Core2extreme vs Quad Core

On May 14, 10:34*pm, Paul wrote:
Roy wrote:
On May 15, 9:25 am, "Ian D" wrote:
"Roy" wrote in message

....

Hello guys, *which is really best for high *end,performance
application;
Core 2 Extreme or Quad Core....?
Which is more costly between the two and which is the best high
performance computing assuming the graphic and Graphic *cards are
optimized as well.
The QXnnnn Core 2 Extremes are quad core CPUs. *As far
as raw performance is concerned, the Extreme will beat
the Quad. *The number of applications presently available
that can utilize all cores of a multicore CPU is rather limited.

Re pricing: In Canada the Quad Q9650 is $429, and the Extreme
QX9650 is $1311, nearly triple the price. *Of course, the QX is
designed for overclocking, as the multiplier is unlocked.

Hmm, therefore it means hat core2 extreme is the way to go supposing
you want to builld a high performance PC
That will take longer time to upgrade than the multicores in the
quadcore?
That pc is to be used for Autocad ,photoand *video editing plus high
end gaming performance?

The way to go is...

to look at price and performance.

You can look at the number of reviews first, to understand what other
people are buying. What you'll notice, is people are buying two different
processors.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...NE&N=201034034....

632 reviews
Core 2 Quad Q9550 Yorkfield 2.83GHz/FSB1333/ 12MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W *$269

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115041

3099 reviews
Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz/FSB1066/ 2 x 4MB L2 Cache LGA 775 95W *$220

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115017

The Q9550 is the cheapest processor with 12MB of cache. You can raise
the core frequency, by overclocking the FSB. A good motherboard
will leave room for FSB manipulation.

The Q6600, an older processor, represented good value, because it
could be overclocked. So the purchaser is not limited to 2.4GHz
operation.

For the price difference, the Yorkfield will be a better value.
But you also have to work out what a Core i7 could do for you.
Once you take the price of the motherboard into account,
and how much the memory will cost, that will give you a better
idea of how a Core i7 system compares to a Core2 Quad. The price
of the processor is not the only expense.

I used really cheap DDR2 memory on my motherboard, and that
helped keep the price of my upgrade reasonable. My whole upgrade
cost $300 at the time, and I got to reuse my old video card.
Naturally, it doesn't have the performance of what you're planning,
as it is only a dual core.

* * Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -,l

Thanks for that Paul!

Roy wrote:

On May 14, 10:19Â*pm, Paul wrote:
Roy wrote:
On May 15, 8:46 am, Paul wrote:
Roy wrote:
Hello guys, Â*which is really best for high Â*end,performance
application;
Core 2 Extreme or Quad Core....?
Which is more costly between the two and which is the best high
performance computing assuming the graphic and Graphic Â*cards are
optimized as well.
Try some benchmark charts.


http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Maincon...

Make sure the chart you pick, represents the activity you want to
do with the computer.

In some of the benchmarks, only two of the cores are being used, so
the application may not even be matched to a quad core processor.


http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/d...3-2008/Crysis-...

Paul

From that bench marks the Corei7 surpassed the core 2
extreme...meaning the corei7 is the best choice for high performance
desktop that will take a long time before another cpu and motherboard
upgrade?
But what I don't understand if the Corei7 is the top of the line , how
come the core 2 extreme is more expensive ?
Does the core 2 extreme have features and benefits that Â*are unique
and not found in corei7?

The Core i7 has the advantage that the memory controller is part
of the processor chip. That reduces the latency or delay, for
info to get from memory, into the processor. That is the main
benefit of Core i7. Basically, Core i7 is doing the same thing
that AMD has been doing for a while - direct memory interface.

*******
With regard to your question about the older Extreme...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2

"This means that the only major difference between the regular Core 2 Duo
and Core 2 Extreme, is the clock rate and unlocked multiplier...

The unlocked upward multiplier is of use to enthusiasts as it allows the
user to set the clock rate higher than shipping frequency without
modifying the FSB..."

So the Extreme is mainly intended for rich guys, who like to overclock
without having to work very hard. You basically dial up the multiplier
until it crashes.

