Building A New Computer
- Thread starter Whibble
- Start date
- Watchers 0
- Status
im simply laughing at secro for going to a retail store to purchase a gpu
Nesstea said:
i cant believe you could even imply that i didnt know what a gpu is...
secroduz said:
I could only imagine what great card you got from walmart bro
secroduz
Fake Adm1n No Perms
- Joined
- May 21, 2011
- Messages
- 1,361
- Reaction score
- 370
FatalDaBeast said:
Lol? a store doesn't mean walmart. And if that's your way of saying I'm poor, you're dead wrong.
I went to micro-center, and you probably don't have one where you live because you're not cool enough.
I got a $150 card from newegg at microcenter for $110, fourty bucks off internet price.
secroduz said:
i think your a little bit insecure about your economic status secroduz
ANDS THAT A LOW PRICE ELITESWEETS
secroduz said:
no but by judging by your general attitude towards the subject you seem to be very insecure about your financial security, and I don't know why your so defensive, its your parents money
8tails
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 12
Silazra said:
Wow... really, you do realize that Bulldozer is 8-12 Cores, instead of Sandy Bridge which is 4 Cores with 2-4 Threads per core?
And AMD's dual and quad core processors for the past decade have just been refurbished and modified Athlons architecture the entire time ... Fail.
This thread is full of fail, just wait untill AMD Releases their new architecture within the upcoming next months, it won't dissapoint.
Hyperthreading:
In 1968, IBM had introduced a new concept that could enable Software Threads at the lowest level transparent to the application developers, this was known as SMT or Simultaneous Multithreading.
Sure, it was a great innovation but several years later was copied and re-branded as Hyper Threading (HT) by Intel in it’s x86 processors. Intel claims it to produce two parallel threads without loss in performance. Well, it’s not true.
AMD has recently talked about why it doesn’t opt for Hyper threading, rather lays multicores as it’s core business strategy.
Today, almost every production environment has mandated to stay away from it. Here are few examples:
■Novell calls Disabling HT a cool solution.
■Cognos, a leading BI software by IBM, recommends disabling HyperThreading for better performance, stablity.
■Microsoft recommends turning off HyperThreading when running PeopleSoft applications because “our lab testing has shown little or no improvement.”
■A Microsoft TechNet article recommends disabling Hyper-threading for production Exchange servers and “only enabled if absolutely necessary as a temporary measure to increase CPU capacity until additional hardware can be obtained.”
■Advanced Clustering found when running High Performance Linpack (HPL) that “Using HT on the other hand causes a ~10% drop in performance compared to HT not being used.”
Ofcourse HT can provide a cheaper and power efficient solution for desktop by giving 10-20% performance benefit but as desktop apps and Operating Systems are becoming more capable, intelligent, demanding and hence more Multithreaded, HT loses it’s purpose.
We need more cores. Sun SPARC has 8 cores, AMD and Intel too will have them soon. We need to continue this innovation more than looking at the cheaper alternatives that add little value.
8tails said:
Since when does more cores mean better? Besides, we're talking about what he can buy now, not in several months. Which, by the way, still makes my statement true, which you even validated yourself by saying everything currently available doesn't even compare to Intel since it's just refurbished/modified Athlons. Think clearly before you post passive-aggressively next time.
8tails
Member
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 154
- Reaction score
- 12
Silazra said:
Right... more cores does mean better, atleast in terms of raw peformance, unless you have applications which are specific coded to make full use of threads, and since threads are so old already, highly doubtful. 1968-2011, look how much our software has evolved when it was finally adopted by a big name brand manufacturer. Its a dying technology, Ageia PhysX? AMD's budget is split between GPU and CPU development, seven months later is lol, they demonstrated their new CPU's at E3 2011. Besides, im not here to debate technology with an intel fanboy, I really dont care. It's a piece of hardware, im stating the obvious, AMD prices right, and when they are released (soon) will overturn the Sandy Bridges. And if he buys one on release, he gets a piece of mind that what he just bought wont be obsolete next week. All and all, im more concerned about him saving money, and getting performance than debating what is the ultimate processor ever manufactured with a money is no cost ideology.
The FX processor will be a perfect fit for the gamers because of its increased performance capabilities and the increased clock speeds of 3.8 GHz and the Turbo mode will give you a whopping 4.2 GHz in 105 W ACP / 130 W TDP. The power consumption is likely to increase with this processor but at the same time it will offer superior performance and increased functionality to the users.
The FX processors will be a great one for the web designers as well and for the people who run processor intensive softwares and applications. The 8 core will definitely give users a never before experience.
The new 8 core FX processor will be available for a price of $320 and will be in the market pretty soon.
June 13th 2011
- Status