Ogre Forums

Then I'll just wait for Larrabee for my next machine build.

My bet is that Larrabee will be a disappointment But we'll see. I am just writing this so I can quote myself later to say "I told you so".

It will be different, is what it will be -- it's more like "we are going to take the massively-parallel vector nature of a GPU and make a combo CPU/GPU out of that". But like you said, we'll see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larrabee_(GPU)

I'm most interested in the effect of in-order execution (which is how the 360, for example, operates) on compiler code generation; presumably MS will be able to jump on that right away since they've had to deal with and perfect it over the past 5 years for the 360. The idea of cache coherency across all cores will be interesting too. But rather than go on about it in this thread I suppose I should be posting the existing Larrabee thread instead.

[edit: reading through one of the links at the bottom of that article, it seems you're probably right: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13512_3-10006184-23.html ]

Moohasha wrote: Duo core vs. Quad core: Right now I'm looking at the Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.16GHz which runs $189 on newegg, but the Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz is $279. I know that a slower quad core is supposed to out perform a faster duo core in most cases, but what's the turning point, and is that always the case, or is it sorta app specific? And is the trade off worth the extra $90?

Core 2 quads are a waste of time and money, it is not true that they outperform core 2 duo in almost any app, especially in Games, if you want a quad core go for the Core I7.

jjp wrote:My bet is that Larrabee will be a disappointment But we'll see. …

And why does that make you happy?

Victor, welcome back! We haven't had anyone to post BS and stir up the sh*t since you were here last.

You of course have citations to back up this performance claim of yours, right? My experience, of course, is the exact opposite of your statement; my Q6600 outperforms the dual core next to it at work regularly.

xavier wrote:Victor, welcome back! We haven't had anyone to post BS and stir up the sh*t since you were here last.

Oh yeah Thanks for the welcoming. It has been almost eight month since last time I was around.
Sometime life kicks in and you just do not have much time for the hobbies stuff.
I do not know how you do it, you being in the real world and all of that while we are in fantasy land.

xavier wrote:You guys would make great U.S. Senators -- you're all awfully loose and fast with others' money.

I see that you are still a little conflicted with your politics.

xavier wrote:You of course have citations to back up this performance claim of yours, right? My experience, of course, is the exact opposite of your statement; my Q6600 outperforms the dual core next to it at work regularly.

Yes of course, I have empirical evidence.
Here at works we have a mini farm of 12 Dell precision T5400
6 Gbyte of Ram
3.16 intel xeon X5460
With supper fast drives.
Running windows Xp64 Server edition
We use then to build our code and other tasks like texture rendering.

We use an app called Xoreax Incredibuild, and it takes approximately from 10 to 15 minute to build the code.
Since the company no longer uses Dells, the new IT group set up another farm for the design team.
This one is made of 8 machines using ICore 7 running at a lower speed, and yet they compile the same code base in less than 7 minute.

Another point was that if I were going to spend $2000 on a rig, I rather buy a system with future scalability and not one that is at the end of the development cycle.

The third, point I think that ICore 7 is better than the Quad cores is that they have a unified cache designed, but I am sure you know a lot more than I do about that.
the fourth, I believe it is Intel itself who say that Core I7s are better than the Q6600, and for more on that you can go to the Intel website and read the datasheet of the CPUs.

VictorMoran wrote: I do not know how you do it, you being in the real world and all of that while we are in fantasy land.

I do it during compiles at work. After I quit smoking again it was easy to find the time to answer a post or two.

VictorMoran wrote:

xavier wrote:You guys would make great U.S. Senators -- you're all awfully loose and fast with others' money.

I see that you are still a little conflicted with your politics.

Hell I forget which particular treachery of the public trust brought that up -- there are so many to choose from these days, with Congress spending like drunken sailors on shore leave and the administration almost falling over itself in its efforts to resurrect the ghosts of FDR, Johnson and Orwell, all at the same time, and before anyone notices...but we'd have to continue that in another topic.