With regular processors, the multiplier is limited (my processor only
goes to x13 for example). If I want to overclock, I have to increase the
FSB frequency. Some chipsets can support FSB settings all the way to
FSB2000, before there is trouble. So if you purchase a nominal FSB1333
processor, the "FSB headroom" makes it possible to do a 50% overclock,
if the processor will allow it.

The owner of an Extreme, on the other hand, doesn't have to torture
the chipset on the motherboard. By adjusting the multiplier freely,
they can increase the core frequency inside the processor, without
affecting other subsystems. For the privilege of doing that, Intel
wants more money.


Hmm, thanks , that makes sense.....

Have you considered Amd for quad core choice check this this bench mark out
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html

Look where the 940 phenom comes in. Then check the price of the cpus above
it to the price of the phenom 940. Don't use the phenom 940 myself but have
heard good things about it.

On Fri, 15 May 2009 03:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

On May 14, 11:18*pm, kony wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy



Overall, your question seems too generic to answer, like you
want a simple choice when it is more complicated than that.
There is no true "high end" except to continually upgrade
the system every few quarters so pick what suits your
current uses and let tommorow take care of itself.

Well what I want to ensure that the PC should stay the way it is for
a longer time without the need for regular upgrades if compare to a
unit that just have average or much worse ,low end hardware
components.
Its just a pain the arse you have shop and replace for pc
components....regularly...
Being used to running high end desktop replacement system..grin I
am not an adherent to such periodic change of hardware components.

If that can be possible I don't mind spending more money initially for
that particular PC than to spend every now and then for periodic
upgrades. I think the economics might favor assembling a high end
unit than just settling for what is commonplace... What's your opinion
about it....?

Supposing I want that PC for high end Gaming, Autocad and 3D
modelling, Matlab number crunching, Photo and video editing, plus Blu-
Ray recording what CPU , motherboard and graphics pieces do you
recommend?

I generally fix the budget first, go to Newegg's motherboard
power search and select the options I want on a board, pick
one of the major brands like Gigabyte or Asus, subtract that
board cost from the budget and see what's left for the CPU,
memory, and video... allocating most of what's left on CPU,
since memory is dirt cheap and video cards getting that way
too if gaming isn't a priority. In your case the Blu Ray
drive will be another significant fraction of total system
cost, the drive as well as media for it.

I don't generally favor building something high end, in 18
months whatever was built seems outdated again and the
difference in performance from a midrange and high end
system seldom justifies the disproportionate increase in
price, plus it's often the case that merely overclocking
midrange parts will result in higher performance than the
high-end parts can achieve through higher bus and memory
speeds, though the more serious the use, data on the system,
the less desirable overclocking becomes.

IMO, better to stay 18 months behind the curve, remembering
that 18 months ago people did manage to compute with the
hardware available at the time. Things change if
productivity is tied to income, but seldom is that really
the case for a personal PC. Usually we, the users, are the
bottleneck.

On May 15, 9:06*am, kony wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 03:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy





wrote:
On May 14, 11:18*pm, kony wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy

Overall, your question seems too generic to answer, like you
want a simple choice when it is more complicated than that.
There is no true "high end" except to continually upgrade
the system every few quarters so pick what suits your
current uses and let tommorow take care of itself.

Well what I want to ensure that the PC should stay the way it is for
a longer time without the need for regular upgrades if compare to a
unit that just have average or much worse ,low end *hardware
components.
Its just a pain the arse *you have shop *and replace *for pc
components....regularly...
Being used to running high end desktop replacement system..grin *I
am not an adherent to such periodic change of hardware components.

If that can be possible I don't mind spending more money initially for
that particular *PC than to *spend every now and then for periodic
upgrades. I think the economics might favor *assembling a high end
unit than just settling for what is commonplace... What's your opinion
about it....?

Supposing I want that PC for high end Gaming, Autocad and 3D
modelling, Matlab number crunching, Photo and video editing, plus Blu-
Ray recording what *CPU , motherboard and graphics pieces do you
recommend?

