[S-99]

Nope turns out that my processor is 4 cores, but in a native dual core design. The native dual core slight redesign means i'll never be able to activate the other two cores. Advanced clock calibration enablement has done nothing for me.

[Nemesis6]

E6600. God, that processor was so awesome at the time - Great performance. Gonna move to an I7-based system now, probably with an I7 930 processor.

[S-99]

You have fun with yet another intel core 2 duo/quad/or more re-release. It's the one reason why i just stuck with my intel core 2 duo laptop when i had one, and was very unexcited about the release of the core i7 and so on.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

If the i7 was octo-core, I would be excited, but as it turns out, it's going to be quad-core with HT, so yeah.

[S-99]

Everyone keeps stacking on more and more cores. It gets old after a while.

[Bobboau]

I just realized, in 20 years we are going to have hundred(s) core processors.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

How small will they be by then?

[S-99]

Processor die sizes keep shrinking down at very rapid rate. This is great for less electricity consumption and heat output as well as being able to shove more processors onto a chip.

Manufacturers have currently gotten stuff down to 35nanometers. At the end of the next 5 years or a little bit sooner we ought to get down to 1nanometer sizes.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

I don't think my excuse for a brain can comprehend how small a nanometer is...

[Liberator]

Intel Core 2 Duo 4300 running at the stock 1.8ghz and under load at 54 degrees.

[nvsblmnc]

Core 2 Quad Q9650 (3GHz)

[Mongoose]

Here's a question for the more technically-minded out there: at what point does the addition of more cores become pretty much superfluous for anything but extremely high-end rendering/graphics work and the like?  When I was helping my family buy a new Dell a year or so ago, I had the option of getting a Core 2 Quad, but I decided to save the $100 or so and go with a Core 2 Duo because I figured that anything more would pretty much be a waste...and indeed, the system runs so fast while performing daily tasks that I feel like I made the right decision.  Are there really all that many applications out there that can fully take advantage of four or more cores, and would they garner that much of a speed boost for more mundane activities?

[CP5670]

Two cores is good enough for most purposes. There are a handful of games out there that benefit from more (FSX, SupCom, WoW, GTA4 are a few I can think of), but the vast majority don't, especially FPSs. A single core is enough for basic office/internet programs, but anything sold today has at least two cores so that is realistically the minimum.

Even many computation programs that are ideally suited for multiple cores have a hard time using more than two. I have almost never seen Mathematica or Matlab use more than two cores with the built-in functions, and usually it's only one core.

[jr2]

I always like two cores or at least HT cause then runaway processes can't freeze your whole system by going 100%.  They just sit at 50 until I kill them.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

jr2 made a very valid point. There was this one time when my school computers were infected with the username virus. However, because the older computers had dual cores on HT, and the newer ones had quad cores on HT, the virus only succeeded in holding up half of one of the CPUs. In other words, it had almost no effect on system performance whatsoever.

[Mongoose]

Hmm, that is a good point.  I guess I've noticed the same thing on my machine, since I'm running a P4 3.0 GHz with HT.  My system comes to what's essentially a complete stop when something goes haywire, but I'm just about always able to recover.  Two cores would definitely be even better in that regard.

[Ghostavo]

jr2 made a very valid point. There was this one time when my school computers were infected with the username virus. However, because the older computers had dual cores on HT, and the newer ones had quad cores on HT, the virus only succeeded in holding up half of one of the CPUs. In other words, it had almost no effect on system performance whatsoever.

Wait, what?

Older computers with dual cores and HT? What processor?


And the new ones are Core i7? What kind of school do you go to?

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The older computers had Intel Core Duos, if I remember correctly. The newer ones have quad-core Intel Xeons.

[Ghostavo]

Core Duos don't have HT.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Like I said, my memory has its failings. I know they had HT enabled, and I know I saw the word "Core" on the top of the case, so if Core Duos don't have HT, it should then be Core 2 Duos.