Image that you could get, today, at the same prices:
- 4 core CPU
- 6 core CPU
- 8 core CPU
- 12 core CPU
- 16 core CPU
- 24 core CPU
- 32 core CPU
- 40 core CPU
- 48 core CPU
- 64 core CPU

Obviously, to keep the prices the same, the more cores, the slower each core is (but collectively, there's more computing power in the higher # core CPUs), what would your preference be?

Ignore current technological bottlenecks, such as memory bandwidth (especially for higher core counts).

I'm gay.

If what your asking is:

3GHz 4 core CPU
2GHz 6 core CPU
1.5GHz 8 core CPU
etc..
0.1875GHz 64 core CPU

Then I will take a 3GHz 4 core CPU because too many applications out there only use 1 core anyway.

For the new Core I7's, outside of games what will use all the cores? Wee have hit a wall when it comes to making faster CPU's, so until someone finds a new method. Wee will have to make due with optimization. The problem is the software companies are slow or unwilling to use this new hardware.

Car analogies always seem to help, so.. A car with a 64 cylinder engine has a lot of power and could pull a house and a car with a 4 cylinder engine can go from 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. I like speed over power. :)

I just need 1x 13.37 ghz core for my needs k-thanks

Would depend on how much slower your "each core is slower" is, and how fast the base single core speed for the quad is.

That being said, assuming something like this, probably only 4 for a normal PC.  And still no more than 16 if I'm building a pure encode box.  Anything past that and I don't think the quality hit from too much splicing is worth the extra speed (your speed's going to be insane already).

(This post was last modified: 22/03/2010 08:52 PM by Assassinator.)

Twit | DA | G+ | Last.fm

12 core CPU & 3 GPU's linked lol with 32 GB's of ram on a EVGA P55 For the win 200 SLI 141-LF-E658-KR LGA 1156 Intel P55 ATX Intel Motherboard

OOOO o I think a spewed a little

xero1 Wrote:If what your asking is:

3GHz 4 core CPU
2GHz 6 core CPU
1.5GHz 8 core CPU
etc..
0.1875GHz 64 core CPU

Then I will take a 3GHz 4 core CPU because too many applications out there only use 1 core anyway.

If that were the case, I would take a single core.

I think he means something more like...


3GHz 4 core CPU
2.5GHz 6 core CPU
2GHz 8 core CPU
etc..
0.5GHz 64 core CPU

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Obviously, to keep the prices the same, the more cores, the slower each core is (but collectively, there's more computing power in the higher # core CPUs), what would your preference be?

(This post was last modified: 22/03/2010 08:50 PM by Assassinator.)