Wanna Buy a Core 2 Duo ? HOLD ON !

[LeftEyeNine]

Because Intel will be showing off their new 2x 4MB cached, 1066 MHz Core 2 Quad Q6600 CPU on 7th January 2007, in response to AMD FX-70 's uprise the same month.

And this battle brings good news along as the topic tells: The prices of Core 2 Duo CPUs will be pulled down around %30-40. For instance, C2D E6700 will be priced down at 316$ while E6600 will be sold for 214$.

I've read the Turkish translation of the article. The source itself is in German and here it is.

w00t WooT!

[Husar]

You know, if you wait a few months more, it will be even cheaper, and if you will wait even a few months more....
And after 10 years you may realize that you have waited for so many years for the newest hardware to become cheaper but still use your same old computer from 12 years ago.
Your choice of course, but I got the impression that waiting for hardware to become cheaper results in new hardware that you will then want and then you wait for this to become cheaper etc.
A good chance for people who get some money for christmas though.

[LeftEyeNine]

I agree with the "endless waiting" part but how far is January, Hus-hus ?

[AussieGiant]

You can always wait....and wait...and wait.

Maybe, just maybe as the technology surges and wains you can get slightly ahead of the curve in some instances, but your moment of advantage is never more than 3 to 5 months.

Bottom line, make sure you have an upgradeable machine.

[Beirut]

I'm sitting here with my ancient AMD64-3000 CPU. It plays everything well. Goodness know I'll get a faster one, but seeing what a $55 CPU as old as mine can pull off with games like M:TW2, FEAR, and FSX, I cannot imagine what's happening with these new $750+ CPUs.

It must be mind boggling.

[BDC]

My 2Ghz P4 is just pitiful...

[caravel]

You can always wait and wait for years then buy something old hat, but if that suits you, and you're on a budget where's the harm? Personally I wait for prices to go down considerably before buying a CPU. Even a few months can make a different between i.e. from £600 down to £200. Fair enough you msy not have the lastest hardware but if it does it's job then it's worth it.

My current CPU is an Athlon XP 2400+. I bought this for a few quid to replace my old 1800+ which was a palomino cored furnace of a thing. That was years ago. Since then I haven't upgraded anything apart from my graphics card. Now my spec is very dated and I will probably be looking for something else next year.

[Spino]

Nah, don't hold on...

Intel recently released their Core 2 Duo and Quad roadmap for 2007 and while there will be alot more choices for consumers there still isn't a whole lot to get worked up about, at least for those of us who think it's crazy to spend more than $250 on a processor.

A larger cache is always nice but the truth of the matter once you adjust for clock speed the performance boost going from a 2meg to 4meg cache is not that impressive, especially when it comes to games.

Bit-tech did some testing to illustrate the benefits of the C2Duo's 2 & 4meg cache offerings...

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/200...cessors/5.html

My biggest worry is the overclockability of these new chips. We don't know how well the new C2Duo chips will overclock versus the current batch of Core 2 Duos.

Basically if you're looking to upgrade sooner than later the best deal in town over the next 4-6 months will continue to be the C2Duo E6300 and E6400 chips; with decent PC-667 or PC-800 RAM you can overclock them like mad (even using Intel's stock heatsink/fan). Their overclockability is so impressive that one can easily match or surpass the performance of the much more expensive E6600, E6700 and E6800 chips, especially if you opt for an aftermarket cooling solution.

So until AMD releases their .65nm chips and the ensuing price war affects all segments of the processor market 2007 won't be quite as exciting for the budget minded gamer/enthusiast.

The worst part is that quad core chips will still be expensive as hell all throughout 2007 and probably through the first half of 2008.

[Spino]

You can always wait and wait for years then buy something old hat, but if that suits you, and you're on a budget where's the harm? Personally I wait for prices to go down considerably before buying a CPU. Even a few months can make a different between i.e. from £600 down to £200. Fair enough you msy not have the lastest hardware but if it does it's job then it's worth it.

My current CPU is an Athlon XP 2400+. I bought this for a few quid to replace my old 1800+ which was a palomino cored furnace of a thing. That was years ago. Since then I haven't upgraded anything apart from my graphics card. Now my spec is very dated and I will probably be looking for something else next year.

Heh, I'm running also running an Athlon XP 2400+ alongside a Radeon 9800Pro and 1gig of RAM and I'm positively dying to upgrade, especially now that I just bought a gorgeous 22" widescreen LCD. My problem is I'm wondering if I should order now or wait until after Christmas and try and snag even better deals during the post-holiday fallout sales.

[Lemur]

I'm sitting here with my ancient AMD64-3000 CPU. It plays everything well. Goodness know I'll get a faster one, but seeing what a $55 CPU as old as mine can pull off with games like M:TW2, FEAR, and FSX, I cannot imagine what's happening with these new $750+ CPUs.

Remember, most games are not CPU-bound, but rather GPU-bound. It's exceedingly rare for the CPU to be the bottleneck.

[LeftEyeNine]

Why does everyone in this thread starts with replies with "you can always wait and wait and wait.". Where did I mention you to for ages and why does everyone hate me and what's the meaning of life?

[LeftEyeNine]

W-wait..About the cache differences..

