Guest ColTom2 Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Hi: Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in descriptive terms. Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad core at a lower speed? Thanks
Guest R. McCarty Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming. The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will appear later this year. "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hi: > > Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon > dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in > descriptive terms. > > Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad > core at a lower speed? > > Thanks > >
Guest ColTom2 Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and would therefore be better than (45nm)? Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be better off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz? I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which currently is the top of the line with Intel. I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to change almost daily now. Thanks "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming. The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will appear later this year. "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hi: > > Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon > dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in > descriptive terms. > > Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad > core at a lower speed? > > Thanks > >
Guest R. McCarty Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core. Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be higher using Quad-Core processors. The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs. I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses. You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable. "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and > would therefore be better than (45nm)? > > Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently > ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be > better > off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz? > I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which > currently is the top of the line with Intel. > > I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to > change almost daily now. > > Thanks > > > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely > be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then > be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming. > The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A > quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual > core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will > appear later this year. > > "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Hi: >> >> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer >> in >> descriptive terms. >> >> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >> quad >> core at a lower speed? >> >> Thanks >> >> > > >
Guest ColTom2 Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new CPU's. I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would you consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's? Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted to pay the premium for a Quad-Core. Thanks again.... "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core. Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be higher using Quad-Core processors. The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs. I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses. You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable. "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) and > would therefore be better than (45nm)? > > Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently > ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be > better > off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz? > I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which > currently is the top of the line with Intel. > > I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to > change almost daily now. > > Thanks > > > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely > be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then > be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming. > The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A > quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual > core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will > appear later this year. > > "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Hi: >> >> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer >> in >> descriptive terms. >> >> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >> quad >> core at a lower speed? >> >> Thanks >> >> > > >
Guest Galen Somerville Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? I replaced my Pent 4 3.2GHz with a Pent D dual core 3.2GHz and was impressed. Then I replaced that with a E2200 dual core 2.2GHz and it is definitely comparable and a bit faster. Also cut way down on the cooling problem. Galen "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative > info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new > CPU's. > > I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the > time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would > you > consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's? > > Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted > to pay the premium for a Quad-Core. > > Thanks again.... > > > > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your > CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core. > Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be > higher using Quad-Core processors. > > The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of > speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you > can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs. > > I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range > that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses. > > You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still > way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable. > > "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) >> and >> would therefore be better than (45nm)? >> >> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently >> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be >> better >> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz? >> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which >> currently is the top of the line with Intel. >> >> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to >> change almost daily now. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely >> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then >> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming. >> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A >> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual >> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will >> appear later this year. >> >> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message >> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Hi: >>> >>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer >>> in >>> descriptive terms. >>> >>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >>> quad >>> core at a lower speed? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
