Even though quad core is becoming the next new thing it'll still take a while for applications to use all 4 cores. Games are just starting to take advantage of 2 cores, and most ISVs (independent software vendors) aren't even taking advantage of dual core cpus. For example intel has an 80-core prototype and vendors can't even grasp how they will write programs to utilize all the cores. Java for example is naturally multi-threaded, as well as many server applications.

So in my opinion, hell, go ahead and get a quad core, and it'll still speed up general multitasking, and it's always great to have the next best thing right?

Oh and yes mobos are currently making the transition between ddr2 and ddr3. This will follow along with the new Intel P35 chipset. Check out asus's new line of p5k3 mobos.

http://usa.asus.com/products1.aspx?l1=3

The performance benchmarks in regard to the new ram vary, but they're backwards compatible so it's a good investment.

http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid80_gci1253467,00.html

Good article on quad cores.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:00 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2007 12:47:54 PM

topnotch chess programs are the only software that i have seen that take advantage os ANY number of cores available. examples of the programs are rybka, zap! chess, and deep fritz. and most of the top chess programs can utilize 64 bit as well. if you could write a chess program that could mop the floor with rybka you would be god to the computer chess world.

6/28/2007 12:52:09 PM

^yeah dude chess programs actually do use all 4 cores to run all the possible moves. Crazy how smart ai chess programs have gotten.

There are other applications that utilize it too though. Server applications, a few video editing programs, java, ERP applications, big database programs, and whole bunch of stuff by Sun.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:09 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2007 1:07:12 PM

Yeah, I'm just going to be gaming (wow, supreme commander, other stuff to come out in the future).. so it's not that important then? Would Dual-Core work just fine?

6/28/2007 1:13:42 PM

Yeah i was partly being sarcastic when i said get a quad core. Dual core is fine, unless you're into benchmarking (3dmark 06) then a dual core should be fine. WoW maxes out at 1920 by 1200 on my 4 year dell pentuim 4 laptop, so anything you get will max that out.

6/28/2007 1:15:29 PM

also top chess program can use unlimited numbers (only a few) and zap can use up to 32 cores. i think rybka can use up to 2048, but i don't know if it actually scales up after 8. hydra is bad ass. she is fpga cards programmed with 32 cores. a new version is suppose to be out that 64 cores.

6/28/2007 1:18:10 PM

^damn, i mean there's only a few people who can beat those chess programs past a few cores i guess. I haven't really looked into the computer chess world. How do people stand up to these?

6/28/2007 1:19:45 PM

it all depends on how you look at it. for the most part, computers have an edge over humans, being that they analyzed millions of nodes per seconds (positions). a top gm can analyze about 4-10 nodes per second, but they are the top continuations, and not 'garbage'. they is a LOT to explain about this. i wish i knew you personally so that i could explain this to you in person. but mostly anyone you ask will say that computers are vastly superior to humans, but that is not the case, for several reasons, which is entirely to much to explain in writing here. until chess is solved, which i doubt there is enough time in human existence to do so, they will never be vastly superior, but they only a hand full of chess players in the world can compete with them.

look here:

a handicap match between a gm and rybka. rybka won, but the gm with not TOP class.

http://www.rybkachess.com/docs/RYBKA_EHLVEST_2007/Rybka_versus_GM_Ehlvest.htm

here is a open letter for a match from the rybka author. this should give you an idea of how much stronger this program is over ANY other chess program

http://rybkachess.com/docs/ChallengeToFIDE.htm

btw, chess programs are so strong now, that one (strong like HIARCS, or TIGER) on a pda would take pretty much a gm to beat it consistently.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:27 PM. Reason : aer]

6/28/2007 1:25:49 PM

^wow thanks man. I'll look into it. Rybka seems rediculous. That letter was crazy too.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2007 1:32:52 PM

i am a computer chess fan big time. i know all the sources and anything you ever need to know just ask. there is a lot i can tell you. there is no way i will write it all here either. i mean its a LOT.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:34 PM. Reason : sdfg]

6/28/2007 1:34:12 PM

Yeah i can imagine. I used to play chess alot up until about 9th grade. I don't know why i stopped. I need to get back into it. How long do these "computer matches" take? If you're pairing two engines together, are they given a certain amount of time per move? Wouldn't the calculations be incredibly fast?

6/28/2007 1:38:45 PM

man. i am not typing all of this shit out here i am telling i could easily exceed the 10000 character limit in a post just explaining this concept to you. in general - it all depends. some games are fixed times like 60+15, that is 60 mins for the games and 15 seconds added per move you make; this is (bobby)fischer clock time controls - loot of history behind this time control. sometimes there is 'classical time control' which is 2 hours for the first 40 moves, and on the 41st move 1 hour is added to your clock, and after the next 20 moves 15+30 (fischer time) is added.

there is also bullet (usually 1-2 mins), blitz (uaaually 2-15 mins) and rapid) which pretty much (usually) anything that is less than 90 mins total time.

