For all you computer people, I have a question.

[OrganisM]

Sorry to double post, but I thought this little article merits it:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=382

AMD Quad FX raped by Intel Quad Core.

Note that the AMD Quad FX setup consists of two dual-core 3.0ghz processors, and the Intel setup is with one QX6700 2.66ghz quad core.

[Nightfirecat]

Wow-- at this rate, this is gonna be moved to the ct thread...

Anyway-- if there are any other questions that people would like me to put up in the first post, just tell me about them and if they seem reasonable questions, then I will keep the conversation going.

[OrganisM]

there isn't any conversation to be had. If you want discussion, you should've given a range of specific topics. Whenever somebody posts a "What is the meaning of life?" topic, it never causes interesting or useful discussion.

And if you just had a simple question, I believe the question is resolved.

[Trumpetman4eva]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

That's an insanely idiotic question to ask by itself. You've got to say what you're using the computer for and what your price range is.

The AMD quad cores aren't even out yet. They aren't due to release until mid-2007, which is within the next couple months. And if you're thinking of the AMD Quad FX, that's two seperate dual-core processors running in sync with HyperTransport. So I have no idea what the hell you're thinking. And if you can't explain why one is faster than the other, go research it or don't bother to post.

For a cheaper PC made for home use, I'd recommend an AMD processor at the moment. But on July 22nd, Intel's releasing their new QX6800 and QX 6850, which are 2.93 and 3.00 ghz, respectively, and dropping the Q6600 to around $260 (if I remember correctly). This means that for maybe $50 more than the AMD dual core 2.8ghz I put in a client's PC, you're getting a 2.4ghz quad core. and while it isn't all that overclockable and most games don't support a dual/quad-core architecture yet, it's mighty useful when running multiple applications at the same time.

Everything anyone says could change every other month when something is released. They're two powerful companies vying for domination, and so each of them is going to continuously pump out better and more competitive products. What that means for you, is instead of being one corporation's bitch, you can pick the best deals from both sides.

I've actually read that some Dual-Cores are faster than the Quads. Forget where that was though, I think PC World.

[Squeek]

Honestly, who cares.

Don't things process fast enough for you without 120938902138 cores on your processor? I've had the same P4 processor for three years now and I've never had a problem with slow speeds.

Seriously, you guys are acting like the HD crowd. ZOMG I CAN SEE THE WHITE SPECKS ON HIS HAT HD IS AWESOME!

Zomg! I'd rather not sacrifice hundreds / thousands of dollars to see white specks! DVDs are plenty fine!

Stick with a Dual-Core. It's the fastest you'll ever need.

[dascookieman]

yeah that's what i tried to say too

[tsugomaru]

For the pricing Intel is better. Both AMD and Intel are reliable, I currently own an AMD CPU because I wanted to see what it's like. You can't really tell the difference.

~Tsugomaru

[jewpinthethird]

For the record: my windows machine is AMD and my windows machine ain't working.

[OrganisM]

You all have just committed an EPIC FAIL.

First, AMD is a fraction of the size of Intel. Stop comparing them.

Second, even though you can't tell the difference when you're watching scat porn on Windows media player using your P4 versus using anything else, there is quite a difference when using higher-end applications. I'm getting into music production, and I'm a gamer. For both of those needs, it's best to get a better performing system. And your system probably isn't even upgradeable to run much of anything anymore. A mobo that supports P4's socket type probably runs off of old PCI-bus video cards, so you'd be lucky to be doing anything other than playing DVDs low-res using WMP.

@ tsugomaru: What price range are you talking about? There are different price ranges, which are better covered by one company than the other. In addition, are the CPUs you're comparing even comparable in clockspeeds/performance?

@squeek: there are those of us who are videophiles, and aren't obnoxious. I love image quality, and have a 56" 1080p HD. And on that screen, **** yes, you can tell the difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

I do, however, have much disdain for those who want to buy something faster just because it has bigger numbers on it. There are many people who do this. But at the same time, it's stupid to knock those who actually need better performance than a late 1990's Fudge Packard.

For those who can't appreciate technology as it is, who have disdain for higher-quality formats simply because they're expensive, stop being ignorant and learn a bit about what you're talking about.

If you think there's little or no practical performance gain using an Intel QX6700 vs an old Pentium 4 and ****ty mobo, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and shouldn't even bother speaking on the matter, lest you insult those who do actually care enough to research it.

I don't ask everybody to be a computer geek, but I do expect you all (how absurd of me) to at least sit down with google for 5 minutes before you start throwing downright ignorant and stupid comments around.




Oh, and Squeek, in the mid 80's, Bill Gates posed an infamous question: Why would anybody need more than 640k?