VictorMoran wrote: We use an app called Xoreax Incredibuild, and it takes approximately from 10 to 15 minute to build the code.
Since the company no longer uses Dells, the new IT group set up another farm for the design team.
This one is made of 8 machines using ICore 7 with run a lower speed, and yet they compile the same code base in less than 7 minute.

I have found incredibuild actually to slow down builds, especially in cases where precompiled headers are involved (some of them can get pretty huge and transferring those around the grid often takes more time than just compiling the files locally). We use IB here too and since moving to a new codebase, I haven't found a need for it. Good header/dependency management plus judicious use of PCH almost eliminates the need for IB, IME. However, think about it -- VS will build 4 projects at a time instead of two on a quad core (vs a dual core) -- with enough memory in the machine, that will build twice as fast, no?

Another point was that if I were going to spend 2000 on a rig, I rather buy a system with future scalability and not one that is at the end of the development cycle.

A reasonable point, except that there's some uncertainty as to whether or not Core 2 Quad is at the end of its life -- they certainly are not pushing out the i7 like they were the Core 2 (I can only find 3 of them on newegg, and only one of them is "reasonably" priced).

The third, point I think that ICore 7 is better than the Quad cores is that they have a unified cache designed, but I am sure you know a lot more than I do about that.
the fourth, I believe it is Intel itself who say that Core I7s are better than the Q6600, and for more on that you can go to the Intel website and read the datasheet of the CPUs.

The Core i7 *is* a better CPU, hands down -- but the questions raised so far have mostly been "is it *that much better*" -- by all accounts the i7 makes for a significantly more expensive machine, for which the performance in practice (I'm taking this anecdotally from those who claim to have tried both) simply doesn't justify the extra cost. If Intel would bring down the i7 cost and make them more available than they are, I'd agree with you that it is a no-brainer, but Intel's own distribution strategy seems to cast doubt on whether they actually are pushing it or not...

I sware, I have to check every 5 minutes to keep up with you guys!

VictorMoran wrote:the fourth, I believe it is Intel itself who say that Core I7s are better than the Q6600

Well of course Intel says that, it's their latest chip which is about 2x-6x more expensive than the Core 2 Quads so they want you to buy it!

I hear people saying that you get more bang for your buck with AMD over Intel, but can anyone aleviate my concerns about stability and compatibility with AMD? From what I've heard, more people have issues with AMD drivers than with Intel.

And yes, my budget is still $2000, but we've since bought about $200 worth of cables and such to run audio/video/networking cables through the walls, mount our TV on the wall, and rearrange things to have a nicers setup, and we're considering using some of the computer budget for better computer chairs. So the actual budge for the PC at this point is probably closer to $1200-$1500!

@xavier - I think I've given up on running WoW on Linux. I couldn't get it to work on my laptop, probably due to hardware/driver issues. Of course, I'm also hesitant to buy Vista right now when Windows 7 is supposed to be coming out soon. Then again, I don't think I want version 1.0 of any Windows version.

xavier wrote:The Core i7 *is* a better CPU, hands down -- but the questions raised so far have mostly been "is it *that much better*" -- by all accounts the i7 makes for a significantly more expensive machine

Agreed. Not only are the CPUs much more expensive, but a mobo with a Core i7 slot is more expensive, as well as DDR3 RAM (which is the only RAM that Core i7 compatible mobos I've seen support). So the additional cost to getting a Core i7, from my experience, extends beyond the CPU iteslf.

I've actually found Vista (64, anyway) to be plenty stable...but annoying as all f*(&*ing hell...anytime (and I mean anytime) you want to do anything (including just running a goddamn program) you have to answer 20 questions about whether "you really wanted to do that?" And this is with UAC OFF...

I've actually found Vista (64, anyway) to be plenty stable...but annoying as all f*(&*ing hell...anytime (and I mean anytime) you want to do anything (including just running a goddamn program) you have to answer 20 questions about whether "you really wanted to do that?" And this is with UAC OFF...