Guest R. McCarty Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500 is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very good deal. "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative > info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new > CPU's. > > I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the > time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would > you > consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's? > > Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted > to pay the premium for a Quad-Core. > > Thanks again.... > > > > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your > CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core. > Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be > higher using Quad-Core processors. > > The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of > speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you > can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs. > > I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range > that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses. > > You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still > way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable. > > "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) >> and >> would therefore be better than (45nm)? >> >> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently >> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be >> better >> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz? >> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which >> currently is the top of the line with Intel. >> >> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to >> change almost daily now. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely >> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then >> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming. >> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A >> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual >> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will >> appear later this year. >> >> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message >> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Hi: >>> >>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer >>> in >>> descriptive terms. >>> >>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >>> quad >>> core at a lower speed? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
Guest RJK Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? This is a fascinating subject. i.e. cost vs performance ratio ? Ages ago I read a piece on micro hardware purchasing, written by a quite respected "computer" person, (quite a few years ago - can't remember who it as), advising a smallish embryonic business on budgeting and specification of a micro computer system which would fulfil their business needs, ...and somewhere in his deliberations he said something like, "...think of a figure you can just about stretch to, for your computer system, then multiply it by at least 3, ...and that's how much you really ought to spend !" ...it was a really entertaining piece - wish I could find it again. Regarding the home PC at least, I've never been too keen on the 'often heard' *advice*, "If you're only ever going to do a little word-processing, emailing, and occasional web-surfing...you don't need a top of the range machine." (and more often than not, the person espousing this view is quietly drooling and looking forward to getting their hands on almost as much money for their "old" system, as was recently paid for their bang up to date PC system !!!!!!) ...this is unarguably a very dirty trick to play on people ! i.e. I've come across too many people who have been ripped off by having paid FAR TOO MUCH for an older generation PC, which the buyer quickly "out-grows," and eventually discovers cannot be upgraded and needs to be completely replaced ! IMHO, the money paid for that older PC, almost always, would have been MUCH better spent on a much newer and more up to date PC. I see that Galen Somerville, (on this thread), had a Intel Pentium D 935 3.2. I currently have one in my main PC - I was impressed with it, initially, ...then for months it didn't seem as swift, ...then cpuZ revealed that my bios / "auto" settings were setting a 133mhz fsb ...once I'd sorted that out it - the machine once again was heaven :-). Prior to that, I discovered, (whilst fitting a heat-pipe cooler), that the grey thermal paste on the stock Intel heat-sink had not spread out enough and appeared quite dry and thick, and was obviously acting as a heat-barrier instead of heat-conductor ! This makes me suspect that if I had simply replaced the compound on the stock h/s/fan, it would have been perfectly adequate, and I often wonder how much of the "talk," ages ago, about Pentium D's running hot was indeed due to this REALLY bad quality h/s compound on the Intel stock h/s fans, rather than the themal specifications and characteristics of the cpu itself ! Speedfan currently reports my D935 cpu core/cpu ambient/system - case internal?, temperatures, respectively, 38/32/30. Admittedly it's not doing very much while I'm writing this but, even at heavy-ish load for prolonged periods, it doesn't go much above 43 deg. C (core) I would have a liked an "old" Intel Pentium D 965 to put into my main PC, but, they're almost all gone, and nowadays rarely appear on ebay. The last batch that appreared on ebay were up for sale for the ludicrous sum of, around about, £130, so it would obviously be daft to buy one at that price when my board supports lots of CoreDuo's. I'm currently tempted by the Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66GHz 1066MHz FSB Socket 775 8MB L2 Cache (2 x 4MB (4MB per core pair)) Retail £159.99 from ebuyer.com http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html ...my poor old D935 only scores 847 here :-( Q6600 £117.99 mmm ! Core2 6700 £110.22 mmmm ! ....I'm doing it again i.e. lusting after hardware I don't need !!! regards, Richard "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Hi: > > Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon > dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in > descriptive terms. > > Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad > core at a lower speed? > > Thanks > >
