Hey all

according to yahoo news (do a search), the quad core was released and systems are already being built with it.

Intel "cheated" tho it looks like..the put two dual cores together and called this a quad.  AMD says the one they release next year will be a real quad..but also plan to do what intel did.

Now, if I can get a dual quad core with 4 gb of ram..I wonder how B6 would render?

:)

BT

Incognitas wonders if the newer faster PC's have replaced cars as substitute phallic symbols????

:D

Dogwaffle 4 should be a screamer on a quad. Especially those filters which already are using the new framework to automatically multithread to the number of cores found.

Sweet, may it's time I start my Xmas shopping

depends on the OS. You'll see a performance increase, but as an old saw goes, your speed is limited to your slowest components. If they design a motherboard to go with it, yeah, it'll fly.

Bryce would scream with 4 cores!

Boxx sells a tower with a total of 16 cores. (the Apexx 8)

lol AS

for 25000+ you too can own one

:tt2:

BT

Oh, you wish....

The Apexx 8 is $80,000 USD

Of course, that does come with 13 Terabytes of hard drive space and 128 Gigabytes of ram.......lol.

if we all pitch in, with 100,000 members at 'rosity we should be able to host one in my office for under $1 a person :-)

send Paypal donations at .... dogwaffle@thebest3d.com

I'll cover the electric bill, ... no seriously I will. They say it'll be a cold winter so I might as well get a Boxx floor heater  LOL

yeah, "External Nuclear Power Supply" might be required.

:O

Wow, nice to live in these times I guess. I would love to see quads render in B6(or games & other apps). Way back when I first paid $400USD for a P166mhz, I thought I had a fast CPU.

The quads just released are 2 dual cores on one die, this means that the caches aren't set up right and the pipelining isn't efficient, BUT are you really going to notice the difference :lol:

Intel and AMD are both aiming to have 'proper' quad cores out next year......

So is it cheaper to just add cores than up the speed? Have we hit a wall in how far Mhz/Ghz can go in PC's without the right box cooling? Anyone else reading it this way? Remember dual CPU sockets have been around for years now, but they never went anywhere. But its on cores now instead of sockets...

So is it cheaper to just add cores than up the speed?
-Yes

Have we hit a wall in how far Mhz/Ghz can go in PC's without the right box cooling?
-Yes

Anyone else reading it this way?
-Yes

Lol, Agent. And I guess I was referring to video cards as well, YES. :biggrin:

-Yes.

;o)

IBM did work on chips that could go at much higher clockspeeds, but i think its mostly for price/speed ratio purposes that they switched to using multiple cores.

I had read where Intel made a 10ghz cpu, but of course it required industrial cooling. Government probably uses it.

Quote - I had read where Intel made a 10ghz cpu, but of course it required industrial cooling. Government probably uses it.

nah, the gov is spending all their money on election ads. :rolleyes:

besides, I have it in my basement...it doubles as a heater (For the neighborhood) :biggrin:

Video card makers are going in the direction now of using the GPU as well, for floating point calculations to aid the CPU(confirming that CPUs are hitting a virtual wall). There are lots of things a video card can help with, especialy rendering certain scenes. i.e...just look at how game graphics are compared to a Bryce rendering of the same settings, and how fast the video card renders scenes. Then you could add a nice video card to your Quad setups.

Direct3D graphics and Raytracing are different sorts of calculations though... Rendering and rendering are not per definition the same. The use of traditional GPU's to help CPU's might be limited.

Mostly, OpenGL in 3D CG is used for the working preview. Software render is used for the actual rendering. So, faster graphics cards won't matter much.

Multicore physical processors are the way to go, since they simulate render nodes in apps that use multicore threading. Those apps that use Dual Processor (2 physical processors) AND Multicore do even better.

Nvidia already has a application that is free for personal use to help with rendering on the nVidia GPU.

AMD is supposely coming out with their dual socket dual core motherboard setup sometime this month. It will also be upgradable to their quad cores when they come out.

huh? as far as i know those mobo's are out already... I already have a mobo for 2 dualcore AMD processors anyways... ok they're opterons, but thats AMD too.

Really? The ones I'm thinking of use ADM 64 X2 processors. It's the 4X4 platform. They're bring out three brandnew X2's for the motherboard as well, from what I've read.

@CorwinRathe..., Hi, I have used Gelato(Nvidias GPU rendering shader app)but you need to convert the shaders over to the program you are using(lots of work). But even geometry was the fastest loading I've ever used in Gelato(btw its free for the basic version and ready for commercial work). Maya and 3DSM have a plug-in for it, and CGTalk was saying it is VERY fast in caustics and GI, only marginaly faster then mental ray in other.

 Under certain floating point calcs , newer GPU have the power equal to 30 Xeon 5100 CPU's and ATI was using their version of GPU rendering 5 times faster then top of the line CPU in a movie rendering. Both Quads and GPU can only mean greater artist potential in the future.

really really, it's a tyan thunder motherboard, it houses both my opteron270's those are dual core processors as far as i know.

Yep, those are nice boards as well. These ones will support two X2 processors with upgradeability to the quad cores when they come out. So the price should be much cheaper then a server board. At least from what I've read thus far.

Primitive crap as far as I'm concerned. Here on Mars I'm using 5000 Acorn Electrons in parallel powered by 27 hamsters in a giant hamster tread wheel.......

Since I am on an extremely tight budget, I chose the ASRock 939Dual-SATA2. I wish I had done a bit of research on my Corsair RAM, before today. I just found out it is compatible with this motherboard! All this time I have been grousing and whining to myself, about the expense of getting all of the additional parts, Only to learn that all I need is the Processor!

Get CPU and then do a mobo swap.

(griping at self).......

Ouch!

so

which is better?

• a 2 chip 2 core setup with 3.2ghz processors?
• a 2 chip 4 core setup with 1.86 ghz processors?

mathematically, the second setup squeaks ahead by ~1.5 ghz...but is over 1000 bux more!  If it gives the power, then I dont care (well I care, but I'd get what I wanted)..but if it doesnt, why bother? The folks here that have multicore/multiprocessor setups that are getting good render times..what are the chip's speed?

tia

BT

Are ypu comparing like for like in the chips, I think for a 3.2 G chip you're looking at Pentium D rather then core2? So much less efficient chip, much more heat etc....

they are xeon dual core x 2

or xeon quad core x 2

the difference is the speed.

I wonder if the 1.86 is too low.

BT

Yeah, ouch! Plus I was beginning to panic, since socket 939 cpus are getting scarce. Last night, I managed to snag an OEM Athlon 64 3200+ and HS/fan in two separate eBay auctions. $36.99 and $13.54 respectively, including shipping and handling. With luck, I will be running on 64 bit hardware by the end of this coming weekend.

Eventually, I will get a dual core for the asrock. Likely via eBay. I call this rig the Poor Man's Dual CPU (if I can get win2k pro to see both cores, even as 2 cpus.).