Quoting Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
16 cores! I wonder which will be the better way to more computing power: Fewer higher speed cores or more lower speed cores. Given how
Only thing that's sucked with multi-cores so far at work is how slow the ISVs are at writing their software to do work in parallel ways. They're finally getting there, and we're seeing huge increases in some tools running speed (like jobs that could take 24 hours taking 3.something..
What I can't wait to see on the home front are games that take advantage of multi cores. I'm thinking 4 cores might be the sweet spot. Just think of a game like a FPS that uses 1 core for the engine/physics (and much of the physics will be off-loadable to new graphics cards with physics chipsets).. 1 core for the AI, 1 core for the network/client-server layer and then maybe another core for something like VOIP chatting or something.
-- Mike Marion-Unix/Linux-http://www.qualcomm.com Peggy: "You were jealous!" Hank: "No I wasn't. I was mad at you for spending time with that guy. I want you to spend time with me. Jealousy had nothing to do with it!" ==> King of the Hill -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