???
I turned UAC off, and have no prompts asking me to verify things. Apart from explorer looking different and nvidia dropping Nview (damn those fools. Nview is vital for multi monitor use. I don't want to pay for Ultramon when nvidia used to do it for free), it's easy to forget I'm not on XP. I'll give 7 a try when the free MSDNAA version comes out, but until then I'm happy with Vista 64.

My bet is that Larrabee will be a disappointment

Depends on what your expectations are.
If all you want is something that beats nvidia and ati performance using standard direct3d or opengl, then you'll be disappointed since the first edition of Larrabee won't.
If you want an interesting new cpu/gpu hybrid which will allow you to implement rendering algorithms which are difficult or impossible on nvidia/ati and gets at least reasonable performance at typical stuff, then I think Larrabee will deliver.
The programmer side of me wants it, not the gamer side.

I'm in another upgrade phase at the moment, but I'm focused on external stuff since my system is still running great since december (although I might get another 6GB of ram, ram is pretty cheap). Monitors, input devices, new headphones, etc. Although that's going to cost more than the $2000 limit for the pc in this thread.
(See, I tried to bring it back on topic. Kind of.)

xavier wrote: Hell I forget which particular treachery of the public trust brought that up -- there are so many to choose from these days, with Congress spending like drunken sailors on shore leave and the administration almost falling over itself in its efforts to resurrect the ghosts of FDR, Johnson and Orwell, all at the same time, and before anyone notices...but we'd have to continue that in another topic.

Wow, considering that this topic is related to picking computers parts, it sounds like your concerns with politics make you see analogies that seem like a stretch.
I say, relax dude some time computer part are just that computer parts.

xavier wrote: I have found incredibuild actually to slow down builds, especially in cases where precompiled headers are involved (some of them can get pretty huge and transferring those around the grid often takes more time than just compiling the files locally). We use IB here too and since moving to a new codebase, I haven't found a need for it. Good header/dependency management plus judicious use of PCH almost eliminates the need for IB, IME. However, think about it -- VS will build 4 projects at a time instead of two on a quad core (vs a dual core) -- with enough memory in the machine, that will build twice as fast, no?

Umm, It seems to me that you proved, either that Incredibuild is slow, or that my company is mediocre because we use incredibuild, or perhaps that we are mediocre for not using your vast knowledge in organizing makefiles to use precompiled headers.
It still fails to see how a xeon quad core can be much slower than a core I7 machine when they are running the exact same application. Do you have some knowledge Incredibuild is specifically optimized for Q6600?

The Core i7 *is* a better CPU, hands down -- but the questions raised so far have mostly been "is it *that much better*" -- by all accounts the i7 makes for a significantly more expensive machine, for which the performance in practice (I'm taking this anecdotally from those who claim to have tried both) simply doesn't justify the extra cost. If Intel would bring down the i7 cost and make them more available than they are, I'd agree with you that it is a no-brainer, but Intel's own distribution strategy seems to cast doubt on whether they actually are pushing it or not...

Umm I see, so what you are saying is: yes the core I7 is better, and it is the high end best performer according to Intel.
But, because you have some intuition or some internal knowledge of what you call
“Intel's own distribution strategy”, the Icore 7 is not a better choice.
I am going to concede to your vast knowledge of Intel internal marketing practices.
I guess this is one of those skills limited to those who leave in the real world; I can only go by what Intel say on their press released, white papers, and what my personal experience shows me.

VictorMoran wrote:

xavier wrote: Hell I forget which particular treachery of the public trust brought that up -- there are so many to choose from these days, with Congress spending like drunken sailors on shore leave and the administration almost falling over itself in its efforts to resurrect the ghosts of FDR, Johnson and Orwell, all at the same time, and before anyone notices...but we'd have to continue that in another topic.

Wow, considering that this topic is related to picking computers parts, it sounds like your concerns with politics make you see analogies that seem like a stretch.

