Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next 3-4 months.
Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad core extreme on websites, but
on tv Im seeing ads touting the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I
consider getting quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer
lifetime (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something too
bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
"Adam Russell" <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:4se9h9Fv4ls4U1@mid.individual.net...
> Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next 3-4 months.
> Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad core extreme on websites,
but
> on tv Im seeing ads touting the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I
> consider getting quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer
> lifetime (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something too
> bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
Quad cores are just coming out,it will be a while until they regonize their
full potential.and the price now will be sky high.A Core 2 Duo will last
you quite a while,and most good new motherboards will have support for quad
core if you want to upgrade later.
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:20:12 -0800, "Adam Russell"
<adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote:
>Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next 3-4 months.
>Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad core extreme on websites, but
>on tv Im seeing ads touting the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I
>consider getting quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer
>lifetime (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something too
>bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
>
You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
For some people, even single core is still the best
alternative.
You have not mentioned the budget either.
Don't buy anything trying to see into the future, nor spend
extra thinking it'll have a longer life as that is almost
never true, paying more tends only to gain a few months on
the treadmill of ever-increasing system performance. Buy
what you know for certain is the best benefit towards what
you are already using your system to do, or had wanted to do
but were limited by present hardware.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Adam Russell <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote
>> Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next
>> 3-4 months. Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad
>> core extreme on websites, but on tv Im seeing ads touting
>> the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I consider getting
>> quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer lifetime
>> (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something
>> too bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
> You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
> For some people, even single core is still the best alternative.
Not many, just those that dont plan to keep the system long.
> You have not mentioned the budget either.
> Don't buy anything trying to see into the future,
That is just plain silly. It makes a lot of sense to
avoid motherboards with AGP slots while those are
still being run out. ATA hard drives currently too,
particularly when so few motherboards are available
with more than a single ATA port and when that will
be used for the optical drives for quite a while yet.
> nor spend extra thinking it'll have a
> longer life as that is almost never true,
Depends on how much more you are considering spending.
It makes quite a bit of sense to go for a low end Conroe
based system knowing that you can put in a better Conroe
cpu later if you end up needing that extra performance than
it does to save a little on a non Conroe system with no future.
> paying more tends only to gain a few months on the
> treadmill of ever-increasing system performance.
That would have been just plain wrong if a PCIe based motherboard
had been chosen over a slightly cheaper AGP based motherboard.
The PCIe based motherboard has a lot better future video card wise.
> Buy what you know for certain is the best benefit towards
> what you are already using your system to do, or had
> wanted to do but were limited by present hardware.
No thanks, I'll consider which way things are headed too.
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4selreFvccvcU1@mid.individual.net...
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Adam Russell <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next
>>> 3-4 months. Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad
>>> core extreme on websites, but on tv Im seeing ads touting
>>> the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I consider getting
>>> quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer lifetime
>>> (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something
>>> too bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
>
>> You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
>
>> For some people, even single core is still the best alternative.
>
> Not many, just those that dont plan to keep the system long.
>
>> You have not mentioned the budget either.
>
>> Don't buy anything trying to see into the future,
>
> That is just plain silly. It makes a lot of sense to
> avoid motherboards with AGP slots while those are
> still being run out. ATA hard drives currently too,
> particularly when so few motherboards are available
> with more than a single ATA port and when that will
> be used for the optical drives for quite a while yet.
Are you saying I should avoid ATA HD's? Whats the preferred alternative?
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:7o34m21ukrtkk290gbi3hdbvatqeuv085q@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 10:20:12 -0800, "Adam Russell"
> <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next 3-4 months.
>>Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad core extreme on websites,
>>but
>>on tv Im seeing ads touting the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I
>>consider getting quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer
>>lifetime (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something too
>>bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
>>
>
>
> You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
> For some people, even single core is still the best
> alternative.
>
> You have not mentioned the budget either.
>
> Don't buy anything trying to see into the future, nor spend
> extra thinking it'll have a longer life as that is almost
> never true, paying more tends only to gain a few months on
> the treadmill of ever-increasing system performance. Buy
> what you know for certain is the best benefit towards what
> you are already using your system to do, or had wanted to do
> but were limited by present hardware.
Adam Russell <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Adam Russell <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote
>>>> Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next
>>>> 3-4 months. Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad
>>>> core extreme on websites, but on tv Im seeing ads touting
>>>> the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I consider getting
>>>> quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer lifetime
>>>> (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something
>>>> too bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
>>> You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
>>> For some people, even single core is still the best alternative.
>> Not many, just those that dont plan to keep the system long.
>>> You have not mentioned the budget either.
>>> Don't buy anything trying to see into the future,
>> That is just plain silly. It makes a lot of sense to
>> avoid motherboards with AGP slots while those are
>> still being run out. ATA hard drives currently too,
>> particularly when so few motherboards are available
>> with more than a single ATA port and when that will
>> be used for the optical drives for quite a while yet.