Is this the sole truth or will higher caches come into play later on, as more power-demanding programs/games appear ?

I've been waiting for quite some time to save for a E6600 because it has a higher cache. Was it all in vain ?

[drone]

Heh, I'm running also running an Athlon XP 2400+ alongside a Radeon 9800Pro and 1gig of RAM and I'm positively dying to upgrade, especially now that I just bought a gorgeous 22" widescreen LCD. My problem is I'm wondering if I should order now or wait until after Christmas and try and snag even better deals during the post-holiday fallout sales.

Similar state here. Athlon XP 2000+, 9700Pro, and it just can't cope with modern games. I've been busy at work, so I haven't really had the opportunity to do much gaming lately, but there are several games either out now or coming in the near future that I want. I will probably wait until the 65 AMDs come out, and see what that does to prices and performance.

These fancy dual and quad core machines are wasted on us at the moment, since the games don't know how to use the extra core(s) properly. It's going to be a while before game engines are properly coded to run parallel and make use of all the extra power.

[Spino]

Why does everyone in this thread starts with replies with "you can always wait and wait and wait.". Where did I mention you to for ages and why does everyone hate me and what's the meaning of life?

Nobody hates you! We're simply evil people who take delight in your discomfort.

The meaning of life? If I told you I'd have to kill you...

W-wait..About the cache differences..

Is this the sole truth or will higher caches come into play later on, as more power-demanding programs/games appear ?

I've been waiting for quite some time to save for a E6600 because it has a higher cache. Was it all in vain ?

More L2 cache is definitely a good thing however how much of a good thing is it for the average user? In the not so distant past (Athlon 64 X2 & high end P4 chips) it was proven that a larger L2 cache does not have a profound effect on performance when it comes to basic applications and games. However based on the article I posted it seems multi-threaded applications can definitely make the most out of more L2 cache but the performance boost from 2 to 4megs still isn't anything to get excited over. As more and more games are programmed to take advantage of multi-threading I suppose the bigger cache will make a bigger difference, relatively speaking of course.

Personally my main focus is on gaming and given that my recent upgrade cycles revolve around a 18-24 month period it is far more important for me to worry about whether my 3D card has 36 or 48 pixel shaders or whether it has 256megs or 512megs of VRAM than it is for me to worry about how much L2 cache my multi-core CPU has to work with. As Lemur indirectly pointed out, it behooves gamers to spend more money on their GPU than they do on their CPU. Take note that when benchmarking the latest and greatest games at higher resolutions it is the GPU that makes the biggest difference, not the CPU.

Basically if $50-75 meant the difference between a multi-core CPU sporting 2 or 4megs of L2 cache or a mid-high end GPU sporting 256 or 512megs of VRAM I'd definitely choose the latter.

[Spino]

Similar state here. Athlon XP 2000+, 9700Pro, and it just can't cope with modern games. I've been busy at work, so I haven't really had the opportunity to do much gaming lately, but there are several games either out now or coming in the near future that I want. I will probably wait until the 65 AMDs come out, and see what that does to prices and performance.

These fancy dual and quad core machines are wasted on us at the moment, since the games don't know how to use the extra core(s) properly. It's going to be a while before game engines are properly coded to run parallel and make use of all the extra power.

I take solace in the fact that I rarely buy new games and instead opt to purchase the hits of yesteryear at bargain bin prices. It's a great feeling when you can play great games from a year or so ago that are fully patched & modded and run really well on my antiquated rig.

[Husar]

These fancy dual and quad core machines are wasted on us at the moment, since the games don't know how to use the extra core(s) properly. It's going to be a while before game engines are properly coded to run parallel and make use of all the extra power.

So far I know that Gothic 3 and Medieval 2 both make use of my two cores.
Medieval 2 uses one more than the other and Gothic 3 uses both to full extend. IIRC Gothic 3 is multithreadeda nd the second core can for example stream the world while the first will run the actual game, makes for smoother performance, someone official even said it may never run without reload lag on a single core...
I know, just one or two games so far, but I think if they can do it, others can and should as well.

[Beirut]

Remember, most games are not CPU-bound, but rather GPU-bound. It's exceedingly rare for the CPU to be the bottleneck.

Many flightsims put more strain on the CPU than the GPU.

[Papewaio]

I would say wait until Vista is launched to the consumer market... that should have an effect on all components of the computing market.

[LeftEyeNine]

I would say wait until Vista is launched to the consumer market... that should have an effect on all components of the computing market.

You can wait and wait and wait till th..oh..Ahem..

[Papewaio]

What next month?

[Husar]

You can wait and wait and wait till th..oh..Ahem..

You're almost indoctrinated, resistance is futile...

[edyzmedieval]

Is it really worth to buy the E6800 Extreme Edition?

[KukriKhan]

Spinowrote:"...Personally my main focus is on gaming and given that my recent upgrade cycles revolve around a 18-24 month period..."

And that seems to coincide with the hardware-build, software-utilize endless cycle. Sadly, that's twice as fast as my wallet expands; I'm still in the old-school 36-48 months between upgrades cycle, knowing that I'll be lagging in that final year. By the time I'm ready to upgrade again, I expect to see octi-core (or more) CPU's.