Or, perhaps, it's a light-hearted interjection of humour -- I'll let you figure out which it is.

Umm, It seems to me that you proved, either that Incredibuild is slow, or that my company is mediocre because we use incredibuild, or perhaps that we are mediocre for not using your vast knowledge in organizing makefiles to use precompiled headers.
It still fails to see how a xeon quad core can be much slower than a core I7 machine when they are running the exact same application. Do you have some knowledge Incredibuild is specifically optimized for Q6600?

I said none of that. You mentioned IB, I pointed out that in our case (with our previous codebase, horribly organized) that IB was almost no faster than a single quad core, and that with the codebase we since moved on to, that it was much faster on a single quad because the code org was much better and no grid jobs needed to be started (keeping the network out of it).

Regarding the quad Xeon vs i7, in the case of building code it would be faster because there is more cache and memory access is much faster. However, you popped into this thread with a wild (and inaccurate) statement that Core 2 Quad was not faster than a Core 2 Duo; here, let me refresh your memory:

VictorMoran wrote:Core 2 quads are a waste of time and money, it is not true that they outperform core 2 duo in almost any app, especially in Games

Sorry if it wasn't clear to what that pertained.

The Core i7 *is* a better CPU, hands down -- but the questions raised so far have mostly been "is it *that much better*" -- by all accounts the i7 makes for a significantly more expensive machine, for which the performance in practice (I'm taking this anecdotally from those who claim to have tried both) simply doesn't justify the extra cost. If Intel would bring down the i7 cost and make them more available than they are, I'd agree with you that it is a no-brainer, but Intel's own distribution strategy seems to cast doubt on whether they actually are pushing it or not...

Umm I see, so what you are saying is: yes the core I7 is better, and it is the high end best performer according to Intel.
But, because you have some intuition or some internal knowledge of what you call
“Intel's own distribution strategy”, the Icore 7 is not a better choice.

I said no such thing. Simple observation provides that their product offerings for the i7 are (a) more expensive per CPU, (b) more expensive to set up, including the MB and RAM costs, and (c) that there are fewer of them than previous lines (which included typically a dozen price points at a time). From that, the only conclusions to draw are (a) Intel is (for some unknown reason) not pushing the i7 as hard as they did the Core/Core2, or (b) for some unknown reason, they have decided not to offer as many price points as in the past. I chose to conclude (a), since the Core 2 is still selling like hotcakes (and is probably cheaper for them to make, so margins are higher).

Finally, in the context of this thread, for Moohasha's stated needs, a Core 2 Quad serves his purposes just fine. If I were building a new system today, I personally would build it around an i7, but this thread wasn't about what I would do -- it's addressing what is best for Moohasha at this time.

Sometimes I wish you would pay closer attention.

xavier wrote:Regarding the quad Xeon vs i7, in the case of building code it would be faster because there is more cache and memory access is much faster.

Thank you, I appreciate that.
I knew that if I kept my perseverance, one day we could find something we could agree upon.
I still disagree with you in everything else but I accept your apology.

VictorMoran wrote:

xavier wrote:Regarding the quad Xeon vs i7, in the case of building code it would be faster because there is more cache and memory access is much faster.

Thank you, I appreciate that.
I knew that if I kept perseverance, one day you would accept that a person who is not in your real world, could say something right.
I still disagree with you in everything but I accept your apology.

Considering that the issue in point was never formally introduced into the debate -- instead, you simply made it up on the fly in one of your replies -- there was no apology forthcoming. I offered apologies for not making sure it was clear to you which of your (mis)statements I was addressing with my quad/duo example, but that's not the same thing. Once again, in the above-quoted statement, you have introduced yet another tangential fallacy into the debate. But, you don't need to apologize for it. I'll simply direct you to the WIkipedia page on logical fallacies, since you tend to commit them more often than others, and let you figure out which ones apply to you. You can start with "strawman", "ad hominem" and "association".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

VictorMoran wrote:And why does that make you happy?

