Oh, to heck with it. I'm having too much fun!
Where do I begin?
Well, you could get yourself a flame retardant umbrella, my fine friend.
Windows uses as many threads as it can, ok, but windows doesn't really require 4 threads.
Require? What does that even mean? Windows will run twice as fast with twice as many cores. Vista especially. You have a Quad-core CPU - look at the load on each core. It's half what it would be if you used a Dual-core CPU, or disabled half your cores.
I'm not saying a quad core is a waste, I use one personally, and this certainly wasn't intended as a personal attack which you seem to have taken it as.
Oh, but I am sure that it was intended now. At least I sure hope so! Otherwise this counterattack will seem unjust, and then I'll have to leave this barren interwebs-related world and retreat to the cavern side where wine and my woman await for me.
You say they have the same clocks when overclocking, but you do realize that buying a board that can overclock efficiently will bump up the price even more. This specific person is probably new to the overclocking scene, seeing as how he is hesitant to peice his computer together himself.
Are you suggesting that Quad-Core CPU's have lower clocks at stock and thus require overclocking to reach the same clock speeds as Dual-Core CPU's? That's ridiculous. You barely need an overclocking board to overclock by 10%, and even if you set it at stock, 4 cores will still beat 2 where it counts and where it does not, the cores would still be powerful enough to handle anything, for single-threaded application do not require much power.
As far as intels new i7 line (first off LOL for even bringing that up) those are intended to be used as high end cpus.
Let me guess, you saw "i7" and thought "I can't afford the newest tech." Well, guess what - the i7 920 only costs 300$, that's the same price as a good Yorkfield. The only difference is you need more expensive boards and RAM, but as I have debated with many people over this matter - it's worth it.
That's like asking why Cadillac doesn't release a car from the 1980's next to their escalades.
Well, I'm sure your knowledge of automobiles is quite intriguing in many circles, but to us low-down simple capacitator-infused hard-wire circuit fanboys, it's all a bit high-tech.
The single core comparison is, again, an ineffective one because both of us are aware that games require more than a single core CPU at this point which would be the reason for not purchasing one. Unless of course you didn't notice that, in which case I'm glad I could fill you in.
What games are those? You'll be surprised as to how many games and programs still only make use of a single core. In fact, more do than any other. And the line of games that used only 2 cores were few, back in 2005-2006. Now its either 3-4 cores or only a single core. And if you're arguing that CPU manufacturers make CPU's based solely on game performance, then why are you even against a Quad-core? That's its main use!
Oh, and thank you for filling me in. I.. don't know where I'd be without n00bs mouthing off at me. And I mean that seriously.
Oh and you not being somebodies friend will make them reconsider their purchase I'm sure.
Reconsider their purchase nothing! Why, it should have them falling down to their knees in heavy flowing tears over their cowardly and unrighteous mistake. In fact, you should be weeping right now just for.. well, being the sarcastic dipshit you are.
Have a nice day. I know I will.