Guest ColTom2 Posted July 17, 2008 Posted July 17, 2008 Re: CPU's? Thanks! "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:uqQQiQE6IHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... Comparing a P-4 3.20 Ghz, I'd have to say that a Core 2 Duo E8500 is probably it's peer CPU today. On a cost vs. performance it's a very good deal. "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message news:e0QTbxD6IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > I really appreciate your taking the time to provide with this informative > info as it has been hard for me to place any correlation with the new > CPU's. > > I currently have a Sony desktop with Intel Pentium 4 3.20GHz which at the > time of purchase was one the best out if I recall correctly. What would > you > consider it's equivalent in today's CPU's? > > Apparently you feel that a Dual-Core 2.0GHz is sufficient unless I wanted > to pay the premium for a Quad-Core. > > Thanks again.... > > > > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:Ov57JxB6IHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Actually clock speed isn't such a big factor anymore. But using your > CPU comparisons I'd opt for a lower tier/clock speed Quad-Core. > Just realize that the TDP ( Total Dissipated Power ) is going to be > higher using Quad-Core processors. > > The other consideration is that any processor in the highest 20% of > speed rating(s) has a price premium associated with it. Unless you > can easily afford top-tier I'd consider less powerful CPUs. > > I build/deliver systems with Dual-Core CPUs in the 1.6 to 2.0 range > that are fine for most "non-gaming" uses. > > You probably want to avoid any motherboards using DDR3. It's still > way too expensive and performance gains over DDR2 are questionable. > > "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message > news:%2331mpmB6IHA.2336@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Am I correct in believing that the higher end of dual core has (65nm) >> and >> would therefore be better than (45nm)? >> >> Also realizing that I would be fine with a dual core that apparently >> ranges from 1.80GHz to 3.16GHz if you had a choice would you still be >> better >> off with a lower end quad core within the 2.40GHz to 2.83GHz? >> I know the upper end quad core now range from 2.66GHz to 3.20GHz which >> currently is the top of the line with Intel. >> >> I appreciate you info on the forthcoming new technology, as it seems to >> change almost daily now. >> >> Thanks >> >> >> "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message >> news:eS3nTWB6IHA.1192@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Since most applications are not "Multi-Threaded", you would likely >> be fine with a Dual-Core ( 45nm ). If you are considering Intel then >> be aware that a transition to a new pin count CPU style is coming. >> The new technology also replaces the traditional Front Side Bus. A >> quad-core CPU is going to have higher thermal ratings than a dual >> core CPU. The "Nehalem" product line ( CPU/Motherboards ) will >> appear later this year. >> >> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote in message >> news:ObDrOLB6IHA.3856@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> Hi: >>> >>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer >>> in >>> descriptive terms. >>> >>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >>> quad >>> core at a lower speed? >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
Guest Edric Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Re: CPU's? On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >Hi: > > Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in >descriptive terms. > > Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a quad >core at a lower speed? > >Thanks > Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do with the OS. Ask elsewhere
Guest Unknown Posted July 18, 2008 Posted July 18, 2008 Re: CPU's? The operating system runs on it.. "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" > <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: > >>Hi: >> >> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >>dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in >>descriptive terms. >> >> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >> quad >>core at a lower speed? >> >>Thanks >> > Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do > with the OS. > > Ask elsewhere >
Guest Edric Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Re: CPU's? On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote: >The operating system runs on it.. >"Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >> >>>Hi: >>> >>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >>>dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer in >>>descriptive terms. >>> >>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >>> quad >>>core at a lower speed? >>> >>>Thanks >>> >> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do >> with the OS. >> >> Ask elsewhere >> > And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.
Guest Unknown Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Re: CPU's? Of course it would. Ease off. "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com... > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> > wrote: > >>The operating system runs on it.. >>"Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Hi: >>>> >>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based upon >>>>dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can answer >>>>in >>>>descriptive terms. >>>> >>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >>>> quad >>>>core at a lower speed? >>>> >>>>Thanks >>>> >>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do >>> with the OS. >>> >>> Ask elsewhere >>> >> > > And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what > HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here. >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted July 19, 2008 Posted July 19, 2008 Re: CPU's? This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It would almost be funny, if it weren't so sad). Unknown wrote: > Of course it would. Ease off. > "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message > news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >> wrote: >> >>> The operating system runs on it.. >>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi: >>>>> >>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based >>>>> upon >>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can >>>>> answer >>>>> in descriptive terms. >>>>> >>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >>>>> quad core at a lower speed? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> >>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do >>>> with the OS. >>>> >>>> Ask elsewhere >>>> >>> >> >> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what >> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here.
Guest Edric Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It would >almost be funny, if it weren't so sad). > >Unknown wrote: >> Of course it would. Ease off. >> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> The operating system runs on it.. >>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi: >>>>>> >>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based >>>>>> upon >>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can >>>>>> answer >>>>>> in descriptive terms. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or a >>>>>> quad core at a lower speed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> >>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to do >>>>> with the OS. >>>>> >>>>> Ask elsewhere >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what >>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here. > Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you wouldn't hear from me. Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit.