Because there is some sort of hype around Larrabee. I am usually sceptical when a hype surrounds a product. So I can't help to feel a bit of schadenfreude when something gets hyped and then doesn't deliver. From a programmer's point of view the chip certainly is interesting but so are the chips from NVidia and AMD/ATI.

Moohasha wrote:I hear people saying that you get more bang for your buck with AMD over Intel, but can anyone aleviate my concerns about stability and compatibility with AMD? From what I've heard, more people have issues with AMD drivers than with Intel.

For CPUs there is absolutely no difference in terms of stability and compatibility. None at all. For GPUs there are the differences between ATI & NVidia which I already mentioned. Apart from that they are equal in terms of stability and compatibility. For the best price/performance right now I'd get a GTX260-216.

jjp wrote:So I can't help to feel a bit of schadenfreude when something gets hyped and then doesn't deliver.

But that was spelt right!

jjp's profile wrote:Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Aha!

Moohasha wrote: I hear people saying that you get more bang for your buck with AMD over Intel, but can anyone aleviate my concerns about stability and compatibility with AMD? From what I've heard, more people have issues with AMD drivers than with Intel.

I've been running AMD CPUs for years now, with no issues (XP 32, XP x64 when it was RC, and now Linux). The only issues I've heard of with them are that there were some big bugs with the first Phenoms.

The new Phenom II X4s are looking very good, have a good price/performance ratio, and, if you're into it, overclock well. There are reports of the top end Phenom IIs overclocking to 4.2Ghz (from 3.6), which is mighty impressive - and would make it seem AMD has a lot more scalability available in the Phenom II micro architecture (I expect they're not releasing faster models at the moment for power consumption reasons - they're probably working on a lower power process revision before they unveil them - since at 3.6GHz they're already pushing 125W)

Owen wrote:

Moohasha wrote: I hear people saying that you get more bang for your buck with AMD over Intel, but can anyone aleviate my concerns about stability and compatibility with AMD? From what I've heard, more people have issues with AMD drivers than with Intel.

I've been running AMD CPUs for years now, with no issues (XP 32, XP x64 when it was RC, and now Linux). The only issues I've heard of with them are that there were some big bugs with the first Phenoms.

The new Phenom II X4s are looking very good, have a good price/performance ratio, and, if you're into it, overclock well. There are reports of the top end Phenom IIs overclocking to 4.2Ghz (from 3.6), which is mighty impressive - and would make it seem AMD has a lot more scalability available in the Phenom II micro architecture (I expect they're not releasing faster models at the moment for power consumption reasons - they're probably working on a lower power process revision before they unveil them - since at 3.6GHz they're already pushing 125W)

The AMD Phemon IIs have great price/performance. Great if you want to make your money go a bit further. But Intel has the top end of the market and AMD's offerings fail to beat Intel's best. But like you said the Phemon IIs are great if you're on a budget or want to keep the price/perf ratio high. But just a word of warning, steer clear of the Phemon 1s, they are terrible compared to simmilarly priced Intel and AMD cpus)

Oh dear, two weeks has passed and not decision as to what to get?
@Moohasha:
the reason I mention going with the Intel Core I7 was because you mention you were interested in a quad core.
You said this:

Moohasha wrote:I want to keep my new PC under $2,000, but still have something that will run well in a couple of years, so keep that in mind when responding.)[/b][/i]

When I saw people mentioning Q6600, I thought you were not getting good advice, but if you think they are good choices then I am sorry for interfering.

It appears some users, who apparently has made substantial investment on shiny Q6600 boxes, likes to validate their investment.
I do not know what “the ghosts of FDR, Johnson and Orwell” has to do with putting together a long lasting CPU rig, but perhaps they can explain it better than I could.
I can only go by what I have experience with and what I have read on some hardware reviews sites.

Here is a performance comparison chart for some Intel and AMD CPUs.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... l=el&tl=en

In a nutshell a regular core I7 is about 60% faster than an AMD Phenom X4 and about 55% faster that the top of the line Quad Core Q9300.
As a reference Quad Core Q9300 is much faster than the Q6600.

