Mike Marion wrote:
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
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.
What I can't wait for is games with content worth even one core. There
seem to be fewer and fewer every year. Like movies, there are fewer
publishers taking fewer risks. Mostly what we see are clones and sequels
- mostly much worse than whatever is being copied; IOW, minus the
original's creativity. I'm starting to to think that all the mad rush to
more tech is just chrome looking for sheetmetal.
We now return to you your technical discussion...
--
Best Regards,
~DJA.
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