> Are you saying I should avoid ATA HD's?
When buying new drives, yes.
> Whats the preferred alternative?
SATA. Just because new motherboards have
a lot more sata ports than ATA ports now.
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 08:43:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>> Adam Russell <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote
>
>>> Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next
>>> 3-4 months. Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad
>>> core extreme on websites, but on tv Im seeing ads touting
>>> the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I consider getting
>>> quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer lifetime
>>> (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something
>>> too bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
>
>> You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
>
>> For some people, even single core is still the best alternative.
>
>Not many, just those that dont plan to keep the system long.
Not quite, most people don't reinvest in all new software
every time they do a system replacement or upgrade. If
their software is already significantly multithreaded, then
they already had the benefit of dual core. If it isn't,
they're continuing to use software most benefitted from
higher clock per $ from single core.
Long is relative though, but do you really try to plan years
ahead? Never a good idea, by then it's time to upgrade the
system again if the performance was THAT important.
>
>> You have not mentioned the budget either.
>
>> Don't buy anything trying to see into the future,
>
>That is just plain silly. It makes a lot of sense to
>avoid motherboards with AGP slots while those are
>still being run out.
PCI Express isn't the future, it's the present.
> ATA hard drives currently too,
SATA, also in the present.
>particularly when so few motherboards are available
>with more than a single ATA port and when that will
>be used for the optical drives for quite a while yet.
Now who is stuck in the present? We can as easily forsee
opticals moving to SATA, but since in the present most
aren't, the system shouldn't be planned around one.
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Adam Russell <adamrussell@sbcglobal.net.invalid> wrote
>>>> Im thinking of getting a new computer sometime in the next
>>>> 3-4 months. Looking at what's new I see duo core and quad
>>>> core extreme on websites, but on tv Im seeing ads touting
>>>> the duo cores as "the latest thing". Should I consider getting
>>>> quad core with the thinking that it will have a longer lifetime
>>>> (time till new games run slow)? Or is quad core something
>>>> too bleeding edge (may have infant mortality issues)?
>>> You have not mentioned your specific computing needs.
>>> For some people, even single core is still the best alternative.
>> Not many, just those that dont plan to keep the system long.
> Not quite,
We'll see...
> most people don't reinvest in all new software every
> time they do a system replacement or upgrade.
Never said a word about all new software there.
And its obviously only the software that they care about
the best performance with that would need to be updated.
And going for a dual core processor instead of single core
would mean its more likely that new stuff purchased in the
future would take advantage of the dual core now that
those are such excellent value now. Thats why I made that
comment about how long you are planning to keep it etc.
> If their software is already significantly multithreaded,
> then they already had the benefit of dual core.
Not if they currently dont have a dual core processor.
> If it isn't, they're continuing to use software most
> benefitted from higher clock per $ from single core.
See above.
> Long is relative though, but do you really try to plan years ahead?
I do have an eye to where the industry is headed and realise
that it makes more sense to go dual core now instead of single
core if I plan to keep that system for more than a short time,
just because future software upgrades will likely exploit dual
core more in the future, because dual core is now so common.
> Never a good idea, by then it's time to upgrade the
> system again if the performance was THAT important.
Doesnt need to be THAT important to be able to benefit
from updated apps that exploit dual core processors
instead of sticking with a single core processor, particularly
if there isnt a significant saving in going single core and
at least some of what you do is where performance
matters, even if its just some occasional transcoding etc.
You might as well go dual core if you arent paying a lot for it.
>>> You have not mentioned the budget either.
>>> Don't buy anything trying to see into the future,
>> That is just plain silly. It makes a lot of sense to avoid
>> motherboards with AGP slots while those are still being run out.
> PCI Express isn't the future, it's the present.
Yes, but BEFORE today, there was a time when you could
buy both types of motherboards and it would THEN have
made a lot more sense to be buying the PCIe format for the
rather better future that would bring, particularly if you are
likely to upgrade just the video card later for better games
performance rather than just buying a whole new system.
Even if you were more likely to upgrade the motherboard and cpu
instead, you would STILL have been better off with a PCIe system
AT THAT TIME, because you could reuse the video card much
easier, say you were expecting the Core 2 Duo down the track etc.
>> ATA hard drives currently too,
> SATA, also in the present.
Hasnt always been that way, and you desperately attempted
to claim that it made more sense to be buying an ATA drive
NOW instead of SATA with a particular system very recently.
>> particularly when so few motherboards are available
>> with more than a single ATA port and when that will
>> be used for the optical drives for quite a while yet.
> Now who is stuck in the present?
Sure aint me.
> We can as easily forsee opticals moving to SATA,
Yes, but we can see that currently there are fuck all of those buyable.
> but since in the present most aren't, the
> system shouldn't be planned around one.
It makes a lot of sense to be buying SATA hard drives now
if you plan to move them and the optical drives to a new
system any time soon and are doing a gradual upgrade
while you accumulate the cash for a new system.
duo core or quad 
Linear Mode