VictorMoran wrote: As a reference Quad Core Q9300 is much faster than the Q6600.

Even though I know the answer, I'll ask anyway -- you have some figures to bear this out? I'm not doubting that it is, but I am wondering how your definition of "much faster" fits with reality.

VictorMoran wrote: Here is a performance comparison chart for some Intel and AMD CPUs.
http://translate.google.com/translate?u ... l=el&tl=en

In a nutshell a regular core I7 is about 60% faster than an AMD Phenom X4 and about 55% faster that the top of the line Quad Core Q9300.
As a reference Quad Core Q9300 is much faster than the Q6600.

No wonder you seem so confused all the time, you can't even do basic math. I would love to hear how you get 55% from comparing a "regular core i7" to a Q9300? I can't even find a combination of numbers in the 3DMark06 results that comes out to 55%. We know you have a tendency to make things up out of whole cloth to back your arguments, but numbers don't lie...

And even assuming that your 55% figure is not a fantasy, it still begs the question: does such a number justify the additional cost? For example, a "regular core i7", which I take to mean "the 920", costs $280 at time of this posting, on Amazon, vs. a Q9300 on Amazon, which is $231.50. That comes to a 20% higher cost (280/231.50), for a 24% increase in performance (according to the 3DMark06 results in the link you provided). If by "regular" you meant "the 940", then for a 36% performance increase, you get to pay 2.46x the price (570/231); not exactly what I call a "justifiable expense".

Additionally, the difference in motherboard prices exceeds a 2x factor -- you can't really compare one to another because the chipsets and RAM requirements are so different, but a simple search on Amazon for "LGA775 motherboard" vs. "core i7 motherboard" bears out this 2x figure on an inspection basis.

As has been pointed out before, it's not our money, so that $50 might, in Moohasha's opinion, better be spent elsewhere for such a measly performance increase, especially when it becomes more like $200 (on a Core i7 920 basis) when you factor in motherboard and RAM costs.

So, despite your thinly veiled attacks on me (on which for some reason you are fixated), your "facts" once again are wrong, and the points you make are completely baseless. One might actually wonder if it is not instead *you* who are trying to justify the purchase of a particular hardware configuration...

In closing, I grow weary of doing your homework for you, Victor...you really should come to the table better prepared next time.

[side note: in looking at CPU costs, clearly the economy-of-scale factor weighs in on Q6600 prices because they are more expensive -- far more in some places -- than the latest models in the Core2 Quad line. Wanted to point that out, since I've had mine for over a year -- and been perfectly happy -- and have had no reason to go looking at CPU prices in some time]

xavier wrote:No wonder you seem so confused all the time, you can't even do basic math. I would love to hear how you get 55% from comparing a "regular core i7" to a Q9300? I can't even find a combination of numbers in the 3DMark06 results that comes out to 55%. We know you have a tendency to make things up out of whole cloth to back your arguments, but numbers don't lie...

And even assuming that your 55% figure is not a fantasy, it still begs the question: does such a number justify the additional cost? For example, a "regular core i7", which I take to mean "the 920", costs $280 at time of this posting, on Amazon, vs. a Q9300 on Amazon, which is $231.50. That comes to a 20% higher cost (280/231.50), for a 24% increase in performance (according to the 3DMark06 results in the link you provided). If by "regular" you meant "the 940", then for a 36% performance increase, you get to pay 2.46x the price (570/231); not exactly what I call a "justifiable expense".
....
[side note: in looking at CPU costs, clearly the economy-of-scale factor weighs in on Q6600 prices because they are more expensive -- far more in some places -- than the latest models in the Core2 Quad line. Wanted to point that out, since I've had mine for over a year -- and been perfectly happy -- and have had no reason to go looking at CPU prices in some time]

Wow dude, so much fervor, 25% faster, 36% faster, I eyeballed the figure but who is counting?
It is very hard to see those charts and dismiss the clear superiority of the newest top of the line Intel CPU.
The passion you are displaying defending the legacy model Q6600 CPU will make anyone thinks that the Q6600 was actually the faster solution.
God you must had paid a great deal of dough for your system.