I generally fix the budget first, go to Newegg's motherboard
power search and select the options I want on a board, pick
one of the major brands like Gigabyte or Asus, subtract that
board cost from the budget and see what's left for the CPU,
memory, and video... allocating most of what's left on CPU,
since memory is dirt cheap and video cards getting that way
too if gaming isn't a priority. *In your case the Blu Ray
drive will be another significant fraction of total system
cost, the drive as well as media for it.

I don't generally favor building something high end, in 18
months whatever was built seems outdated again and the
difference in performance from a midrange and high end
system seldom justifies the disproportionate increase in
price, plus it's often the case that merely overclocking
midrange parts will result in higher performance than the
high-end parts can achieve through higher bus and memory
speeds, though the more serious the use, data on the system,
the less desirable overclocking becomes.

IMO, better to stay 18 months behind the curve, remembering
that 18 months ago people did manage to compute with the
hardware available at the time. *Things change if
productivity is tied to income, but seldom is that really
the case for a personal PC. *Usually we, the users, are the
bottleneck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm..points taken....thanks!

On May 15, 9:06*am, kony wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 03:05:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy





wrote:
On May 14, 11:18*pm, kony wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 16:35:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy

Overall, your question seems too generic to answer, like you
want a simple choice when it is more complicated than that.
There is no true "high end" except to continually upgrade
the system every few quarters so pick what suits your
current uses and let tommorow take care of itself.

Well what I want to ensure that the PC should stay the way it is for
a longer time without the need for regular upgrades if compare to a
unit that just have average or much worse ,low end *hardware
components.
Its just a pain the arse *you have shop *and replace *for pc
components....regularly...
Being used to running high end desktop replacement system..grin *I
am not an adherent to such periodic change of hardware components.

If that can be possible I don't mind spending more money initially for
that particular *PC than to *spend every now and then for periodic
upgrades. I think the economics might favor *assembling a high end
unit than just settling for what is commonplace... What's your opinion
about it....?

Supposing I want that PC for high end Gaming, Autocad and 3D
modelling, Matlab number crunching, Photo and video editing, plus Blu-
Ray recording what *CPU , motherboard and graphics pieces do you
recommend?

I generally fix the budget first, go to Newegg's motherboard
power search and select the options I want on a board, pick
one of the major brands like Gigabyte or Asus, subtract that
board cost from the budget and see what's left for the CPU,
memory, and video... allocating most of what's left on CPU,
since memory is dirt cheap and video cards getting that way
too if gaming isn't a priority. *In your case the Blu Ray
drive will be another significant fraction of total system
cost, the drive as well as media for it.

I don't generally favor building something high end, in 18
months whatever was built seems outdated again and the
difference in performance from a midrange and high end
system seldom justifies the disproportionate increase in
price, plus it's often the case that merely overclocking
midrange parts will result in higher performance than the
high-end parts can achieve through higher bus and memory
speeds, though the more serious the use, data on the system,
the less desirable overclocking becomes.

IMO, better to stay 18 months behind the curve, remembering
that 18 months ago people did manage to compute with the
hardware available at the time. *Things change if
productivity is tied to income, but seldom is that really
the case for a personal PC. *Usually we, the users, are the
bottleneck.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well I had been pondering this issue recently but just don't really
find it acceptable.
Why would it takes only 18 months and your system is considered
obsolete?
Is it a matter of peer pressure among desktop computer users or just
a marketing ploy from these computer hardware manufacturers that if
you want to keep abreast with rapidly changing pc hardware, you must
upgrade it.
What particular application is sensitive to this need of continuous
hardware upgrade? Is it always ever power hungry games or there are
others?
Supposing you build a high end PC: have put in the top of the line
CPU /motherboard/ graphics/Voluminous RAM components/all suited to 64
bit system,then when its the expected time it will become obsolete?
Will it always be 18 months?
How about if that PC is used for other power hungry applications
except games
Will that PC still good enough after 2 -3 years using the applications
I mentioned above?

On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:


Well I had been pondering this issue recently but just don't really
find it acceptable.
Why would it takes only 18 months and your system is considered
obsolete?

