ok im little new to this, so correct me if you think im am wrong (im sure many will )
Using the dual core or quad core system is the manufactures way of saying hey we really can't increase the performance on a cpu, we are stuck. Lets put in 2 core and throw the problem over to the software end. In my mind its like using 2 engines to increase output on a car. Does it work? yes, but its pretty inefficient.
Pretty much. They hit a Gigahertz wall and improving the IPC takes time and money and can only go so far. There's three ways to increase speed, go fast (clock rate), go efficient (IPC) or go parallel (multi-core), parallel is the easiest way for the CPU manufacturers to go right now.
its more like adding 4 more cylinders to a i-4 to make a v8
by the way they are not stuck the keep reducing the size of each transisitor and increasing the number of them - that why they can pack more core's per chip
ok im little new to this, so correct me if you think im am wrong (im sure many will )
Using the dual core or quad core system is the manufactures way of saying hey we really can't increase the performance on a cpu, we are stuck. Lets put in 2 core and throw the problem over to the software end. In my mind its like using 2 engines to increase output on a car. Does it work? yes, but its pretty inefficient.
ok lets hear it!
They can increase the performance in the traditional way, look at how much better the core2 line was over the Pentium D, it's not saying we're stuck, it's saying we have a way to dramatically increase performance by adding more cores, let's do it. Would you really prefer a single-core processor knowing you could have a multi-core?
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.