thats not the point lol.... the point is saying I GOT DODECA CORE LULZ !!!111One!!!1']['error wrote:
And how many programs use all the cores of a quadcore? Right, so how many exacly are going to benefit the dodeca-core?
If that was the attitude towards stuff like this, we would still be fucking about with the same gear we had twenty years ago.']['error wrote:
And how many programs use all the cores of a quadcore? Right, so how many exacly are going to benefit the dodeca-core?
Umm, we'd be using 1024-core pentium 1's if it went like this if you get what I meanBell wrote:
If that was the attitude towards stuff like this, we would still be fucking about with the same gear we had twenty years ago.']['error wrote:
And how many programs use all the cores of a quadcore? Right, so how many exacly are going to benefit the dodeca-core?
Martyn
Loads actually. Just not gaming related. This is a server CPU. Normal servers (4P) nowadays can have 16+cores and the software they run utilize them nicely. PCs can do more than struggle on crysis']['error wrote:
And how many programs use all the cores of a quadcore? Right, so how many exacly are going to benefit the dodeca-core?
ok <3max wrote:
Loads actually. Just not gaming related. This is a server CPU. Normal servers (4P) nowadays can have 16+cores and the software they run utilize them nicely. PCs can do more than struggle on crysis']['error wrote:
And how many programs use all the cores of a quadcore? Right, so how many exacly are going to benefit the dodeca-core?
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-18 11:56:45)
Happens already...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
I guarentee that in 1-2years time everyone (gamers included) will be wondering just how exactly we managed with single core processors
super computers?']['error wrote:
And how many programs use all the cores of a quadcore? Right, so how many exacly are going to benefit the dodeca-core?
Guess who's back, back, back, back again-gain-gain...ebug9 wrote:
omg its Freezer
The process would be too big to fit onto a single CPU.DeathUnlimited wrote:
Umm, we'd be using 1024-core pentium 1's if it went like this if you get what I mean
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-04-18 14:50:48)
go away please.Freezer7Pro wrote:
Guess who's back, back, back, back again-gain-gain...ebug9 wrote:
omg its Freezer
You can't really make sweeping changes to the architecture at will. You need a long roadmap of products using the same core architecture to make a business case for the R&D that goes into creating a new platform, and that's always going to be the case. Doing it with cores rather than clock speed, however, is a much bigger benefit to the consumer.Freezer7Pro wrote:
I don't like where this is going... They're just gonna start adding more cores without doing signifigant architectural changes, like the one from Cedar Mill/Prescott to Conroe...
Could do, but I can't see things going that way - GPU's are specifically built for processing graphics, whereas CPU's are specifically built to be general purpose - a GPU will always outperform a CPU.GR34 wrote:
That will be sweet. Maybr say bi bi to GPU and just have 3 cores doing that and another 4 processing normally and 5 just sitting there
me too! a May build with a quad core.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think I can safely wait until then with a smug quad-core CPU in my May build.
Hah me too. Thanks to my Birthday that is one day before yours haffeyhaffeysucks wrote:
me too! a May build with a quad core.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think I can safely wait until then with a smug quad-core CPU in my May build.
Q9300 hereGooners wrote:
Hah me too. Thanks to my Birthday that is one day before yours haffeyhaffeysucks wrote:
me too! a May build with a quad core.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I think I can safely wait until then with a smug quad-core CPU in my May build.
Q9450
Last edited by Gooners (2008-04-18 18:48:20)