i'll tell you what i don't get, is the people that buy dual dual core computers, if they haven't even optimized dual core software yet, why the hell do you need two dual cores, or in this case 4 cores, like what are you going to do, play fear, bf2, and encode a dvd, listen to music, virus scan, defrag, and whatever else you might want to do
also, i don't think single core should die, because they can fit more transistors in a single core, and therefore make it fatser than a dual core, so if you don't plan on multitasking, shouldn't you have the option to get an ultra fast single core like the fx-57 or in the future, some other uber cpu?
i just had a thought while sitting on the can after writing my last post, if they assigned the 2 cores to different processes in the program or game i guess it would be faster, there goes my last point lol
I have been using dual processor workstations for years.
Many programs have been optimized for it for many years before I started using it.
And it makes the whole system perk up performance wise.
In the normal user desktop environment, Quad-Core CPU's are totally worthless, and in my opinion, will always be. Unless you need to use Internet Explorer, Listen to music, play 7 games, convert 3 movies, hack into the white house, and jack off to porn at once, you don't need Quad-Core in desktop environment.
that makes sense, cause you don't want distorted porn, so go high end, and you also want to watch it in its full glory so you NEED the 30in lcd, and for high res on that thing you sure do need quad sli 7900,s, nothing else will do!
That's because Clovertown will resurrect problems like cache snooping over the front side bus, contention for FSB access and an overworked memory controller.
However, AMD got the approach to multicore processors right from the start, he said. Both cores can share the onboard memory controller and HT links - so avoiding the "gymnastics" of Intel's approach.
Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more man. I mentioned something about this in another thread. Computers today are really more than what we really need. I mean think about it, how much more speed do we really need in our homes?
Exactly Lumi, I mean, you can't have any faster than Instantaneous and we're pretty much there already. If I had a processor w/ 100 Cores, I don't know what I would do with it...I sure as hell wouldn't use the damn thing. I was just thinking of something too, having 100 cores may be great, but this brings up a HUGE problem: CPU Sockets and Motherboards. Is Intel planning on having 100 CPU cores go to 1 memory bank? That's funny, and if they plan to add in Quad Channel memory, and add in multiple banks per CPU, you're talking THOUSANDS of CPU Pins required, imagine it, Socket 10,000, LOL! That's what they're going to need if they keep the same CPU design they have now.
atleast its not 4 P4's on a single die unless there goal is an all purpose barbique, yonah and onward communicate through L1 and L2, but you never know what Intel might do with conroe and onward cause its a whole new cpu just about, but i doubt they fixed the issue due to the fact its using the same board and chipset (they make a god dam new one every month, why not make a god dam new fsb at the same time god dammit).
Perhaps intels excuse for a cpu is four slow cores = one fast core (multithreaded only) LOL
They can get a man on the mood but they cant give a processor a new fsb!
What are they trying to do, cherish there glorious FSB memories?
On the other hand intels always had a craptacular FSB design - P3's SDR bus was taking on AMD with DDR fsb, P4 for a while was slightly better and once again AMD has a better FSB, if history repeats it will be years before intel uses a better FSB.
From the link I posted b4, I think they are going 2 run out of mhz for cores. So the only thing they can do it make dual/quad and higher cores on smaller dies. When programers add that into there code it should make for some very fast processing power.
