AMD 3 and 4 core CPUs...

[goldfries]

I'm eyeing on the phenom.

looking to get quad-core for folding@home purpose.

time to boost my stats

[Adrian Wong]

Originally Posted by bslee

I've still a soft spot for AMD and still wondering if my next upgrade should be Intel or AMD. I still hear AMD is no more bang for the buck. I only now wonder when they'll break through again. I hope its soon.

Well, Intel still offers the best bang for the buck right now. AMD really has to improve their yields and performance before they can beat the Core 2 processors.

[Lacus]

Best bang eh..But Intel are usually smart..They always come out with newer proc and newer chipsets which actually burns some user's pocket... (like mine...) I too might get a Phenom..Maybe...Or maybe a Intel Quad Core proc..If everything goes in place

[Adrian Wong]

Actually, the lower-end Intel processors offer the most bang for the buck now. The higher-end quad-core processors are pricey but that's because AMD Phenoms do not pose a real challenge to them.

[Chai]

It's a waste of money to go quad core now unless you primarily do video encoding.

[Lacus]

But does Quad Core system do any good beside on video encoding? Like for gaming wise? Or doing multitasking? Does that conclude that Dual Core system is more than enough? From what i heard AMD is releasing a Quad Core Processor for around 300+ (phenom 9100 if i can recall =/)

[generalRage1982hrv]

there is no point of using a quad core cpu
maybe because neither the linux or windows use it fully
they can only be used for servers and then you would see a benefit of it
in most games and programs other two cores are offline and highest score is geting a two core cpus

[Max_87]

Originally Posted by Lacus

But does Quad Core system do any good beside on video encoding? Like for gaming wise? Or doing multitasking? Does that conclude that Dual Core system is more than enough? From what i heard AMD is releasing a Quad Core Processor for around 300+ (phenom 9100 if i can recall =/)

1. and distributed computing. Other than that no. Like Chai said before, waste of money and power.
2. No
3. No (unless you are doing video encoding/distributed computing while doing other stuff, which bring us back to question 1)
4. Yes


The 9100 will perform badly especially in games or any other applications that utilizes only 1/2 threads or relies heavily on raw clock speed.

Bad choice unless you want to do video encoding or DC AND you already have an AM2 based system. Don't even think about overclocking this chip, it's most likely the leftovers from the binning for higher models. Plus the yields are already bad enough to begin with.

[Lacus]

but if certain model of quad core are cheap, then is it worthy to get quad core?Meh, already replied before i can type anything =_="

[Max_87]

No, I believe this question has been answered several times. Like we mentioned before, waste of money and power. This is the main reason why me and Chai chose E6850 instead of Q6600 back then when both costs almost exactly then same. Another reason is E6850 overclocks better.