Quote:
Originally Posted by JayP
If I don't plan on upgrading or 3-4 years is it worth it to go for a dual core? Or will everything be taking advantage of the quad core by then, dual cores will be non-existant and they'll have released processors with even more than 4 cores?
Would it be better to go for a 9800 GTX instead of the SLI 8800 GT's?
|
Well, I have a geek desire for quad core, but I know on the build I will be doing in the near future I will stick with dual core.
Because I figure the dual core computer I can build right now will be better than the quad core I could build right now, and will remain so for at least 3 years. In 3 years, if there is a program good enough to need quad (or more) core, then a 3+ year old Q6600 isn't going to be the solution.
By the time quad core becomes necessary, a whole new upgrade will also be necessary.
* Geek note: Intel's current issue in their processor architecture is the memory subsystem. The "brains" of the CPU can process stuff much faster than the rest of the cpu can move it in and out. They have covered it up by using larger and large cache, but the benefits of this are pretty much exhausted. Their next generation of desktop processors is about a year to 18 months away. Interestingly, the memory system is one thing AMD did correctly from the get-go, but wasn't able to keep up with the Intel when Yonah was released. By the time AMD has their issues straightened out and can challenge Intel, Intel should have their memory bottlenecks resolved. Competition is good.
*and this I know just from reading many of the tech sites on the net. ars Technica, [H]ard OCP, etc