Well, now we know.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

Second, even though you can't tell the difference when you're watching scat porn on Windows media player using your P4 versus using anything else, there is quite a difference when using higher-end applications. I'm getting into music production, and I'm a gamer. For both of those needs, it's best to get a better performing system. And your system probably isn't even upgradeable to run much of anything anymore. A mobo that supports P4's socket type probably runs off of old PCI-bus video cards, so you'd be lucky to be doing anything other than playing DVDs low-res using WMP.

Oops PCIe x16

Oops I'm a gamer too and I can still run all of my games in full-quality without any lag. This includes Half-Life 2 and its mods among many others.

@squeek: there are those of us who are videophiles, and aren't obnoxious. I love image quality, and have a 56" 1080p HD. And on that screen, **** yes, you can tell the difference between a DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray.

And you spent how much on it? 10,000? I spent a grand on my computer and have yet to notice a lack of quality in my movies. Our TV is 32" and about ten years old with a cheap $20 DVD player hooked up to it. We don't even have a fiber-op out on the thing. And it's still top-notch quality. We paid maybe $500 for the whole thing. Heck we don't even have a flat screen in the house, let alone a flat panel. None of our TVs are HD.

I do, however, have much disdain for those who want to buy something faster just because it has bigger numbers on it. There are many people who do this. But at the same time, it's stupid to knock those who actually need better performance than a late 1990's Fudge Packard.

Finally something we agree on.

For those who can't appreciate technology as it is, who have disdain for higher-quality formats simply because they're expensive, stop being ignorant and learn a bit about what you're talking about.

Oops I'm a Network Administrator with 8 years experience.

If you think there's little or no practical performance gain using an Intel QX6700 vs an old Pentium 4 and ****ty mobo, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about and shouldn't even bother speaking on the matter, lest you insult those who do actually care enough to research it.

I'm talking general use, buddy. Most people AREN'T gamers. Most people DON'T do video editing or movie splicing. Most people WON'T notice a difference.

I ALWAYS speak for the majority when I talk about people.

[OrganisM]

I spent $2200 on an excellent quality Samsung. Yeah, that's all it cost for the HD. And it cost me almost nothing for the rest of my equipment.

What do you consider full quality? And high res? What chipset is on your mobo?

Keep in mind, there are multiple markets and price ranges. Are the people who are talking about performance of a QX6700 vs the new AMD Quad-FX platform going to be "general users"?

And "most" is a relative term. Even if "most" of computer users don't use technology to its full potential, you might be forgetting that we're dealing with large numbers here, so the "minority" of people who use technology fully is at least in the tens of millions, if not hundreds.

Look, I'm not trying to fling **** in your face, but the arguments you're making are a bit off.

EDIT: and when I start a sentence with "for those", I'm talking about multiple people, and it's not necessarily directed towards a single person.

[tsugomaru]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

You all have just committed an EPIC FAIL.

First, AMD is a fraction of the size of Intel. Stop comparing them.

Oh sorry, I forgot to mention I haven't been looking at their newer products. Back when I was looking for parts to buy, I kept on reading reviews where AMD processors lasted for more than two years and read the Intel reviews where the processors broke down pretty fast.

When the Intel Conroe processors came out, the price to power ratio for Conroe was better than the AMD ones after the huge price nerfs. That's where I'm basing my statements off of. I wasn't aware of any new Intel technology with the ability to reduce AMD down to a fraction.

Second, even though you can't tell the difference when you're watching scat porn on Windows media player using your P4 versus using anything else, there is quite a difference when using higher-end applications. I'm getting into music production, and I'm a gamer. For both of those needs, it's best to get a better performing system.

Like you, I'm also a gamer and to be honest, I'm content with the 40-60 fps. My eyes can't tell the difference after anything higher than 30 fps and I can get use to frame lag, if of course my computer will ever go that low.

I never watch high-definition movies on my computer, what's the point? It's a waste of space on my hard drive to download and I have a TV downstairs that can play those movies.

And your system probably isn't even upgradeable to run much of anything anymore. A mobo that supports P4's socket type probably runs off of old PCI-bus video cards, so you'd be lucky to be doing anything other than playing DVDs low-res using WMP.

Once again, I don't watch DVD movies on my computer. Also, you're right that I can't upgrade my computer. I'd have to buy a new motherboard, processor, and ram. But how is that AMD's fault? It's mine.

@ tsugomaru: What price range are you talking about? There are different price ranges, which are better covered by one company than the other. In addition, are the CPUs you're comparing even comparable in clockspeeds/performance?

Yes, I already mentioned when Conroe came out, the price to power ratio was better than anything AMD could come out with even after their releases and price nerfs.

