Not trying to decide which is better for everybody. Just interested
in the difference between multiple core CPUs and faster single core
CPUs.

Are there any mainstream applications that would benefit from one
and the other?

My wild guess. Continuous multitasking versus intermittent bursts
(if the bursts usually do not coincide). But I don't know of any
applications to example that.

Thanks.

Not trying to decide which is better for everybody. Just interested
in the difference between multiple core CPUs and faster single core
CPUs.

Are there any mainstream applications that would benefit from one
and the other?

Not trying to decide which is better for everybody. Just interested
in the difference between multiple core CPUs and faster single core
CPUs.

Are there any mainstream applications that would benefit from one
and the other?

Just interested in the difference between multiple core CPUs and
faster single core CPUs.

My understanding is that these days, it's possible to get more
computing power per watt using a multicore approach. Going to
higher and higher speeds (per core) requires the use of a smaller
and smaller feature size on the chip, and this can increase static
power losses. Lower operating voltages are required to keep from
popping through the thinner insulating layers on the chip, and
this generally means that higher currents are required, which
means that I^2*R losses go up and overall power efficiency goes
down.

Using a somewhat lower-technology silicon process with lower
losses, and replicating it several times, can yield the same
amount of computing power ...

Not trying to decide which is better for everybody. Just interested
in the difference between multiple core CPUs and faster single core
CPUs.

Are there any mainstream applications that would benefit from one
and the other?

My wild guess. Continuous multitasking versus intermittent bursts
(if the bursts usually do not coincide). But I don't know of any
applications to example that.

Thanks.

It is not a simple comparison,

many different factors to consider. But, overall, it is the total
MIPS/MFLOPS that really count.

Not trying to decide which is better for everybody. Just interested
in the difference between multiple core CPUs and faster single core
CPUs.

Are there any mainstream applications that would benefit from one
and the other?

My wild guess. Continuous multitasking versus intermittent bursts
(if the bursts usually do not coincide). But I don't know of any
applications to example that.

Thanks.

Not trying to decide which is better for everybody. Just interested
in the difference between multiple core CPUs and faster single core
CPUs.

Are there any mainstream applications that would benefit from one
and the other?

My wild guess. Continuous multitasking versus intermittent bursts
(if the bursts usually do not coincide). But I don't know of any
applications to example that.

Thanks.

Writers for various computer magazines seem to agree that what you want is

On Thu, 01 May 2008 20:05:51 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid
wrote:

Not trying to decide which is better for everybody. Just interested
in the difference between multiple core CPUs and faster single core
CPUs.

Are there any mainstream applications that would benefit from one
and the other?

My wild guess. Continuous multitasking versus intermittent bursts
(if the bursts usually do not coincide). But I don't know of any
applications to example that.

Thanks.



Dual core is just a hint of what's happening. There are already chips
with hundreds of cores.

Most people don't need huge number-crunching ability; they need
reliable, low-power computing. If current programming methods are
extended into multicore - parallelism, virtualization - we'll just
compound the mess that computing is today.

The real use for multiple cores will to be to assign one function per
core. One would be the OS kernal, and only that, and would be entirely
protected from other processes. Other cores could be assigned to be
specific device drivers, file managers, TCP/IP socket managers, things
like that. Then one core could be assigned to each application process
or thread. Only a few cores need floating-point horespower, which
might be hardware shared. Power down idle cores. Voila, no context
switching, no memory corruption, and an OS that never crashes.

Microsoft won't like it at all.

Does anyone know what the difference is between an Intel Dual-Core
and the Core 2 Duo?

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:


Does anyone know what the difference is between an Intel Dual-Core
and the Core 2 Duo?


I've read but haven't researched that the Core 2 Duo is 2-4 times
faster than an equivalent Dual-Core. They said it manages CPU usage
much better. I look forward to seeing multiple CPU core usage graphs
in Performance Monitor, if Windows XP will do that.

MS has doomed it self..

My understanding is that these days, it's possible to get more
computing power per watt using a multicore approach. Going to
higher and higher speeds (per core) requires the use of a smaller
and smaller feature size on the chip, and this can increase static
power losses. Lower operating voltages are required to keep from
popping through the thinner insulating layers on the chip, and
this generally means that higher currents are required, which
means that I^2*R losses go up and overall power efficiency goes
down.