The difference in encode times between 4 cores 2.4GHz and 4 cores at 3.2GHz is dramatic--overclocking is still very much alive and very much worthwhile.
For you, maybe, not for me. I can spend hours editing, and encoding video... I might not even see an annoying anomaly in the first viewing....it might be the second or third viewing, months or years apart. If I over clock I have to wonder.. was this caused by a blip in the hardware.
I have a .38 special. Almost every expert, and authority will claim that I can shoot the occasional +P round in it and it would be fine.....but then you got to wonder... is this the day the barrel is going to blow off in my hand. I don't like the feeling that maybe this time things won't come out right, when I am spending a lot of time on my work.
> One thing that really isn't considered is the growth of quad core > supported apps. My guess is that next year lots of new apps are going > to support Quad core and the years after that even more. That means > your Quad core processor is actually going to get faster over time, > which will not be the case for dual core. Sure it will.
yeah, but the Quad core is going to start out already even, or faster then the dual core, but mostly unsupported. The Quad core performance curve, over time is going to be a lot steeper then the dual core.
Keep in mind that most applications have a -single- worker thread, meaning that pervasive multithreading will benefit dual, tri, and quad-cores. Luckily, my quad-core killer app (x264) scales very well with processor cores already. Greg