I still say, if I had $2000 to buy a system, I will be buying the top of the line Core I7, and you will be the one buying the Q6600.

Do you think the Q6600 will make a comeback in the future?
You know you maybe be right, I read the other day that the old P55C is making a comeback in the form of the Larrabee cores, so who knows, maybe one day the Q6600 will be at the heart of Larrabee 2

VictorMoran wrote:Wow dude, so much fervor, 25% faster, 36% faster, I eyeballed the figure but who is counting?

Apparently not you -- but inflating "facts" to bolster a weak case is about par for the course with you. And not "fervor", but "accuracy", a concept that obviously missed you. Finally, I'd get your eyes checked if you're that far off...

VictorMoran wrote:The passion you are displaying defending the legacy model Q6600 CPU will make anyone thinks that the Q6600 was actually the faster solution.

Where in my previous post did I defend anything? You introduced the comparison between a "regular core i7" and the Q9300, and all of my points were made on that basis, except for the self-explanatory side comment at the end of the post.

God you must had paid a great deal of dough for your system.

It was about $2000 in 2007, would you like the specs?

I still say, if I had $2000 to buy a system, I will be buying the top of the line Core I7, and you will be the one buying the Q6600.

Then you would continue to play the fool, a role you apparently wear proudly and like a glove. More than once in this thread I have stated that the Core i7 is a better and more performant design than the Core 2 Quad. The question, the one you apparently are ignoring, is "how much better" and "how much extra are we willing to pay for that performance". I've done the analysis for you in my previous post, and the numbers don't make the case for an i7.

FWIW, your "top of the line Core i7" would leave you roughly $1000 from your original $2000:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... _-19115200

Where do you plan to cut corners? Video card? RAM? HDD space? Power supply?

Do you think the Q6600 will make a comeback in the future?

You didn't learn much from that link I gave you on the strawman, did you? Here it is again, as you seem to have lost it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

xavier wrote:Apparently not you -- but inflating "facts" to bolster a weak case is about par for the course with you. And not "fervor", but "accuracy", a concept that obviously missed you. Finally, I'd get your eyes checked if you're that far off...

Wow you are so feisty, I'd like that.
Do you think every discussion should be carried out to the death, because to tell you the truth, I think you and I are the only one left here. No one else care.
It is causal Friday and I am killing two hours before going home, but I see this is very important to you, so I stay.

I typed “$2000 Intel core I7 systems” in google and this is what I got:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=3510
And there are many better deals still.

xavier wrote:Wow, you didn't learn much from that link I gave you on the strawman, did you? Here it is again, since you seem to have lost it:

You see, I told you, now you start reusing the same material, it only means it is time to give up.
May I offer an honorable Truce?
Will it make you happy if I say the Q6600 is the better choice?

VictorMoran wrote: I typed “$2000 Intel core I7 systems” in google and this is what I got:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=3510

Here's what I see when I go to that link:

"Our Dream Core i7 system reaches around $5000"

Your $1000-$2000 Core i7 system does not include "top of the line core i7", as you stated originally. Can you actually not track what you say from one post to the next? Not only do you fail at basic logic, you fail at even the simplest Google search...you really should try reading the links you post instead of just throwing them out there. Again, you come to the table unprepared.

Now, if you would have said "hey Moohasha, here are some Core i7 systems under $2000" (although it's now down to $1500 as I understand), it would be a different story. It would also be up to him to decide whether the components in their Entry system fits his needs.

Will it make you happy if I say the Q6600 is the better choice?

I would be neither happy nor unhappy -- it is not I who am trying to make an invalid point. Once you understand what a "strawman" is you'll understand why your comments are so easy to deconstruct. And yet you keep coming back for more...