Consider this moment in time versus 18 months ago. 18
months ago most better systems didn't use i7 CPU, DDR3
memory, have more than 4GB memory, and video cards with HDMI
were a lot fewer and the cards themselves significantly
slower for gaming. 18 months ago solid state drives were
ridiculously expensive for their performance (some would say
they still are... give it a few more 18 month periods?).

It's not that the system becomes obsolete per se, but that
when you're buying high end you are paying top dollar for a
modest benefit over the midrange parts, and after those 18
months the benefit has already vanished with less expensive
systems surpassing it.

I suppose for some purposes it's important to finish jobs as
fast as possible but it is the most expensive way to go, and
in my experience the more someone pays the more likely they
end up using the system for longer trying to get value out
of the price paid, meaning their average computing power
over time wasn't any higher, just the cost was.

Is it a matter of peer pressure among desktop computer users or just
a marketing ploy from these computer hardware manufacturers that if
you want to keep abreast with rapidly changing pc hardware, you must
upgrade it.

Depends on the buyer? Certainly some of both, particularly
with younger buyers that hang out on website forums there is
more interest in the latest highest end stuff, or at least
overclocking to come close to that.

What particular application is sensitive to this need of continuous
hardware upgrade? Is it always ever power hungry games or there are
others?

Isn't it a similar question to what application needs a
high-end system? My argument is that the way we use systems
hasn't changed much in 18 months so there's no real reason
to pay top dollar for today's tech.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for more
frequent upgrades because that results in systems still fast
enough for secondary uses and with much of their expected
lifespan remaining when their use in a primary system is
ended by an upgrade. For example I do all my more demanding
stuff on the fastest system I have at home, but have a
system in the den, living room, downstairs. Wanted one in
the bedroom but it's probably better not to have one in
there.


Supposing you build a high end PC: have put in the top of the line
CPU /motherboard/ graphics/Voluminous RAM components/all suited to 64
bit system,then when its the expected time it will become obsolete?
Will it always be 18 months?
How about if that PC is used for other power hungry applications
except games
Will that PC still good enough after 2 -3 years using the applications
I mentioned above?

I wouldn't say obsolete in 18 months, just no longer having
performance worthy of the high depreciation over that time
period when contrasted with a then contemporary new midrange
system build. Plus, higher end parts are about pushing
the conservative limits of the available tech meaning all
else being equal they create more heat, use more energy,
require louder or more numerous fans leading to more
frequent dust cleaning. We could have said the same all
along, but look back 5+ years ago and it was pretty unusual
to see people running systems consuming over 350W of power.
Today a decent high end system would tend to have a premium
500W PSU or at least average 600W or larger in it...
excepting the OEMs who have better control over the
variables in selecting the right sized PSU... or I should
say, like to pinch pennies to add to their bottom line.

"kony" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:


Well I had been pondering this issue recently but just don't really
find it acceptable.
Why would it takes only 18 months and your system is considered
obsolete?

Consider this moment in time versus 18 months ago. 18
months ago most better systems didn't use i7 CPU, DDR3
memory, have more than 4GB memory, and video cards with HDMI
were a lot fewer and the cards themselves significantly
slower for gaming. 18 months ago solid state drives were
ridiculously expensive for their performance (some would say
they still are... give it a few more 18 month periods?).

It's not that the system becomes obsolete per se, but that
when you're buying high end you are paying top dollar for a
modest benefit over the midrange parts, and after those 18
months the benefit has already vanished with less expensive
systems surpassing it.

I suppose for some purposes it's important to finish jobs as
fast as possible but it is the most expensive way to go, and
in my experience the more someone pays the more likely they
end up using the system for longer trying to get value out
of the price paid, meaning their average computing power
over time wasn't any higher, just the cost was.

Is it a matter of peer pressure among desktop computer users or just
a marketing ploy from these computer hardware manufacturers that if
you want to keep abreast with rapidly changing pc hardware, you must
upgrade it.

Depends on the buyer? Certainly some of both, particularly
with younger buyers that hang out on website forums there is
more interest in the latest highest end stuff, or at least
overclocking to come close to that.

What particular application is sensitive to this need of continuous
hardware upgrade? Is it always ever power hungry games or there are
others?

