Why is there always Geek Talk at 2am! #0.6x5 (Enter at your own risk!)

Well guys, I'm going to bed.

Cya tomorrow.

Good night Nick.

*sigh* wrote in post #12048668
No, Martin has one of the original I7's, I want to say a 950.

that's right Nick, i'm going to show that monkey a budget ride that's faster than his

good night Nick

FJ LOVE wrote in post #12048674
that's right Nick, i'm going to show that monkey a budget ride that's faster than his

And we're going to see a monkey throw a fit. Go Martin!

Just made this an hour ago

Lightbox Version 1

*sigh* wrote in post #12048096
I'm still catching up, so forgive me if this was covered already.

But...

It depends on the quad core you are talking about versus the dual core you are talking about.

It also depends on what program you are running.

Certain programs can only utilize so many cores, so you could have some 100 core behemoth, but if your program that you are running is only utilized for a dual core machine than you will only be able to use 2 of your 100 cores for that program. Now, there are some advantages to this still, as you could free up 2 cores entirely to ONLY work on that program, and have the other two deal with everything else that is running, but that's more of a pain than anything.

Now, if you are running a program that can only utilize two cores, than a dual core may actually be faster (Games were a great example of this for a long time), while there were plenty of great Intel Core 2 Duo quads out there a lot of gamers still opted for chips like the E8400, despite being similar in price to a quad, it offered higher clock speeds, so since only two cores were being utilized, it basically crippled the quad core into a dual core, and since they were based off of the same architecture, the higher clocked dual core chip was faster than the crippled quad core.

Quads are typically fast enough now for games, but offer advantages when doing really intense stuff that can utilize all the cores, or when running numerous programs at once as the load can be split over the cores.

OS'es like Windows 7 really helped distribute the load better than say XP did, so that is also why more people are now moving from dual cores to quads.

(I just spent 17 hours in the car, so if some of this doesn't make sense, which it probably doesn't, let me know.)

I guess I could have named my processors I was taking about couldnt I.
The 2.8Ghz dual core i& ( found in last years MBP) and the Quad core 2.2 Ghz in this years MBP.
I will be putting 7 on there but my main OS will be OS X
If there new one ( Lion) is good I will most likely go ahead and get it.

My main programs are CS 5
Lightroom 3
Photomatix
Powerpoint.
and I will most likely get aperture and some OnOne software.
In the next year or so i may get more into video so I may get something to edit that as well

KenjiS wrote in post #12048382
http://www.youtube.com …ature=channel_v​ideo_title

HAHA
7D sux

Is this the only adapter to put a a HDD in the optic bay or is there a cheaper one?

http://store.mcetech.c​om …HDOPTIBAY&Produ​ct_Count=0

midnight_rider wrote in post #12049457
I guess I could have named my processors I was taking about couldnt I.
The 2.8Ghz dual core i& ( found in last years MBP) and the Quad core 2.2 Ghz in this years MBP.
I will be putting 7 on there but my main OS will be OS X
If there new one ( Lion) is good I will most likely go ahead and get it.

My main programs are CS 5
Lightroom 3
Photomatix
Powerpoint.
and I will most likely get aperture and some OnOne software.
In the next year or so i may get more into video so I may get something to edit that as well

HAHA
7D sux

This years MbP are over 50% faster than last years versions. The base 2.0gh quad smokes last years high end i7 duo. Trust me i did a lot of research. This years upgrade wasnt just an incremental one for the MBP. It was a full blown performance boost. Go quad core and dont look back.

Kirk:

Here is a performance link with 17 and 13 of this year vs last year. The 17 is tested with a 2.3 i7 so just deduct a bit off those score to get an estimate of the strength of the 2.2.

http://www.barefeats.c​om/mbpp34.html

Gaming benchmarks:

http://www.barefeats.c​om/mbps01.html

vipergts831 wrote in post #12049527
This years MbP are over 50% faster than last years versions. The base 2.0gh quad smokes last years high end i7 duo. Trust me i did a lot of research. This years upgrade wasnt just an incremental one for the MBP. It was a full blown performance boost. Go quad core and dont look back.

Yeah, I am in the process of trying to make up my mind.
I know whatever I get will be better than what I have but I still have an issue over thinking everything
I am trying to see the big difference between the 2.0 and the 2.2.
i am far from being a tech geek but there doesnt seem to be much. although you can not get the better graphic card in the 2.0 model MBP

vipergts831 wrote in post #12049560
Kirk:

Here is a performance link with 17 and 13 of this year vs last year. The 17 is tested with a 2.3 i7 so just deduct a bit off those score to get an estimate of the strength of the 2.2.

http://www.barefeats.c​om/mbpp34.html

Gaming benchmarks:

http://www.barefeats.c​om/mbps01.html

I wonder why they are putting the top end 2.3 ghz against the 2.66 and not against the 2.8 dual core.

Still a huge difference though.

I

midnight_rider wrote in post #12049564
Yeah, I am in the process of trying to make up my mind.
I know whatever I get will be better than what I have but I still have an issue over thinking everything
I am trying to see the big difference between the 2.0 and the 2.2.
i am far from being a tech geek but there doesnt seem to be much. although you can not get the better graphic card in the 2.0 model MBP

Ask yourself how much gaming will you realistically be doing. If its little then go for the 2.0 model and apply the bucks you save there towards more RAM and SSD/HDD. All about being real with yourself. If 90% of your use will be photo editing then the 2.0 model will work great for you.

They did that purposely to separate the gamers from those who could care less about gaming. I think its a good move on there part. Your a gamer? pony up more. Not so much of a gamer then the base model is fantastic.

midnight_rider wrote in post #12049579
I wonder why they are putting the top end 2.3 ghz against the 2.66 and not against the 2.8 dual core.

Still a huge difference though.

I

Thats because its the one they have access to. They are not a big time webpage so they didnt have access to the late 2010 model only the mid 2010 model.