Shanghai > Intel Crap > Cell > Whatever 360 Has > PSP Chip > Wii

I can see this being used for coporate servers, but I can't imagine consumers needing it. Quad cores today is already overkill by most standards.CluexLess

This is correct, most games and apps don't even use dual core! Let alone quad core. Imagine 12 cores. Its just a over kill for non servers. If most of the mainstream programs and popular games were multi threaded then I would be all for this. But its just no need. I can imagine it now..playing Crysis, looking at my g15 lcd only to notice that Crysis is using 8% of my cpu power :?.

I can see this being used for coporate servers, but I can't imagine consumers needing it. Quad cores today is already overkill by most standards.CluexLess

Seconded. Show me some stuff that actually makes good use of quad cores first. 12 cores is simply overkill.

Why would the PSP CPU be greater than the Wii one? :?yellowandmushy

lol i think he was just joking around :P

isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianpminooei

[QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianstereointegrity

actually AMD hasn't released shanghai as well lmao so intel is still first place

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianpminooei

actually AMD hasn't released shanghai as well lmao so intel is still first place

the 360 has the xenon. The ps3's cell isn't bad....neither are bad, both are actually very powerful!!! the intel quad core and ati/amd quad cores and 8 core are good and all but harder to optimize for...so they equal out...i know nothing about this shangia.LibertySaint

LOL, are you trying to say Cell/Xenon >>> Shanghai/Nehalem?

[QUOTE="pminooei"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianstereointegrity

actually AMD hasn't released shanghai as well lmao so intel is still first place

12 cores? What's even the point? Most applications these days don't even use TWO cores, while quad-cores are basically overkill on most applications or games out there (yes, even Crysis).

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agiankaos-hero

actually AMD hasn't released shanghai as well lmao so intel is still first place

intel has 8 cores they build that motherboard which supports 2 quad cores :P skull something lol also the CELL has 1 core and 7 SPU which is different than a core :P

[QUOTE="kaos-hero"][QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianpminooei

actually AMD hasn't released shanghai as well lmao so intel is still first place

intel has 8 cores they build that motherboard which supports 2 quad cores :P skull something lol also the CELL has 1 core and 7 SPU which is different than a core :P

I believe you're refering to the Skulltrail.

Yes, it has dual-processor support and can hold a good 2 quad-core processors, creating an 8 core machine.

That being said, though, it's only a minor increase in performance according to early tests (15% on average).

This still wont sway me to ever buy an amd processor ever. Intel all the way.Killfox

What's wrong with AMD?

[QUOTE="Killfox"]This still wont sway me to ever buy an amd processor ever. Intel all the way.-Jiggles-

What's wrong with AMD?

[QUOTE="CluexLess"]I can see this being used for coporate servers, but I can't imagine consumers needing it. Quad cores today is already overkill by most standards.Ramadear

This is correct, most games and apps don't even use dual core! Let alone quad core. Imagine 12 cores. Its just a over kill for non servers. If most of the mainstream programs and popular games were multi threaded then I would be all for this. But its just no need. I can imagine it now..playing Crysis, looking at my g15 lcd only to notice that Crysis is using 8% of my cpu power :?.

yeah - because people never said that about ram or anything else :P it's a comin, don't act suprised.

the 360 has the xenon. The ps3's cell isn't bad....neither are bad, both are actually very powerful!!! the intel quad core and ati/amd quad cores and 8 core are good and all but harder to optimize for...so they equal out...i know nothing about this shangia.LibertySaint

no its game devs have no idea how to use quads. vidoe compressing has no problem using 4 cores. any core 2 duo destorys consoles by a long shot

This still wont sway me to ever buy an amd processor ever. Intel all the way.Killfox

so your saying you would have bought a pentium D over a athlon x2? :lol: intel may be on top atm but amd had intel locked down for 3 years when netburst had nothing on k8

AMD's current quad can't even best Intels 65nm dual-core. Pro_wrestler

and intels's quads can't beat their duals so point being?

[QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianstereointegrity

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianhockeyruler12

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

[QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianbeatzfreak69

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

Doesn't matter. The reality is that AMD gave intel a good run in the early 2000's, but no longer. Intel re-established itself with Centrino, then Core Duo and never looked back.