Isn't it a similar question to what application needs a
high-end system? My argument is that the way we use systems
hasn't changed much in 18 months so there's no real reason
to pay top dollar for today's tech.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for more
frequent upgrades because that results in systems still fast
enough for secondary uses and with much of their expected
lifespan remaining when their use in a primary system is
ended by an upgrade. For example I do all my more demanding
stuff on the fastest system I have at home, but have a
system in the den, living room, downstairs. Wanted one in
the bedroom but it's probably better not to have one in
there.


Supposing you build a high end PC: have put in the top of the line
CPU /motherboard/ graphics/Voluminous RAM components/all suited to 64
bit system,then when its the expected time it will become obsolete?
Will it always be 18 months?
How about if that PC is used for other power hungry applications
except games
Will that PC still good enough after 2 -3 years using the applications
I mentioned above?

I wouldn't say obsolete in 18 months, just no longer having
performance worthy of the high depreciation over that time
period when contrasted with a then contemporary new midrange
system build. Plus, higher end parts are about pushing
the conservative limits of the available tech meaning all
else being equal they create more heat, use more energy,
require louder or more numerous fans leading to more
frequent dust cleaning. We could have said the same all
along, but look back 5+ years ago and it was pretty unusual
to see people running systems consuming over 350W of power.
Today a decent high end system would tend to have a premium
500W PSU or at least average 600W or larger in it...
excepting the OEMs who have better control over the
variables in selecting the right sized PSU... or I should
say, like to pinch pennies to add to their bottom line.

I was looking at upgrading from a C2 Duo to a faster Quad,
(Q9650), so I priced out the CPU, MB, and 4GB of DDR3.
Then I looked at the Core i7. For $100 more than the C2 Quad,
I got the higher performance i7. The i7 920 CPU was $50 less,
the MB was $50 more, and the 6GB of triple channel 1666MHz
DDR3 RAM was $100 more, mainly because of the extra 2GB
and higher speed. In the few months since I upgraded, the
only price change is in a drop in the RAM price.

At this time, going to the latest CPU generation can be less
costly than the previous generation, especially at the high end.
In Canada, the 3.2GHz Core i7 965 Extreme CPU is $500 less than
the 3.2GHZ Core 2 Quad QX9770.

On May 17, 9:29*am, "Ian D" wrote:
"kony" wrote in message

news




On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Roy
wrote:

Well I had been pondering this issue recently but just don't really
find it acceptable.
Why would it takes only 18 months and your system is considered
obsolete?

Consider this moment in time versus 18 months ago. *18
months ago most better systems didn't use i7 CPU, DDR3
memory, have more than 4GB memory, and video cards with HDMI
were a lot fewer and the cards themselves significantly
slower for gaming. *18 months ago solid state drives were
ridiculously expensive for their performance (some would say
they still are... give it a few more 18 month periods?).

It's not that the system becomes obsolete per se, but that
when you're buying high end you are paying top dollar for a
modest benefit over the midrange parts, and after those 18
months the benefit has already vanished with less expensive
systems surpassing it.

I suppose for some purposes it's important to finish jobs as
fast as possible but it is the most expensive way to go, and
in my experience the more someone pays the more likely they
end up using the system for longer trying to get value out
of the price paid, meaning their average computing power
over time wasn't any higher, just the cost was.

Is it a matter of peer pressure among desktop computer users *or just
a marketing ploy from these computer hardware manufacturers that if
you want to keep abreast with rapidly changing pc hardware, you must
upgrade it.

Depends on the buyer? *Certainly some of both, particularly
with younger buyers that hang out on website forums there is
more interest in the latest highest end stuff, or at least
overclocking to come close to that.

What particular application is sensitive to this need of * continuous
hardware upgrade? Is it always *ever power hungry games or there are
others?

Isn't it a similar question to what application needs a
high-end system? *My argument is that the way we use systems
hasn't changed much in 18 months so there's no real reason
to pay top dollar for today's tech.

On the other hand, there is something to be said for more
frequent upgrades because that results in systems still fast
enough for secondary uses and with much of their expected
lifespan remaining when their use in a primary system is
ended by an upgrade. *For example I do all my more demanding
stuff on the fastest system I have at home, but have a
system in the den, living room, downstairs. *Wanted one in
the bedroom but it's probably better not to have one in
there.

