- Zeph
- |
- Exalted Legendary Member
Posted by: th3m4dblimp3r
^Which is why I like where AMD is heading. The only reason you would want an 8 core processor (or even a quad core) would be for a graphics workstation. Or if you want to play Doom 3 while doing a virus scan AND scanning for spyware AND cleaning out your registry AND converting audio/video files at the same time.
And I apologize Spartan 012, I meant no disrespect.
nah, you want it as a multi/mega-tasking solution. Aside from multithreaded developement apps that I'll be using the moment they come out to make my life a helluva lot easier, I personally dont want to have to close anything to play a game. I've always wanted to encode my renders in1080p@60Hz, listen to music, burn a DVDDL, archive a hard drive to high compression, and play a game a once. No need to have 8 or more cores if they're not going to be used. 90% of everyon has no need to go past four cores for typical use or gameplay for at least three years. By then, the next OS, graphical solution, networking solutions, and actual applications will be ready to make use of multiple cores naturally.
Remember that processors are still bottlenecked by the hard drive. Multiple cores will only show benefit with better memory control and larger memory sizes. Having up to 16 instances of access to the HDD at once isn't friendly for any hard drive.