Guest Unknown Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may just as well go sit in a corner. "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com... > On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co." > <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: > >>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It >>would >>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad). >> >>Unknown wrote: >>> Of course it would. Ease off. >>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com... >>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The operating system runs on it.. >>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based >>>>>>> upon >>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can >>>>>>> answer >>>>>>> in descriptive terms. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or >>>>>>> a >>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to >>>>>> do >>>>>> with the OS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ask elsewhere >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what >>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here. >> > Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you > wouldn't hear from me. > > Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit. >
Guest Moi Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing when someone replies with his posting in context! "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message news:zRHgk.12954$LG4.12374@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... > You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may > just as well go sit in a corner. > "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message > news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co." >> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It >>>would >>>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad). >>> >>>Unknown wrote: >>>> Of course it would. Ease off. >>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com... >>>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The operating system runs on it.. >>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >>>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based >>>>>>>> upon >>>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can >>>>>>>> answer >>>>>>>> in descriptive terms. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to >>>>>>> do >>>>>>> with the OS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ask elsewhere >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what >>>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here. >>> >> Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you >> wouldn't hear from me. >> >> Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit. >> > >
Guest Unknown Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? Last week he was being censored. I hope the censoring of him continues. "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote in message news:48839cbb@dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong > group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a > poster the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a > self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him > my first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his > posturing when someone replies with his posting in context! > > "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message > news:zRHgk.12954$LG4.12374@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... >> You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may >> just as well go sit in a corner. >> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >> news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co." >>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It >>>>would >>>>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad). >>>> >>>>Unknown wrote: >>>>> Of course it would. Ease off. >>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The operating system runs on it.. >>>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >>>>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based >>>>>>>>> upon >>>>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can >>>>>>>>> answer >>>>>>>>> in descriptive terms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed >>>>>>>>> or a >>>>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> with the OS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what >>>>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here. >>>> >>> Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you >>> wouldn't hear from me. >>> >>> Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit. >>> >> >> > >
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote: > Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong > group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster > the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a > self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my > first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing > when someone replies with his posting in context! Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong newsgroup. If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the help they are looking for, but that's not his style. Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files. But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it is for him to change his name. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Gord Dibben Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? Edric posts under many names and addresses. No point in trying to keep up with his/her ever-changing author and address by filtering. Gord On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote: >Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong >group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster >the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a >self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my >first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing >when someone replies with his posting in context! > >"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message >news:zRHgk.12954$LG4.12374@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com... >> You are very mistaken if you think you are impressing anyone. So you may >> just as well go sit in a corner. >> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >> news:de1584tk25mr51e14fakqgkij5or75ci56@4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:52:52 -0600, "Bill in Co." >>> <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote: >>> >>>>This is a pure Edric rant, that has NOTHING to do with the OS! (It >>>>would >>>>almost be funny, if it weren't so sad). >>>> >>>>Unknown wrote: >>>>> Of course it would. Ease off. >>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:37e284hsb56sc6nill1a857no7ibrak003@4ax.com... >>>>>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 14:37:02 -0500, "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The operating system runs on it.. >>>>>>> "Edric" <none@nobody.net> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:60pv745ju18mr98i6vnv61p9h3imdugo18@4ax.com... >>>>>>>> On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:41:23 -0400, "ColTom2" >>>>>>>> <noemailaddress@nomail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Since it seems now be harder to tell which CPU is preferred based >>>>>>>>> upon >>>>>>>>> dual core and quad core I have a question that maybe someone can >>>>>>>>> answer >>>>>>>>> in descriptive terms. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Which would be better to acquire, a dual core with higher speed or >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> quad core at a lower speed? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why ask HERE? This is a pure hardware question that has NOTHING to >>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>> with the OS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ask elsewhere >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And? That is irrelevant. The OS resides on your HD but asking what >>>>>> HD to purchase ALSO would not belong here. >>>> >>> Agreed. And if these dumbshits quit posting off topic crap you >>> wouldn't hear from me. >>> >>> Oh, and the replies go down HERE, honorary dumbshit. >>> >> >> >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote: > >> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong >> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a >> poster >> the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a >> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him >> my >> first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing >> when someone replies with his posting in context! > > > Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of > messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better > to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong > newsgroup. But it's all he can do, since he obviously has no knowledge of anything to help anyone, so it's (sadly) not too surprising. > If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by > sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the > help they are looking for, but that's not his style. > > Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He > periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files. > But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it > is for him to change his name. > > -- > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience > Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Edric Posted July 20, 2008 Posted July 20, 2008 Re: CPU's? On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:55:05 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote: > >> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong >> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster >> the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a >> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my >> first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing >> when someone replies with his posting in context! > > >Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of >messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better >to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong >newsgroup. > >If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by >sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the >help they are looking for, but that's not his style. > >Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He >periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files. >But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it >is for him to change his name. I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need to stand on their own feet and do their OWN research. It's the only way they will really LEARN how to find answers to their questions PROPERLY. It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of you twits do.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: CPU's? Edric wrote: > I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need to stand on > their own feet and do their OWN research. It's the only way they will > really LEARN how to find answers to their questions PROPERLY. > > It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of you twits do. > Grumpy, you're a dipstick.