[Edited on June 28, 2007 at 1:47 PM. Reason : dgh]

6/28/2007 1:43:57 PM

Thanks, yeah i knew about the normal chess times, and GM Bobby Fischer, i just didn't know if computers did things differently and how long they actually take to compute a move. If they're given a time limit, do they utilize the whole thing, or what. Anyway, won't make you keep explaining things, i'll do some research and maybe get back into playing some.

6/28/2007 1:52:15 PM

haha

thx for sparing me

6/28/2007 2:10:18 PM

neodata686: BTW ddr3 is not backward compatible. It might have the same number of pins (240), but the notch in the bottom is in a different place. So it will not fit in ddr2 slots. If thats not what you meant then disreguard this.

6/28/2007 4:31:08 PM

Oh sorry my wording was a little strange there. No i meant the new mobo's are backwards compatible with DDR2 ram. For example the new asus P5KC mobos that have DDR3 support, also have DDR2 support.

"- Dual-channel DDR2 1066/800/667 MHz or DDR3 1333/1066/800" -asus website

6/28/2007 4:41:40 PM

bout to buy one of those uber expensive quad 2 octos...they say its like having 3 ps3's in one...found ram for it on newegg for 700 bucks(8gb total)

7/7/2007 4:17:48 PM

What mobo would you guys recommend for Intel overclocking? I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on the E6600 and was trying to decide between the nvidia 650 and 680 chipsets. Which one would you guys recommend?

The mobo I had in mind was

MSI P6N SLI-FI LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 650i SLI
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16813130082

[Edited on July 10, 2007 at 11:48 AM. Reason : ]

7/10/2007 11:48:12 AM

^Great board choice there. I'm running that one and it gives you a plenty of OC options.

The 680 is just more expensive than the 650 with crap that doesn't matter. Go with the 650.

[Edited on July 10, 2007 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

7/10/2007 11:59:50 AM

I have that exact setup, an E6600 with the MSI P6N-SLI, it is an AWESOME setup, i was able to hit 3.6Ghz on air with an Arctic Cooling Freezer 7 Pro

Currently run my setup at 3.0Ghz, still a cool 25% OC

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=192647

[Edited on July 10, 2007 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/10/2007 1:34:20 PM

Sub $800 MultiMedia/Gaming PC from scratch
Attempting to build the most cost effective computer possible. This INCLUDES any extras including the OS and media remote and tuner card.

Case: Ultra Mid tower $5 shipping after rebate(Fry’s)
RAM: 2×1gb Crucial(800mHz) - $65 after rebate(New Egg)
PS: 500w PSU - Free after rebate(Fry’s)
MB: MSI G965M - $90(new egg)
CPU: Intel C2D E6320 1.86MHz $165(new egg)
HD1: 400 GB SATA3GBpS - $90(new egg)
Vista Ultimate - $30(special price education discounted)
Vista Multimedia Remote - $40(new egg)
Hauppauge PVR 250 tuner card - $30(ebay)
DVD drive $25

Total Cost:$540. Im using it as a TV capture and media/file server for now.
I have an older 250 gb hd and will put on an additional 400Gb($90 from new egg).
When Crysis comes out, I will most likely get a middle to high end vc and another case fan. On-board video does the job for now. also overclock the processor. So, after the new vc, less then $800 total.

7/10/2007 2:47:08 PM

did anyone get in on the Quad Core deal for 300 bucks last week? I about pooped myself when I saw it

7/10/2007 2:51:24 PM

^^Where did you get Vista Ultimate for that cheap???

That's one of the big $$ items on my shopping list for my build, and if you got it that cheaply I want in too. Is it the 64-bit version? Is it the same as all the other Vista Ultimate editions?

I'm drooling over here.

7/11/2007 7:43:09 AM

Unfortunately it is the 32 bit version of Ultimate.
I got it through a university.

7/11/2007 11:06:57 AM

^a university? how? through whom? b/c as far as i know Microsoft doesn't have ANY discount on Vista Ultimate for any reason... unless you get it through a promotion or NFR version or from redmond microsoft store

best price for ultimate is ~$200 for OEM for either 32/64bit versions



[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 11:10:09 AM

Yeah, I just went by the NCSU Bookstore, and they had the 32-bit version of Vista Ultimate for $216.

Far far cry from $30

7/11/2007 11:52:27 AM

Since Vista won't boot/install with 4GB of RAM without the patch, does this mean I have to buy and install 2GB when first building my rig, then once Vista is up and running, switch the 2GB out for 4?

I don't want to buy two sets of RAM..

7/11/2007 12:15:49 PM

Maybe that was misleading to say a “discounted” price for ultimate. I’m guessing that each institution sets up its own academic licensing agreement with MS. I’ve seen some universities that offer VistaUltimate for $10-$20 to faculty, staff and students.

7/11/2007 2:47:04 PM

well then you got hooked up, a bit borderline though if you don't attend that university

the only thing remotely close is the MSDN Academic Alliance that is provided for CSC (vista ultimate for free)

but i don't know of any such deal for NCSU...

http://download.microsoft.com/download/7/e/7/7e767a19-5411-4b63-871e-c9667b4323fe/AcademicLicensingUpdate.pdf

seems the vista ultimate is indeed even the retail version, that's crazy, it sucks for all those students who have to buy it through the bookstores with no such discount...