Supposing you build a high end PC: have put in the top of the line
CPU /motherboard/ graphics/Voluminous RAM components/all suited to 64
bit system,then when its the expected time it will become obsolete?
Will it always be 18 months?
How about if that PC is used for other power hungry applications
except *games
Will that PC still good enough after 2 -3 years using the applications
I mentioned above?

I wouldn't say obsolete in 18 months, just no longer having
performance worthy of the high depreciation over that time
period when contrasted with a then contemporary new midrange
system build. * * Plus, higher end parts are about pushing
the conservative limits of the available tech meaning all
else being equal they create more heat, use more energy,
require louder or more numerous fans leading to more
frequent dust cleaning. * *We could have said the same all
along, but look back 5+ years ago and it was pretty unusual
to see people running systems consuming over 350W of power.
Today a decent high end system would tend to have a premium
500W PSU or at least average 600W or larger in it...
excepting the OEMs who have better control over the
variables in selecting the right sized PSU... or I should
say, like to pinch pennies to add to their bottom line.

I was looking at upgrading from a C2 Duo to a faster Quad,
(Q9650), so I priced out the CPU, MB, and 4GB of DDR3.
Then I looked at the Core i7. *For $100 more than the C2 Quad,
I got the higher performance i7. *The i7 920 CPU was $50 less,
the MB was $50 more, and the 6GB of triple channel 1666MHz
DDR3 RAM was $100 more, mainly because of the extra 2GB
and higher speed. *In the few months since I upgraded, the
only price change is in a drop in the RAM price.

At this time, going to the latest CPU generation can be less
costly than the previous generation, especially at the high end.
In Canada, the 3.2GHz Core i7 965 Extreme CPU is $500 less than
the 3.2GHZ Core 2 Quad QX9770.- Hide quoted text -

Hmm .. that is interesting .we seem to share the same interest for a
PC with better than longevitygrin
That is what I am thinking also that modern PC nowadays specially
running the 64bit system may not
need that mandatory 18 months upgrade...just tokeep with the the
Joneses....

On Sun, 17 May 2009 12:29:51 -0400, "Ian D"
wrote:


I was looking at upgrading from a C2 Duo to a faster Quad,
(Q9650), so I priced out the CPU, MB, and 4GB of DDR3.
Then I looked at the Core i7. For $100 more than the C2 Quad,
I got the higher performance i7. The i7 920 CPU was $50 less,
the MB was $50 more, and the 6GB of triple channel 1666MHz
DDR3 RAM was $100 more, mainly because of the extra 2GB
and higher speed. In the few months since I upgraded, the
only price change is in a drop in the RAM price.

At this time, going to the latest CPU generation can be less
costly than the previous generation, especially at the high end.
In Canada, the 3.2GHz Core i7 965 Extreme CPU is $500 less than
the 3.2GHZ Core 2 Quad QX9770.


Ok, but now contrast that with the multiple years old single
core, sub-2GB systems most people are using. For those
people, a $75 motherboard, $50 CPU, and 4GB of DDR2 for $25
after a rebate would make for a large performance boost at a
total cost of $150.

If someone upgraded like this every 2 years, opposed to
someone who upgraded to the high end modern parts every 4,
they may have on average, as much computing power but spent
less. Perhaps my primary point isn't to buy low end, it's
that if someone is on the fence about whether to pay a
premium or not, they are usually already lacking any
specific purpose that makes them know they need to spend a
lot more...

For $150 you also have a faster system than what was
possible a few years ago, with few if any "killer apps" that
need more performance than we had then, though watching HD
video seems to be more popular now so a system at least
capable of 1080p playback would be nice, but with today's
IGP accelerated HD decoding that can be had on a new $150
upgrade and the CPU itself might even be able to do it alone
in software.

On May 17, 1:06*pm, kony wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009 21:28:09 -0700 (PDT), Roy

wrote:
Well I had been pondering this issue recently but just don't really
find it acceptable.
Why would it takes only 18 months and your system is considered
obsolete?

