'game over' says intel

  BIG Ben strikes 10 again! 17:17 11 Mar 2005
  Dorsai 18:21 11 Mar 2005

I suppose it is the logical next step.

For decades the push has been to make the processor run faster and do more work. As the processor gets faster bottlenecks show up, and the RAM, FSB, etc have to be re-engineered to keep up with the ever faster processors.

Now they nave realised that 'many hands make light work'. Rather make the processor do more, put more processors on to the job.

The Software will no doubt have to be specially written, to take this into account, but thats no big deal. All it means it that when a new app is written, it will be written to take into account multiprocessor PC's.

I wait to see just how fast a duel cored PC will be in comparison to a single cored one.

  Joe R 19:20 11 Mar 2005

Just thinking back to a similar situation, when a few years ago A.M.D. released a statement about the Athlon XP CPU.

Intel then , and until recently, refuted the suggestion, that a CPU running slower than their own (pentium4) chips could outpace it in any way.

I think AMD's success with the 64bit chip, has got Intels hackles up a bit, and this may be a way of trying to claw back some of the desktop market, they have lost.

  josie mayhem 23:05 11 Mar 2005

Too many cheifs and not enough indians!

Too many cooks spoil the broth!

The left hand doesn't know what the right hands doing!

Already in my opinion, there is very few programes where we wold detect with the human eye, how much faster our computers are computing!

There is very few places where this would be an advandage. One area would be video, gaming to a certain extent. But there again, there is a limit to human reaction, and what the human eye will detect.

And we need to wait to see what Longhorn throws up....

  powerless 14:10 12 Mar 2005

So Windows would recognise two processors [Not the same as HT?] and as only XP Pro supports two of more processors, if yer on Home you outta luck.

  Starfox 18:28 12 Mar 2005

Inevitable I suppose but it's a few years away yet and games are still way behind the latest processor speeds.

Hope the dog don't eat your homework again this weekaend. :0)

  Dan the Confused 20:12 12 Mar 2005

That's an interesting point. It always used to be that software dictated hardware but now the tide seems to have turned.

Also, why are there 'home' and 'pro' versions of XP? It makes more sense to me just to have one version, and can only assume it's for marketing purposes.

  TomJerry 21:45 12 Mar 2005

Multi-core can only speed things up if the task can be carried out parallelly

There are a lot of tasks which have to do in sequence. For those tasks, multi-core or multi CPUs are useless.

To use cheap PC to replace expenive workstation in our complicated engineering computation and simulation, we have tried the PC with 4 Intel CPUs and currently we are trying a cluster of 30 PCs in so-called grid computing.

The conclusion is that there are more than 50% of our computing tasks can only be carried by a fast single core and single CPU computer.

So, do not expect too much with multi-core.

Basically, CPU makers run out of ideas.

  Charence 00:14 14 Mar 2005

they're going to start giving these things silly, long names! Pentium D and a Pentium Extreme Edition, I'd prefer more logical naming, such as 1,2,3.

  Buchan 35 22:35 14 Mar 2005

What about X-(

  Buchan 35 22:37 14 Mar 2005

or even X-)

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Dell XPS 13 9370 (2018) review

No need to scan sketches into your computer with Moleskine's new smart pen

WWDC history: Apple's product launches since 2005

Comment importer des contacts d’un iPhone à un autre iPhone ?