Well of course multipe cores are always better, but a OS must be capable to make full use of those cpu cores. I am not certain that the XP or Win 2003 Athlon 64 code is ready to utilize that multi core functionality....
--- Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Randall Shimizu wrote: > > >The other possible factor is that AMD does not yet > >support hyperthreading. > >(http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13344 > >)Hyperthreading is designed to treat a single cpu > as > >2. > > > > > > I think you are not understanding the concept. > Multiple cores is BETTER > than hyperthreading because no part of the cpu is > shared. This means no > extra bottlenecks. Hyperthreading is something you > do not want when you > can get multiple cores (or even just multiple > cpu's). It is unlikely > that AMD will ever support hyperthreading because > they bypassed it and > went onto the next great thing. > > > -- > [email protected] > http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list > -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