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 3:32:51 PM

guess its 64-bit oem for me.. my mobo better not break..

7/11/2007 3:45:56 PM

Quote :

"the only thing remotely close is the MSDN Academic Alliance that is provided for CSC (vista ultimate for free)"

I think you mean 'Business'?

7/11/2007 4:43:24 PM

right

7/11/2007 5:19:32 PM

4 gigs of ram. Yay or nay? I heard Windows will only recognize 3.0-3.5 of it, the rest will be set aside for PCI devices.

I came across this deal, I'm going to pick up 4 sticks just for the hell of it.

http://shop3.outpost.com/product/5278197?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 11:12 PM. Reason : ]

7/12/2007 11:09:54 PM

windows recognizes all 4gb of it, only 2gb will be accessible for applications, the other 2gb is for windows resources unless you use the 3gb switch in which 3gb will be used for applications and 1gb for windows...

7/12/2007 11:18:31 PM

4 gigs works great in vista ultimate 64 bit. Just need to get the patch before the OS will boot up w/ 4 gigs. I had a 2 gig kit so i used that to install the patch, then changed it to 4 gigs. Haven't had any bsod or trouble since then.

7/13/2007 8:54:45 PM

I'm hopefully going to build myself a computer in the next couple months. I know just enough to make me dangerous and little enough to make me look like an idiot.

So, I was looking at the cheapest of Intel's core 2 duos, the E4300 at 1.8 GHz. What's the AMD equivalent of that, and which would I be better off getting?

7/14/2007 1:33:45 AM

intel, but its worth getting the 6300

7/14/2007 4:15:39 AM

Does anyone here run a dual x16 SLI setup?

7/14/2007 1:06:39 PM

Eventually will when i get my second 8800gtx. If you go with a nvidia chipset you'll need the 680i. The 650i doesn't support sli both running at 16x. One of them runs at 8x.

7/15/2007 7:57:19 AM

Mmmm.. yeah, I was looking at that yesterday. Fun times.

7/15/2007 12:22:39 PM

ok this might sound dumb but i am buildin my computer for the first time;

my case has 3 fans who each have dual molex connectors (1 male, 1 female). i presume it is for daisychaining? also, my psu has a 4-pin cpu power connector, but my mobo looks like it takes an 8-pin. would the 4-pin be fine by itself?

please tell me if im wrong with either of these, i dont want to blow up my first PC

[Edited on July 17, 2007 at 10:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/17/2007 10:34:20 PM

^ Yup the molex male/female are for daisychaining. The 8 pins on your mobo are for 2 cpu power connectors. 4 each. One is find. Depending on your cpu.

7/17/2007 11:13:54 PM

^it's important to note that those 8-pin connections (2x4-pin) are for power for your CPU and have nothing to do with your fans.

to power your fans just daisy chain them together and plug into a molex from your PSU, no need to plug it into your motherboard unless you want them to be automated in which you'd need a 3-pin to 4-pin adapter

7/18/2007 12:31:11 AM

I wonder how much the prices are gonna drop on processors at the end of the month.

Anyone heard any speculation?

7/18/2007 6:15:50 AM

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/intel_core_2_extreme_qx6850/

Quad core would be nice. OR a 6850 for only 266$. Getting so cheap. I bought my 6600 for 320$ a couple months ago and it's already down to 222$!



Those quad cores really boost cpu performance.

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 9:34 AM. Reason : .]

7/18/2007 9:32:58 AM

Was reading somewhere (either anandtech or toms hardware) that the fsb increase to 1333 only yielded a 2-3% increase across most applications.

But hell, if it makes the other stuff cheaper, then I'm all about it.

7/18/2007 9:38:20 AM

^Yeah the biggest difference in CPU power and benchmarks is because of quad cores. DDR3 has hardly a performance boost. We'll have to wait and see how that develops though. And yeah if DDR2 boards get cheaper as well as older c2ds then i'm all for it.

7/18/2007 10:18:41 AM

yea, remember when DDR2 came out and it was actually SLOWER than DDR? Same thing's going to happen here, wait for freq. boost and we'll see the speed increase.

as for the quad cpu score, keep in mind that's a benchmark that's multi-threaded so it actually utilizes all four cores thus the numbers reflect that... everyday desktop work isn't going to be benefited nearly that much

7/18/2007 11:18:00 AM

^Yeah exactly. Only a few applications take advantage of quad cores. I mean gaming has only just taken advantage of dual core processors. Most newer hardware takes a while to get implemented. It's rare stuff starts out really powerful, although i'd argue the Conroe series kicked some ass in the cpu market right away. For example DX10 drivers need much improvement before we see amazing leaps in gpu performance.

7/18/2007 11:34:52 AM

Quote :

"For example DX10 drivers need much improvement before we see amazing leaps in gpu performance."

Nice to see someone who makes use of dramatic understatement.

7/18/2007 12:16:04 PM