By the way, it's partially my fault because I didn't go into detail about why I said AMD and Intel are about the same. I was looking at it from my point of view, cost and every day computer usage as well as some decent gaming.

~Tsugomaru

[Squeek]

The TV may have been two grand, but the HD-player was another $500 - $1000, the component cables are never cheap, you gotta have a surround sound system with all of that, and then the media is quite a bit as well. You got quite a deal on a 1080p TV if it only cost 2 grand. Most of the ones I see go for 3-6 grand.

I consider top-quality to be shown what the director intended to show. VHS tapes couldn't do this because they had to pan&scan. DVDs started coming out in widescreen and they were formatted to play with Surround Sound with high audio and video quality. That's how the director wants you to watch movies.

I know the limitation of human vision and I know 1080p exceeds those limitations. Humans can only see 60 lines per degree of arc. 1080p puts out more than that.

Put bluntly, from 8 feet away while watching a 50 inch plasma TV, the human eye is generally incapable of reliably distinguishing any detail finer than that shown on a true 720p display!

Source: http://www.vizcom.com.au/news/160/10...f-human-vision

You would need a 100 inch screen to fully utilize 1080p.

[OrganisM]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on a minute. I never said you watch movies on a computer, or that you should. I chose that as a simple everyday usage of computers that actually takes up more power and uses the GPU more than the Notepad and Calculator apps.

And that's the thing, you were looking at things from a particular point of view. And everybody chose a different market/price range to talk about, so it gets stupid. One can't compare the issues of the enthusiast or supercomputer market to the low-end $500 computer user.

For those that are everyday users, they don't know or care what Conroe is, and they'll ask somebody to do all the work for them and tell them what they want. They won't be asking a question about the efficiency of one processor over another given a particular use.

For those who pay attention to benchmarks, they often make use of their equipment, and so it is practical and usable and does make for a real-world benefit.

Originally Posted by Squeek

The TV may have been two grand, but the HD-player was another $500 - $1000, the component cables are never cheap, you gotta have a surround sound system with all of that, and then the media is quite a bit as well. You got quite a deal on a 1080p TV if it only cost 2 grand. Most of the ones I see go for 3-6 grand.

I know Xbox 360's only 1080i, but I spent only $200 more to get the HD-DVD add-on, since I already had my 360, and the cables came with the system. My high quality cambridge soundworks speaker system I bought 4 years ago for $500 is 5.1 and actually very high quality. The TV wasn't even on sale. It uses DLP, which eliminates the pixelated nasty look of some plasmas. So in the past 5-10 years, I've spent maybe 3.5 grand. My setup's very good, too.

Originally Posted by Squeek

I consider top-quality to be shown what the director intended to show. VHS tapes couldn't do this because they had to pan&scan. DVDs started coming out in widescreen and they were formatted to play with Surround Sound with high audio and video quality. That's how the director wants you to watch movies.

The director shot movies in film quality. Are you insinuating that DVDs are film quality? And don't forget that movies are shown in theaters first.

Originally Posted by Squeek

I know the limitation of human vision and I know 1080p exceeds those limitations. Humans can only see 60 lines per degree of arc. 1080p puts out more than that.

It's true, it's more than you can see, but why do I see an improvement? There's also the issue of picture vividness and a lot of other things you don't get as much of in lower-quality TVs.

EDIT: Ah, your article puts it best:

"Of course there are other factors that affect perceived image quality. The way color is handled, the latency of pixel illumination, motion artifacts and the effects of the algorithms that fit the image data to the native resolution of the display (and more importantly the SOURCE) all play a part in a qualitative assessment of the image."

[tsugomaru]

Well, you decided to toss in watching high-def movies on the computer when you were listing things that you did on your PC.

It's really up to the OP, he needs to tell us what he's looking for.

~Tsugomaru

[Nightfirecat]

Originally Posted by tsugomaru

Well, you decided to toss in watching high-def movies on the computer when you were listing things that you did on your PC.

It's really up to the OP, he needs to tell us what he's looking for.

~Tsugomaru

yeah- in my opinion, the only practical use for computers in terms of movies are saving the movies on the computer and watching them later... It's kind of a waste to get a computer with a DVD drive with no intent to save them on your computer.

@organism, the reason I posed this question was to try to bring out the knowledge of the general FFR forum posters (which at this point it has..) and to try to help those who don't understand the topic of computers.
I know plenty about computers-- in fact I'm building one myself, and I would love to participate in this conversation/argument that is going on here, but I can't get online with a decent computer very often.. (until i build mine over the summer )... So I'll try to periodically poke in here and post something.