Do you need a multi-core processor

Lenny · December 22nd, 2006, 12:30 AM

For the average home user I don't think you will have any use for the still over priced multi-core processors. Most home users are not using the full capability of the computer they have now, if it is a modern system to start with.

Quote:

In short, it's the applications that make the difference. Applications that only run in a single thread, or that can only be moderately parallelized, won't show much improvement on a multi-core system. Examples of such applications include word processing, Web browsing and reading static content (i.e., Adobe Acrobat or Word documents).

http://searchwincomputing.techtarget...47&uid=3043904

GLG · December 24th, 2006, 10:31 PM

Intel has released their Quad-cores already. AMD will have theirs out anytime now.

Look to see the dual-cores go down significantly soon as a result, even though some of the dual-core models are already well below $800 - even laptops.

Heck, I'm typing this on a dual-core laptop that was half the price of some P4-based models, (single core). Purchased in October.

That said, it's true that many applications today don't support dual-core. But that's mostly because dual-core only became a viable option at home this year. Even Windows XP, which arrived in 2001, never had native support for multi-core processors. It still doesn't.

On servers, there are many dual-core setups, and server OS's have had support for multi-processor setups for a while now. Linux; Unix; M$ Server 2003 ... all have multi-processor support.

It won't be long before software starts taking advantage of multi-core processing. There's already game titles that do, and many more to come. Some current programs will add multi-core support with their next upgrade patch (like Adobe Photoshop did.) In short, what you run RIGHT NOW may not support it, but it will very soon.

And of course, those of you who venture into Windows Vista territory will have the first home-based M$ OS that supports multi-core processing natively.

So do you "need" one? No.

But you'd be silly NOT to get one for your next upgrade. Single-core processors will be extinct before spring, IMO. You'll be one step ahead of the current software, sure, but that's the idea.

December 24th, 2006, 10:31 PM	#2 (permalink)
GLG Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 180	Intel has released their Quad-cores already. AMD will have theirs out anytime now. Look to see the dual-cores go down significantly soon as a result, even though some of the dual-core models are already well below $800 - even laptops. Heck, I'm typing this on a dual-core laptop that was half the price of some P4-based models, (single core). Purchased in October. That said, it's true that many applications today don't support dual-core. But that's mostly because dual-core only became a viable option at home this year. Even Windows XP, which arrived in 2001, never had native support for multi-core processors. It still doesn't. On servers, there are many dual-core setups, and server OS's have had support for multi-processor setups for a while now. Linux; Unix; M$ Server 2003 ... all have multi-processor support. It won't be long before software starts taking advantage of multi-core processing. There's already game titles that do, and many more to come. Some current programs will add multi-core support with their next upgrade patch (like Adobe Photoshop did.) In short, what you run RIGHT NOW may not support it, but it will very soon. And of course, those of you who venture into Windows Vista territory will have the first home-based M$ OS that supports multi-core processing natively. So do you "need" one? No. But you'd be silly NOT to get one for your next upgrade. Single-core processors will be extinct before spring, IMO. You'll be one step ahead of the current software, sure, but that's the idea. __________________ FloydianLeaf / Leaf_Fan_4_Ever 1969 - 2007 R.I.P. Michael. Shine on, you crazy diamond.