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: CPU's? On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:52:12 -0500, Edric <none@nobody.net> wrote: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:55:05 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" > <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: > > >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> wrote: > > > >> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you are in the wrong > >> group' nastiness to all and sundry, when anyone helpful would tell a poster > >> the best alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a > >> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led to my making him my > >> first and only 'blocked' poster! Unfortunately I still see his posturing > >> when someone replies with his posting in context! > > > > > >Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the only kind of > >messages he posts in the newsgroups. Apparently he has nothing better > >to do with his life but rudely tell people they are in the wrong > >newsgroup. > > > >If he would tell them politely, he would actually be helping them, by > >sending them to a place where they would be more likely to get the > >help they are looking for, but that's not his style. > > > >Also be aware that your blocking him will work only temporarily. He > >periodically changes his posting name to escape people's kill files. > >But that's OK. It's as easy for us to make a new killfile entry as it > >is for him to change his name. > > I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need to stand on > their own feet and do their OWN research. It's the only way they will > really LEARN how to find answers to their questions PROPERLY. > > It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of you twits do. No, that couldn't be more wrong; in your case, it's called being arrogant. You could make the same point politely, as I often do, and many others of us do. People who don't know enough about the various newsgroups available to them *do* often post in the wrong place, and they often need help and direction as to how to post in a place where they are more likely to get the help they need. Nobody would complain about you if you helped people by pointing out a better choice for them. It's not *what* you say, it's the way you say it. You are extremely rude and arrogant. You would also have a whole lot more credibility if 99.44% of your messages weren't just complaining about somebody's asking his questions in the wrong place. Most of us would be willing to cut you some slack if you were at least otherwise helpful to people. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Chet Posted July 21, 2008 Posted July 21, 2008 Re: CPU's? Of great historical significance to all, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> declared on Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:48:53 -0700: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:52:12 -0500, Edric <none@nobody.net> > wrote: > > > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:55:05 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" > > <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote: > > > > >On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 06:14:50 +1000, "Moi" <user@user.com> > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Whoever this Edric character is, and especially his 'you > > >> are in the wrong group' nastiness to all and sundry, > > >> when anyone helpful would tell a poster the best > > >> alternative group to go to (since he must know, being a > > >> self-appointed expert in which groups are which) has led > > >> to my making him my first and only 'blocked' poster! > > >> Unfortunately I still see his posturing when someone > > >> replies with his posting in context! > > > > > > > > >Be aware that he has been doing this for years. It's the > > >only kind of messages he posts in the newsgroups. > > >Apparently he has nothing better to do with his life but > > >rudely tell people they are in the wrong newsgroup. > > > > > >If he would tell them politely, he would actually be > > >helping them, by sending them to a place where they would > > >be more likely to get the help they are looking for, but > > >that's not his style. > > > > > >Also be aware that your blocking him will work only > > >temporarily. He periodically changes his posting name to > > >escape people's kill files. But that's OK. It's as easy > > >for us to make a new killfile entry as it is for him to > > >change his name. > > > > I'm not going to tell folks where to get help - they need > > to stand on their own feet and do their OWN research. It's > > the only way they will really LEARN how to find answers to > > their questions PROPERLY. > > > > It's called teaching, not spoon feeding that the rest of > > you twits do. > > > No, that couldn't be more wrong; in your case, it's called > being arrogant. > > You could make the same point politely, as I often do, and > many others of us do. People who don't know enough about the > various newsgroups available to them *do* often post in the > wrong place, and they often need help and direction as to how > to post in a place where they are more likely to get the help > they need. Nobody would complain about you if you helped > people by pointing out a better choice for them. It's not > *what* you say, it's the way you say it. You are extremely > rude and arrogant. > > You would also have a whole lot more credibility if 99.44% of > your messages weren't just complaining about somebody's > asking his questions in the wrong place. Most of us would be > willing to cut you some slack if you were at least otherwise > helpful to people. > > -- > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience > Please Reply to the Newsgroup You're being way to nice. -- cfnewsDO@NOTmchsi.SPAMcom "I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid." - Terry Bradshaw -
Recommended Posts