dragonsprayer :
i still do not get it - what does it matter if its k8 or k9 its still a bow wow - lol! little jke here!
tdp? is it a lap top chip? who cares intel has 3ghz lap top chipse and new ones coming?
That 3 GHz laptop chip has a 44-watt TDP if I remember correctly. Sure, it might be fast, but it's only really a viable option for people who want to relive the glory days of 2" thick, 10-pound notebooks with 90-minute battery lives in the era of P4 notebooks back in 2001-2003.
what are k10 features? over heating bad bios? its a cpu all that matters is data in data out.
That kind of thinking led Intel to make the P4. Cost and thermal dissipation are big issues as well, especially thermal dissipation as notebooks outsell desktops.
i do not get why any one would even use a dual core - first off
THE BIGGEST MISCONCEPTION TODAY IS DUAL CORE IS ALL YOU NEED, quad core running single thread apps still benfits from 4 cores with 10-20 background process going on in any computer any!
It all depends on how much CPU time those processes use. If you have 10-20 background processes each using 1% of a single CPU core's time (which is a lot as most are sleeping and use no CPU time at any given moment), then a dual-core CPU will still have 80-90% of its clock cycles unused on the second core, assuming the single-threaded app uses all 100% of the cycles on the first core.
anything less then a quad is no news!
Not true. Probably the most talked-about CPUs lately are single-core units- the Intel Atom, AMD Athlon 64 2000+/Sempron U200 and U210, and the Via Nano.
how fast is crysis? that matters!
how fast can you render 3-d?
Those are things only a handful of people use their computer to do. Most people ask "how much does it cost?," "how fast can it open Firefox or my Word document?" and don't want to have an obscenely hot or noisy laptop with a poor battery life.
Booting is a task that's very much HDD I/O-limited. A 1.5 GHz CPU with an SSD that can pump out 300 MB/sec r/w speeds will beat a 4.0 GHz CPU hooked to an average ~80 MB/sec r/w 7200 rpm HDD in boot speed.
Most people only run one "heavy" application at a time (if they run any that really stress the system) and most of those are single-threaded, so a dual will have idle cores just the same as a quad to put another single-threaded app on. General responsiveness is much more of a function of hard drive performance and OS design than number of cores in those relatively lightly-loaded scenarios. The heavy programs most people run generally are ones run by themselves. You can't do much else with a computer when you're playing a full-screen game. You can't do a ton with a typical desktop computer when you're working with video as your HDD is being slammed for I/O.
If you are doing a bunch of heavy multithreaded tasks like compiling or video rendering, of course you want more cores. But you most likely want a LOT more cores than four in that case as those tasks scale well to a lot of cores. So why not get a machine that's specifically designed for those tasks like a dual-socket workstation? A dual-quad-core system will wipe a single quad-core desktop running several apps that are multithreaded. Single-processor quads really are only useful when using a few select programs that have 3 or 4 threads or by using it as a cheap workstation for running several long-running, non-I/O-intensive programs at once when you don't want to or can't pony up for a much faster multi-socket system.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram