PDA

View Full Version : Wow, Surprise to Realize that There Has Been 6-Core CPU for Desktop



squirrel
31-01-2012, 12:36 PM
Recently picked up a copy of January edition of Computer Power User with cover story about Intel introducing Core i7-3960X, a new household desktop CPU with 6 cores! The test result isn't really showing how powerful this processor is, since the system they tested on is with a ATI HD6970, which is, from my perspective, too powerful for testing of CPU power. Even they achieved a fps33 for Metro 2033, I don't really know if its GPU's or CPU's contribution to the performance. Of course the price is not that affordable to me, USD1000.

You mates think it is worth pursuing?

Alex Bakke
31-01-2012, 12:39 PM
There are already affordable 6-core CPUs on the market. For example, the AMD X6 1055 or the AMD X6 1090 - They've been out for a couple of years now.

R-F
31-01-2012, 03:42 PM
Yeah, I've had one since 2009.

Shane
31-01-2012, 03:48 PM
Getting one doesn't make much sense from a gaming perspective.

Sic
31-01-2012, 04:01 PM
It doesn't make any sense for any sort of desktop use.

If you're putting together a workstation or a cheap server, it might makes sense, in some instances.

R-F
31-01-2012, 04:56 PM
I use it for the Dwarf Fortress!

Merelia
31-01-2012, 05:09 PM
I use it for the Dwarf Fortress!

Isn't dwarf fortress only capable of using one core? Or has this changed recently?

Mistabashi
31-01-2012, 06:11 PM
More cores != more performance.

Software has to be designed to make use of multiple cores for it to be beneficial, and games aren't aren't really that well suited to multi-threading. CPUs with a lot of cores are great for general number-crunching that can be heavily threaded, so things like compiling code, transcoding video etc will often work well, but for gaming what you want is a CPU with good "per-core" performance. Hence the quad core i5 processors are far better than AMD's offerings, even the ones with 6 or 8 cores.

R-F
31-01-2012, 07:03 PM
Isn't dwarf fortress only capable of using one core? Or has this changed recently?

It changed like last year, I think.

FunnyB
31-01-2012, 07:09 PM
I've had a AMD Phenom II X6 1055T cpu since this summer. It has worked great so far. No problems at all. :D

Dominic Tarason
31-01-2012, 07:54 PM
It changed like last year, I think.

Last reference I could find (from december last year) says nope - it's still single-core, which means that your fancy CPU is only able to put a tiny fraction of it's power into it.

R-F
31-01-2012, 10:40 PM
Last reference I could find (from december last year) says nope - it's still single-core, which means that your fancy CPU is only able to put a tiny fraction of it's power into it.

That's fine, since the majority of six-cores automagically become three-when needed.

DarkNoghri
31-01-2012, 11:47 PM
The new AMD Bulldozers have eight, IIRC. That doesn't make them particularly desirable, though.

(depending on how nitpicky you are on the definition of "cores")

vecordae
31-01-2012, 11:53 PM
The new AMD Bulldozers have eight, IIRC. That doesn't make them particularly desirable, though.

That's because none of the cores featured Blast Processing or Mode 7 Graphics.

DigitalSignalX
01-02-2012, 04:47 AM
Was talking to someone recently who gamed on 5 year old single core AMD 64 something or other, but it was clocked at 3600 Mhz out of the box and with decent timed ram and a really good new GPU. His PC was logging the same performance scores as *much* more expensive game rigs that are new. It's remarkable that consoles are making something 5 years old still top of the line for gaming :(

Can't convert to SSD HD though on that old MB.. it's only real reason to upgrade atm.

vecordae
01-02-2012, 06:39 AM
It's remarkable that consoles are making something 5 years old still top of the line for gaming :(

Up until six months ago I was gaming on a HP/Compaq small form factor business refurb. A single core Pentium 4 HT clocked at 3 gigahertz, two gigs of ram and windows XP pro. I had a low-profile, power-efficient Radeon HD 4650 and rocked a 210 watt power supply. The entire system cost less than 300 dollars US to set up and really was all I could afford at the time. I played Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect, Civ 5, Dawn of War 2, and a whole pile of other new/newer games at 25-40 fps at 1080p with most of the settings on medium.

I loved that thing. Couldn't really even upgrade it further as all of its bits were proprietary. I refused to upgrade until I could get a dual-core, 64-bit processor with a higher clock speed for less than 150.

Bungle
02-02-2012, 01:09 AM
Oh god no. Pentium 4's were terrible for gaming. I remember I upgraded my Pentium 4 to a Core 2 Duo back in the day WITHOUT CHANGING ANYTHING ELSE on my computer and my Counter-Strike: Source framerate went from the 40s up to a solid 300 fps. I threw the Pentium in the trash because I hated it so much.

LGM
02-02-2012, 01:31 AM
Recently picked up a copy of January edition of Computer Power User with cover story about Intel introducing Core i7-3960X, a new household desktop CPU with 6 cores! The test result isn't really showing how powerful this processor is, since the system they tested on is with a ATI HD6970, which is, from my perspective, too powerful for testing of CPU power. Even they achieved a fps33 for Metro 2033, I don't really know if its GPU's or CPU's contribution to the performance. Of course the price is not that affordable to me, USD1000.

You mates think it is worth pursuing?

Want some advice? Don't get your computer news from a magazine. This thing you're using right now, the internet, has many websites devoted to the subject. Get your news from it and you won't be 3 years behind! :D

KaiserBob
02-02-2012, 02:28 AM
That's fine, since the majority of six-cores automagically become three-when needed.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. It's pretty incredible.

vecordae
02-02-2012, 03:32 AM
Pentium 4's were terrible for gaming.

And I STILL played Assassin's Creed Brotherhood at a very tolerable FPS.

Bungle
02-02-2012, 07:05 AM
Recently picked up a copy of January edition of Computer Power User

I'm a longtime subscriber to that magazine, by the way. It isn't a real magazine anymore. It's just a monthly "buyer's guide" which means they get paid to promote stuff. Their reviews don't compare performance between different brands anymore, and their guest editors are long gone. If they review something they don't like, they just don't put a rating up and talk about it in an ambiguous way.

I was going to cancel my subscription last year but got a letter in the mail saying they were switching to a free format, so I allow the magazines to keep coming. I feel bad for the people that produce it. I used to look forward to its arrival every month and pour over every page. No more.