural brilliance of the phenom, 4 cores on 1 die unlike intel with their Multi-Chip Module

[thingie2]

What difference does it make being on either a single chip, or 2?

[Carbon]

It doesn't, and the crock that gamers need 4-core machines is silly in the first place. They were essentially workstation chips until Intel decided to sell them as SUPER XTREME PERFORMANCE and then everyone and their mom decided they needed a quad-core despite applications having very, very low CPU requirements.

[marko]

Originally Posted by thingie2

What difference does it make being on either a single chip, or 2?

performance wise it has probably taken a hit as the process wasn't as refined as it could be when it was released,in my view just more of a step forward from an architechture point of view having 4 cores on one die
btw i also agree that having 4 cores is pretty unesscary as it is uncommon that a dual core is ever fully utilized
:)

[Glaswegian]

Some interesting (or maybe not...) reading...

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/c...Max-9,369.html
http://hubpages.com/hub/Single__Dual...s_Best_For_You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core

[thingie2]

Even though quads aren't fully utilised in most things (or even duels) I'm still considering going for a Core i7 CPU for my build which I will hopefully be doing at about Christmas. But they are faster at nearly everything, even most games (compared to the QX9770) and it only 1 or 2 fps behind at the ones it worst at, they also OC very well from the review I saw, they got the CPU from 2.66 (i think) to about 4GHz (no phase change, liquid nitrogen etc) which is pretty impressive.

[Carbon]

Originally Posted by Glaswegian

Some interesting (or maybe not...) reading...

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/c...Max-9,369.html
http://hubpages.com/hub/Single__Dual...s_Best_For_You
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-core

More not, for me. Those who run 3DSMAX already _know_ they want a quad-core. The second article recites the same old "futureproofing!!!!!!!!!!!" argument I've debunked in my hardware guide (I'd love to write an even longer article on it but I've been pretty busy lately).

Originally Posted by thingie2

Even though quads aren't fully utilised in most things (or even duels) I'm still considering going for a Core i7 CPU for my build which I will hopefully be doing at about Christmas. But they are faster at nearly everything, even most games (compared to the QX9770) and it only 1 or 2 fps behind at the ones it worst at, they also OC very well from the review I saw, they got the CPU from 2.66 (i think) to about 4GHz (no phase change, liquid nitrogen etc) which is pretty impressive.

The removal of the FSB and such will have pretty noticeable effects on performance. I would still wait for the 32nm shrink in 2010, though - it's not until then that it's likely CPU power is going to be a bigger deal. I remember reading a thread from back in the Geforce 3 days where they were discussing the same thing - how the CPU is not the bottleneck and you should spend your money on the GPU.