Assassinator Wrote:Would depend on how much slower your "each core is slower" is, and how fast the base single core speed for the quad is.
Assume a small difference - as this is mainly seeing how many cores you'd be willing to get.
Something like:
4x3GHz
6x2.9GHz
8x2.8GHz
12x2.6GHz
16x2.4GHz
...etc.
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Assassinator Wrote:Would depend on how much slower your "each core is slower" is, and how fast the base single core speed for the quad is.
Assume a small difference - as this is mainly seeing how many cores you'd be willing to get.
Something like:
4x3GHz
6x2.9GHz
8x2.8GHz
12x2.6GHz
16x2.4GHz
...etc.
Lol?
That scales way too good (4 times as many cores, only 20% loss in clock speed...). If if were like that, I'll get all the way to 64. At least 32 in any case.
But realistically, at the same pricing, it'll be more like the numbers I gave previously.
64 cores with HT Technology >:3
i had like some "bomb core's" !!
or maybe 100 platinum ignots!!
anyway,. i am happy with 8 core's cpu! :)
As Assassinator said, if the core speed is reduced by like not even 5% each time you double the cores, then why not go to the extreme, like a 64-core processor? Still... between hardware-related bottlenecks, as well as most software's ability to utilize more than 2 cores well, it is hard to really give an enlightening answer.
plus coding for 64 or 128 threads would be insane
ProperBritish Wrote:Vegetano1 Wrote:i had like some "bomb core's" !! or maybe 100 platinum ignots!!
anyway,. i am happy with 8 core's cpu! :)
i7 is 4 core with HT ;D
i am answering to the thread,. ;D
got 4 but would like 8,..