AMD is barely hanging on again.

Doesn't matter. The reality is that AMD gave intel a good run in the early 2000's, but no longer. Intel re-established itself with Centrino, then Core Duo and never looked back.

AMD is barely hanging on again.

Dreams-Visions

[QUOTE="beatzfreak69"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianDreams-Visions

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

Doesn't matter. The reality is that AMD gave intel a good run in the early 2000's, but no longer. Intel re-established itself with Centrino, then Core Duo and never looked back.

AMD is barely hanging on again.

I know, and that's only relevant in that this thread is about the number of cores. :P

I do like though that the 9850 is actually pretty much on par with the q6600.

[QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianbeatzfreak69

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

and it still outperforms the Phenoms by a LONGSHOT

[QUOTE="beatzfreak69"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianhockeyruler12

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

and it still outperforms the Phenoms by a LONGSHOT

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the number of cores, not performance. :oops:

[QUOTE="beatzfreak69"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianDreams-Visions

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

Doesn't matter. The reality is that AMD gave intel a good run in the early 2000's, but no longer. Intel re-established itself with Centrino, then Core Duo and never looked back.

AMD is barely hanging on again.

[QUOTE="hockeyruler12"][QUOTE="beatzfreak69"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianbeatzfreak69

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

and it still outperforms the Phenoms by a LONGSHOT

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the number of cores, not performance. :oops:

Then sure, your argument is somewhat valid lol

[QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="beatzfreak69"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianc02z

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

Doesn't matter. The reality is that AMD gave intel a good run in the early 2000's, but no longer. Intel re-established itself with Centrino, then Core Duo and never looked back.

AMD is barely hanging on again.

Just like Intel has always beaten AMD...it will never change...history never repeats itself... :lol:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/04/18/amds-shanghai-proffers-12-cores-hypertransport-3-0/

Oh yeah, it's true. 12 cores.

Who's ready?!
kaos-hero

And yet 12 cores will be useless. Hell even my Quad core is useless right now. Developers are just now getting into doing Dual and Quad Core compatablity with their programming so dont expect anything to take advantage of a 12 Core proccessor.

[QUOTE="c02z"][QUOTE="Dreams-Visions"][QUOTE="beatzfreak69"][QUOTE="hockeyruler12"]

[QUOTE="stereointegrity"][QUOTE="pminooei"]isn't intel building a 16 core CPU lol? i guess intel is first palce agianbeatzfreak69

AMD is still a step behind Intel, those AMD Phenom Quad core CPU's are JUNK

AMD have the only true quad cores. Intel's are basically two dual cores glued together. :o

Doesn't matter. The reality is that AMD gave intel a good run in the early 2000's, but no longer. Intel re-established itself with Centrino, then Core Duo and never looked back.

AMD is barely hanging on again.

Just like Intel has always beaten AMD...it will never change...history never repeats itself... :lol:

[QUOTE="Pro_wrestler"]AMD's current quad can't even best Intels 65nm dual-core. imprezawrx500

and intels's quads can't beat their duals so point being?

Uhh.....considering intel's lineup is superior too AMDs, Its: Intel vs. AMD not Intel vs. Intel. And you can overclock intel 65nm quads to nearly 4Ghz on air:o..AMD's latest 9850 Black Edition can't get that high on water:lol: And Cache makes a difference, which AMD is lacking in their chips. Point is Intel > AMD. Will it change? Not in the near future, unless someone buys AMD/ATI for the couple bln that they're worth and sends some R&D dollars there way.

[QUOTE="Killfox"]This still wont sway me to ever buy an amd processor ever. Intel all the way.-Jiggles-

What's wrong with AMD?

They have been a bit disappointing

[QUOTE="-Jiggles-"]

[QUOTE="Killfox"]This still wont sway me to ever buy an amd processor ever. Intel all the way.jangojay

What's wrong with AMD?

They have been a bit disappointing

just like intel 3 years ago

I love how people can't even make a news topic now without even bashing a console in the title.bobbetybob