Consider this moment in time versus 18 months ago. *18
months ago most better systems didn't use i7 CPU, DDR3
memory, have more than 4GB memory, and video cards with HDMI
were a lot fewer and the cards themselves significantly
slower for gaming. *18 months ago solid state drives were
ridiculously expensive for their performance (some would say
they still are... give it a few more 18 month periods?).


Just 18 months ago, multicores was still not fully exploited IIRC but
only recently.
If corei7 could have that much cores then the performance would keep
that pc more than 2 years.
Besides being not a kid anymore fascination with games is of less
importance( if that its the main issue for the necessity of upgrading
less than 2 years).
Its more about of using the PC for other noteworthy application in
science and technology....( short of the much vaunted supercomputer
with teraflops capability...?grin)


It's not that the system becomes obsolete per se, but that
when you're buying high end you are paying top dollar for a
modest benefit over the midrange parts, and after those 18
months the benefit has already vanished with less expensive
systems surpassing it. *

Well as I have mentioned above I was using desktop replacement system
and
it took me 3 years to replace it...so thinking if I can bulld a
customized PC
I can get that cheaper?

I suppose for some purposes it's important to finish jobs as
fast as possible but it is the most expensive way to go, and
in my experience the more someone pays the more likely they
end up using the system for longer trying to get value out
of the price paid, meaning their average computing power
over time wasn't any higher, just the cost was.

Yes,, thats what I did with one of my expensive desktop replacement
system that
is the main reason why I am mulling of building or having someone
bullt a customized
PC for me.....for what I presume the least cost option setting aside
the
portability clause.....


Depends on the buyer? *Certainly some of both, particularly
with younger buyers that hang out on website forums there is
more interest in the latest highest end stuff, or at least
overclocking to come close to that.

I think I still have that kiddie fascination of high end gadgets in
me...grin
BTW
Been wondering how good is that recent introduction by ASUS
The ASUS high end gaming laptop G71GX............?
Not quite satisfied with Core2duo. chip being offered with i t.
IIRC .. Maybe a desktop with that kind of memory and top of the line
corei7 chip would be much better...

Been thinking if they can put 12 gigs of RAM how about doublling that
in a desktop( if that can be possilble).....grin
So that desktop can be good for at least 3 years....?

What particular application is sensitive to this need of * continuous
hardware upgrade? Is it always *ever power hungry games or there are
others?

That's what I am considering also....The PC is built chiefly for that
reason but for other techncial applications
required for work....
Therefore I was using the gaming rig as my model in the same way I
benchmark any desktop replacement purchase to be the good for high end
games , so supposing it will be made obsolete for a certain
playwares....Its still can be useful for other demanding applications.
That is why I really don't share other peoples penchant for such kind
of penny pinching; just getting a so and so unit ( desktop or
notebook )only to get obsolete in short time...

My problem is its just not my style upgrading a a midrange system
periodically....Therefore if I get with it with high end system then
the pain or worrying that an average system will become obsolete will
be less......
In the end I don't worry either that my pet unit willl still be good
for the rapidly evolving games in next few years but would remain
useful for other intended purpose....





Supposing you build a high end PC: have put in the top of the line
CPU /motherboard/ graphics/Voluminous RAM components/all suited to 64
bit system,then when its the expected time it will become obsolete?
Will it always be 18 months?
How about if that PC is used for other power hungry applications
except *games
Will that PC still good enough after 2 -3 years using the applications
I mentioned above?

I wouldn't say obsolete in 18 months, just no longer having
performance worthy of the high depreciation over that time
period when contrasted with a then contemporary new midrange
system build. * * Plus, higher end parts are about pushing
the conservative limits of the available tech meaning all
else being equal they create more heat, use more energy,
require louder or more numerous fans leading to more
frequent dust cleaning. * *We could have said the same all
along, but look back 5+ years ago and it was pretty unusual
to see people running systems consuming over 350W of power.
Today a decent high end system would tend to have a premium
500W PSU or at least average 600W or larger in it...
excepting the OEMs who have better control over the
variables in selecting the right sized PSU... or I should
say, like to pinch pennies to add to their bottom line.