And one of them is 200 bucks
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom...-1090t-review/
And one of them is 200 bucks
http://www.guru3d.com/article/phenom...-1090t-review/
Only thing is... I just don't see alot of programs that are optimized for multi core above 2 cores. Kinda disappointing to have all of this power and yet the software doesn't fully utilize it.![]()
![]()
DarkFury's Pimptopia - Don't Hate the Playa, Hate the Game!
Home of the Original OG Pimp (accept NO imitations)
But the new AMD processor has the ability to "shift" computing power to particular cores if a task needs it. A few pages into the article linked above:Originally Posted by Thesifer
The T in the model number indicates the product supports Turbo CORE. AMD's Phenom II X6 series is now equipped with a Turbo feature much like Intel's Core i5/7 series have. The new feature will be called turbo core. Turbo Core will be able to increase the operational frequencies of three active cores by up to 500MHz (depending on the processor) if an application can't use all six cores.
All monitoring and clock/voltage management is exclusively handled by the CPU, so this is not a quick software fix. Turbo Core is triggered based on operating conditions and application load demand. When power consumption is below the CPU's TDP, the technology puts the three used cores in a boost-enabled P-state.
This means that, should the application demand it, those cores will be able to increase their clocks by an amount dependent on the processing workload. This approach has more than one advantage. Since cores don't need to operate at the same frequency, each will only be pushed higher if the application demands it. As such no extra power will be spent on unnecessary overclocking.
stay low... keep moving...




So does Intel. Doesn't always translate into a benefit though. The reality is, you really need a program that can use the cores to realize the full power. 6 cores are going to be overkill for most people; luckily, the price is right.
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature
"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes
Originally Posted by LPMiller
Chicken and the egg.
I say the more cores the better. The lower the price goes the more multicore cpus there will be out in the wild, which will make it more likely for developers to code for it.
Either way, there are a bunch of processes running that you never see and any OS should spread them out to the remaining cores.
Am I alone here? Is that it?
Am I the only one who sees.
Maybe we can learn to be just like him.
Wear a little uniform.
Yes, sir.
No, sir.
Thank you, sir.




not really, cruel. Very few applications would even benefit from more cores, coded or otherwise. Certainly video editing and processing does, but gaming? Most of the hard core machine crushing code is in the graphics engine, which is handled by the GPU. A multicore processor doesn't really add a bunch of benefit to that, but does increase coding complexity for little gain. It's really situational.
Having said that, more cores is great, yes. I'm not against them at all.
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature
"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes
Yeah, give me a higher clock speed & fewer cores. Desktop PCs just don't generate the load that requires that many simultaneous instructions. I can see a 2 core being useful, but I don't see a quad or more making a big difference in everyday desktop computing. In servers, absolutely. But even the 3D CAD software we develop is still only single threaded since most of the heavy lifting is done by the video card. Same with any 3D, gaming, photo or video editing machines. So if we could get dual or quad core VIDEO cards.... now you're talking.
this is me as the ignorant techie, but if this is the case, why doesn't nvidia and ATI develop and market more multi-core video cards?Originally Posted by Jeffbx
"I pick my nose too but never eat it." - bachviet, 3/30/04
if anyone wants to go scuba diving in oahu or wants to learn who to scuba dive in oahu, PM me.
Dunno, but my guess would be heat - it's pretty hard to keep a single core video card cooled since there's no room for a nice big heatsink like on the CPU.
The mfrs do dabble in things like crossfire & SLI, which may be their alternative to multi-cores in a single package.




heat issues, mostly. They are working on them.
Video editing machines DO benefit from more cores, because a lot of the file conversion - say, an HD camera file to any other format - is processor intensive. The videocard really isn't involved in file conversion, or burning to disc. That's why, if you are planning any video editing, I usually recommend a quad core.
lpmiller
Chief News Editor
Nobel Prize Nominee
Reverend in the Universal Life Church
Once Shot A Man For Snoring Too Loud
Way Too Lazy To Change His Signature
"The strength to change what I can, the inability to accept what I can't, and the incapacity to tell the difference." - Calvin and Hobbes
about once a month I need to finish high-quality 3d renderings for my work under very tight deadlines. from what i've seen so far, numbers of cores correlates directly with speed during these high-pressure times. i have a quad core processor now and it's a life saver compared to when i had two. having six would be amazing. i admit though, during other everyday usage i don't see any benefit.
If you read the final conclusion section of that link it mentions that tigerdirect has a 50 dollar rebate for either one of those CPUs.
greatOriginally Posted by nate el bueno
great dealOriginally Posted by nate el bueno
Bookmarks