Wednesday, June 8th 2005

Dual Core too slow? - Try Quad Core!

Jun 8th, 2005 17:26 Discuss (9 Comments)

At the Computex 2005 in Taiwan, the colleagues from The Inquirer have discovered, that AMD will present a quad core CPU in Q1 2006. However, this plan will be only successful, if AMD is able to handle the 65nm production process since using a 90nm process would be too large and expensive.

Add your own comment

9 Comments on Dual Core too slow? - Try Quad Core!

wazzledoozle

Am I the only one that thinks multi-core anything is getting out of hand?

Unregistered

I'm with u wazz..

I don't mind multi 'chicks' though :P

Deleted member 3

Actually multithreading is the future. Increasing performance per core is getting harder. Multithreading is a simple way to increase performance by large amount. 4 cores would suck up a lot of power though. And a lot of software isn't multithreaded, though that will hopefully change.

djbbenn

wazzledoozleAm I the only one that thinks multi-core anything is getting out of hand?

Ya I think I agree with you too. Like the dual core is great, but as soon as they get that theres quad, then there will be 8. Its to much for people to keep up with or be able to buy due to price. Except the few people that have a lot of money. :rolleyes:

-Dan

SPHERE

r u kidding the dual cores pwn and please try not to take that as a hollow noob im no noob click one of the links in my sig :) comment thinking that 2.2ghz + another core = 4.4ghz cause im not stupid and i do understand the dynamics of dual cores im getting a 4400+ btw ;)

zAAm

Why don't they just change architecture? I mean, that's why the PIII was faster than the P4. If Intel does 6 calculations per clock cycle or whatever and AMD does 9 (I believe they have pipes as well), why don't they move to like 16 or sumthin calculations per second? That way you have better performance on a single core without raising clock speed. Or is that too complex to implement? I don't have a clue how the inner electronics of a CPU works so correct me if I'm horribly stupidly wrong... ;)

SPHERE

^if intel did that they would loose their noob market cause they would have to drop their clock speeds down to somewhere around amds infact intel has already done that with the dothans and they pwn but they cant get them past 2.6 even when oced on average :( the dothan is baised on the pIII btw not the p4

Unregistered

If you are REALLY into multi-tasking, then a multi-core processor maybe the answer for you. Multi-Tasking tests have showed there is a significant increase in performance when using a dual-core processor.

If you're into games, there's really NO substatial gain in performance. A Athlon 64 4000+ (2.4Ghz) performs just as well as a Athlon 64 X2 4800+ (2.4Ghz).

I admit, dual core pwns, but this totally depend on the tasks ur running and whether they are multi-threaded which exploits dual core performance. For most users, its pretty much overkill..

gR3iF

hmpf that isnt a future for me!
i saw some nano pcs working and i can say in this case dual core is crap even quad or 8 on a chip will be crap against them!

but for atm it might be a good method to get some money from enthusiast and industry for better server and so on.....

Dual Core too slow? - Try Quad Core!

9 Comments on Dual Core too slow? - Try Quad Core!

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts